which 'god' concept? Einstein did not believe in the god of abraham. Atheist science like quantum electrodynamics (Feynman), communications theory (Shannon), quantum mechanics (bohr), Atomistic Theory (Democritus), and the majority of science brought to us by Nobel Prize winners like Weinberg? or maybe you mean other atheists like Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Warren Buffet, Pauling, Crick, Pavlov? dude, you really make yourself ignorant with statements like that
I'll admit to grossly distorting things by means of a typo... "Atheist scientists generally deliver evil ..." Please replace "scientists" with science. A science that exists to refute the existence of God.
people should be provided the opportunity to define god for themselves... "Pavlov" ... never heard that one before and, don't talk to me about ignorance, ...
Stu - you have now come much closer to understanding what I have been saying all along. In the past you denied that Susskind even said the universe appears designed. If you do a little more reading you will see the entire point of Susskind book was to show that string theory allows almost infinite solutions to the question of why our universe looks so fine tuned. He combined his work with the Cosmological Constant work of Steven Weinberg and takes the position that solving equations expecting fine tuning is not anti - science because of the almost infinite solutions String theory offers. His book and these speeches are very much about explaining why fine tunings can be present and not due to a Creator. He then states very clearly as I have quoted to you dozens of times. If science shows that there are not almost infinite universes then physicists will be hard pressed to answer the IDers.
like Charles Manson and Adolph Hitler? I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2 Science has delivered all of our material well being, religion has delivered nothing, to hear someone say science delivers evil is downright offensive to anyone who appreciates not living as god worshipping cave dwellers. it is ignorant.
God doesn't hate tyrants? Was that your feeble attempt to be rational? Apparently you think greatest science comes from the intention of reading God's mind. So why wouldn't God's mind be atheist? Surely God's mind would not have reason to think there could be a more supreme creator? That means God's atheist. So what was it you have against "atheist science" when God would be doing it anyway.
jem, I have understood well what you have been saying all along. It's really not that difficult. Perhaps you're starting to feel a little better now apparently able to understand a little of what Susskind is actually saying, as all the usual aggression and swearing and cursing in your post has subsided. But you still seem to be using the word design as if it can be used to mean intelligent design. Design does not mean intelligent design. Susskind does not support any idea of intelligent design. It should be obvious to anyone who is quoting Susskind or reading or listening to what he says, that if he is wrong, then why should that leave only one other option open to everyone else? It's obviously also clear if you took the trouble to look, many other physicists and those who actually have won Noble Prizes which you wrongly attributed to Susskind, do not share his views on infinite universes. They also do not agree with his comment that suggests if he is wrong then others will be any the more hard pressed. All physicists are "hard pressed" to gain knowledge, despite all the nonsensical misquoting , distortion of meaning, lack of explanation and downright dishonesty of ID'ers. But really that is not the what your spurious argument is all about. You have always put forward the intention to suggest what you called " best scientific minds" while constantly quoting one person whom you said was a Nobel winner but actually wasn't, is saying something that he isn't , and therefore if this "top minds in science" as you described Susskind is wrong and there are no infinite universes, then he is saying there could be 'design' , because he says others will be hard pressed to answer ID , even though Susskind flatly says no to 'design'. Yes your argument is as ridiculous as it sounds. If you ever were one and if you weren't told to, just going by the things you type, you definitely made the right decision giving up being an attorney dude.
what a bunch of bullshit. you distort my arguments and make shit up. First of all Richard Dawkins admits the Universe appears designed. (I am sure you know he he is) I have provided you quotes from a handful of others --- And here - is the quote of a nobel prize winner I have produced for you before... steven weinberg ... he explains the Cardinal understands the issue better than most physicists who who still hoping to find a solution to the fine tuning question without resorting to multiple universe theories. And Stu besides this quote I have provided you with many others from other top scientists. But this is from a nobel prize winner " Finally, I have heard the objection that, in trying to explain why the laws of nature are so well suited for the appearance and evolution of life, anthropic arguments take on some of the flavor of religion. I think that just the opposite is the case. Just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the wonderful adaptations of living forms could arise without supernatural intervention, so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator. I found this parallel well understood in a surprising place, a New York Times op-ed article by Christoph Schönborn, Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna. His article concludes as follows: Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human nature by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence. " see that quote stu -- from a nobel prize winner -- I will place it below so you can read it again. so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator. I will make it simple for you for the tenth time. So the theory which speculates that there are almost infinite other universes may explain why these fine tunings may be present in the one universe we know but not be the result of a benevolent creator.