my statement? I was quoting others... that is why I provide links. I found the statement interesting and served my purposes. If you read the quotes I provided.. the statements were backed up to some degree. Again there are exceptions but those are big picture understandings. it would be your job to prove it to be incorrect... I have no desire to prove it wrong. but I realize that is harder for you to do than snark and troll and douche... which along with cut and paste is 99% of what you provide.
What a joke. Christians struggling and fighting with each other to try and drag themselves into the 16th century Enlightenment, as they have in just about every century since.
Yes, you've lied for years just like that...constants which are fine tuned. Nothing in science says constants are fine tuned. But you're a fundamentally dishonest person so you would say that. I'd rather be arguing 1950's science which understands Einstein, than the superstitious non scientific Stone Age bullshit that knows only the deceit and dishonesty you feel so at home with. More incoherent bullshit. The cosmological constant is currently expected to be zero to within 1 part in 10 120, and the reason why it would have such value is not yet known. That's the tiny gap you're trying to pathetically squeeze god into. You making a fool of yourself again, is not me ranting. Scientific American have also used the words...science can explain the universe without the need for a creator. You going to take those words literally as you want with the word unnatural ? You idiot. You're just angry and upset as always that there can't by definition be anything unnatural in science, whether its used in Scientific American or not. Talking to yourself won't help you.
stu you are an incredible liar and completely ignorant of the science. the constants of our standard model are very finely tuned to over 20 decimal places. that you are denying it shows you to be a massive troll liar. the video below, also shows how finely tuned we are... even more so than the standard model shows. this science has nothing to do with religion... you just too much of a 1950s thinking troll to understand it. as far as the comological constant being zero.. you were dead ass 1950s wrong. your fudge now is entertaining in that you pretty much stole the wording from from weinberg. and note in no way am I trying to put God in that Gap. its the tuning that is amazing. http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/cosmo-constant.php But this means that physicists are left to explain the startling fact that the positive and negative contributions to the cosmological constant cancel to 120-digit accuracy, yet fail to cancel beginning at the 121-st digit. This is an even stranger paradox! Curiously, this observation is in accord with a prediction made by physicist Steven Weinberg in 1987, who argued from basic principles that the cosmological constant must be zero to within one part in roughly 10120, or else the universe either would have dispersed too fast for stars and galaxies to have formed, or else would have recollapsed upon itself long ago [Susskind2005, pg. 80-82].
ironically... stu once again shows his ignorance of the science he states... "Yes, you've lied for years just like that...constants which are fine tuned. Nothing in science says constants are fine tuned." I realize Stu is so under educated in this area... he does not appreciate the fact that science refers to this as fine tuning without necessarily concluding a Tuner. However, he is a total dick for being ignorant of the science and calling me a liar... https://godandsoul.wordpress.com/tag/leonard-mlodinow/ Barrow and Tipler aren’t using “fine-tuning” to promote theism. They are simply describing some of the fine-tuned conditions in the cosmos that make life possible. Similarly, cosmologist Martin Rees, Britain’s Astronomer Royal (and definitely not a theist), also uses “fine-tuning” in a purely objective, scientific fashion: These six numbers constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be “untuned,” there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator? I take the view that it is neither. An infinity of other universes may well exist where the numbers are different. Most would be stillborn or sterile. We could only have emerged (and therefore we naturally now find ourselves) in a universe with the “right” combination. This realization offers a radically new perspective on our universe, on our place in it, and on the nature of physical laws. . . . If you imagine setting up a universe by adjusting six dials, then the tuning must be precise in order to yield a universe that could harbour life. —Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 4 and 22. and.... In The Grand Design, physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow also write about the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant in Einstein’s general relativity equations, calling it “the most impressive fine-tuning coincidence” in cosmology. They go on to describe other fine-tuning problems in cosmology: Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. . . . The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being. —Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York: Bantam, 2012), 160-161.
"the constants of our standard model are very finely tuned to over 20 decimal places" Yes, you've lied for years just like that...constants which are fine tuned. Nowhere in your brainless posts has any reputable scientist from Penrose to Hawking to Susskind ever said constants are fine tuned or the universe is fine tuned. The so called fine tuned values have generally been accounted for by Weinberg; the cosmological constant the exception. As long as that remains unanswered, it's the place your imaginary god Tuner looks for room to squat. Yes you are a liar, a deluded one and dishonest to the core. Religion does that to people like you. "he does not appreciate the fact that science refers to this as fine tuning without necessarily concluding a Tuner. " Science refers to this as an appearance of fine tuning without requiring any need for a so called Tuner. What Tuner if not god? That's a deceit you own which will always make you a liar.
Wrong, science has not answered the question as how the universe (one having a so finely tuned appearance) can exist without a Creator .... oh, they are trying granted, but Creationism is the only viable answer atm, but I digress........ that's not science in your view.
A Creator is only a supernatural concept. It's not a scientific question. Science is not about how a garden cannot exist without some supernatural faeries at the bottom of it. That's creationism; how to not know, not understand. Unavoidable and inevitable stand for the natural mother and father of fine tuning.