at some point you have to dig into the science and see why all these famous scientists are saying our universe appears finely tuned? Have you tried to understand what penrose is saying? what weinberg says about the appearance of the tuning of the comological constant or dark energy? Yes it could change, science could find a theory of everything which explains why the constants had to be tuned this way... but given where our science is... is hawking wrong? when he says in the bottom up (traditional) approach to science you either postulate the fine tunings are caused by a third part or you speculate eternal inflation which means you can't make any predictions. or Carr? when he says tunings ( which suggets Tuner) or mulitiverse Martin rees - whose books advance the argument about the tunings of 7 constants. Susskind - when he says our unverse appears incredibly fine tuned but suggested that there could be a multiverse these guys? So I am not saying this means there is a tuner... I am saying the top guys in the field state the universe appears designed.
Lol Congratulations. Neither of those definitions apply. Science isn't about stating anything is unknowable. Quite the opposite. So that one's a non starter. Neither is there anything rational that commits science to be willing or unwilling to consider the supernatural. The mythical isn't even in the realm of science. Any different and simply it is not science. To be agnostic about God or gods or creators is to commit to the confines of religious argument. Not science and not scientific. The absence of scientific proof does not mean any and all non-scientific non-explanations for silly tuner creators will work instead. duh!
Yet possibly the most famous of all says even if you want to describe the universe as fine tuned or designed, then it is done so by gravity. No god or other forms of tuner required. Another very famous one says there doesn't seem to be any and even if there did it could be explained by other means. Your flimsy arguments rely only on an appearance of something that has no information to support it. The creationists' equivalent to the appearance of fine tuning is the levelists' appearance of a flat Earth.
You mean just let there be a complete failure of human reasoning. Proof and belief are two different things. I don't think the former should be sacrificed to the latter.
Why lie about science Stu? Why turn conditional statements into absolute statements and mis represent Hawking? What is the purpose? . Hawking says you may explain the fine tunings by coupling the speculation of a multiverse with his speculation of top down cosmology... within that speculation you could say Gravity selected your line of universes.
Lol you were the troll who misrepresented the definition of agnostic. I was the one who basically stated what you are now writing... Why the fuck did you argue with that and bullshit about the definition of agnostic?
Have you dug? no you have not, let's look at what weinberg says in its entirety http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/wein-frame.html I can't believe you would want to discuss Hawking, probably the most hard copre atheist out there you mean the atheist Hawking that is misrepresented by theists? http://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/...of-hawking-on-expansion-rate-of-the-universe/ More name dropping without understanding.... and again you misrepresent the fine tuning argument of Susskind which has nothing to do with theism, although at least you admit he is multiverse sort of guy http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/leonard-susskind So yes I have dug, should I ignore that most all these people you quote don't support the theist viewpoint of a creator designing the universe? Why do you ignore the important recent work of Stenger and Barnes? Are you not being honest and digging enough? http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Fallacy/Misrep.pdf http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Fallacy/DefendFallacy.pdf
Where did I say these guys were arguing for theism. I stated they have stated the universe appears finely tuned. This is the argument for Carr. But... it is offensive that you think I do not know what these guy are saying. You are the one who is ignorant of the discussion. here is Bernard Carr laying it out for you. "Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire? Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why." http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind The Cosmic Landscape Main article: The Cosmic Landscape The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design is Susskind's first popular science book, published by Little, Brown and Company on December 12, 2005.[25] It is Susskind's attempt to bring his idea of the anthropic landscape of string theory to the general public. In the book, Susskind describes how the string theory landscape was an almost inevitable consequence of several factors, one of which was Steven Weinberg's prediction of the cosmological constant in 1987. The question addressed here is why our universe is fine-tuned for our existence. Susskind explains that Weinberg calculated that if the cosmological constant was just a little different, our universe would cease to exist. ---- How do you respond to critics who see the anthropic approach as quasi-religious or unscientific? I cannot put it better than Steven Weinberg did in a recent paper: 1. Susskind from your cite... How do you respond to critics who see the anthropic approach as quasi-religious or unscientific? 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.