The difference is between what you said and what you thought you said. Funny thing about online posting. You can't go back and change stuff (unless you manage to do so before somebody quotes it or your time's up).
You are wasting your time trying to claim whether science is discussing the supernatural - period. It isn't. Science does not consider the supernatural because the supernatural isn't science or in any way scientific. You also have already wasted your time and managed to show how much of a fundamentally dishonest person you must be in trying to claim science is discussing the supernatural. A Creator that is supernatural is nothing to do with science and so it is de facto ruled out. Just like a Creator Odin, or a Creator Thor, or a Creator Zeus, or a Creator God, before or after big bang, are ruled out. How many times? Go away and learn how to think. No there is not. There is an appearance of fine tuning. Nothing else. There is no evidence of the universe actually being fine tuned. A particular number in this case is not evidence of anything but a particular number. The reason why the particular number is what it appears to be, is what may be explained in science, by science, scientifically. Not by the supernatural. The supernatural is no explanation at all. Only by intellectually bankrupt people like yourself who favor settling for ignorance and dishonesty over knowledge.
I thought I read a few moons ago that Stephen Hawking said there is a 99.98% chance there is no God. So he left the door open. Maybe this has already been mentioned in this thread?
I think that was Richard Dawkins wasn't it? Anyway, it's the same thing as saying there's a 99.98% chance of no Leprechauns. So it leaves the door open for Leprechauns. It's the same door you leave open for your brain to fall out of.
yea, right... good come back troll. arguing a creation could have a creator is not the same as arguing for leprechauns....
1. in short after all you bullshit... the summary is. you believe science will someday explain why our standard model of physics appears so finely tuned. so you have belief. and note... a creator is not de facto ruled out by scientific exploration... its ruled out de jure. so once again you get your science, troll ass backwards. you know is not de facto... because there is no proof saying there is no creator. science tries to find the cause... it prefers to not say... it just happens. which is why the guess of almost infinite other unseen universes is so amusing. it is the same as saying Creator. 2. as far as your logic... yours is far off the mark. according to today's top scientists the fine tunings can be explained... by god or an almost infinite multiverse or maybe by some future discovery... (but that discovery might raise the question why is it that way) now... if you deny the above... go see the Susskind tape a few pages back or any of the hundreds of quotes I have presented here in the past. 3. so now that you were shown to be ignorant on you de facto claim, expect a flurry of bullshit... but zero science.