despite what you've been told, you're not at all bright ( i can match insults with the best of them... and you my friend, aren't near the best of them)
Like I said nitro, and you are confirming here, that you're projecting programming onto something that does not need nor show any programming. Perhaps your physics and mathematical friends can explain to me what they understand you mean . Because you are not substantiating anything you are saying . The inevitability of a Proton happens because of the three fundamental particles in its composition. There are no signs of programming or need for any in that composition I don't think anyone in physics as far as I am aware is suggesting any of that. Certainly not in the excellent video which loik linked. Krauss tackled head on and explained himself about the ordinary understanding of "nothing" and what it now is meaning to physics. It seems to me you are saying ( paraphrasing) "well that guy is completely mad, so let's not try to even understand what science is saying" Ok I thought about it. Which are you going to do, the philosophical or the science.? Mixing them can only serve to confuse. So are you happy to conclude that physics won't explain any of this because you cannot reconcile the philosophical meaning of a word? It's nothing like that. Isnât it the case that you cannot get your head around a philosophical argument so you're suggesting another philosophical argument (God) is an answer. If your argument is the Universe needs programming even though there is no need, then so does your God need programming. It would need more complicated programming. The God that prgrammed your God would require even more complex programming than that. Infinite regress. A very inelegant resolution. And all the time physics is finding out more and more about what that "nothing" really is, while you merely consider it "mad". Anyway, thanks for elucidating your position. I trust I understand what you mean.
what the hell does that mean? OK, ILL BOIL IT DOWN TO THIS: DO DAWKINS STATEMENTS MAKE ANY SENSE? ANSWER THE GOD DAMN QUESTION... THATS ALL I ASK
Why are you so angry about this? There's no need to shout. Even if those are Dawkins statements and even if they were made in that order (which I very much doubt), they would make sense and I have provided argument as to why they do. You on the other hand are just jumping up and down, going round in circles with no rebuttals other than ignoring my answer, then repeating the same stuff over, making insults and just stating I'm wrong. What is it with you religious geeks.? Just don't be sick on the carpet.
I have to agree you seem to mixing your metaphors nitro. make up your mind shall it be science or waxing philosophic
Science shows that the universe was created, and therefore must have had a creator. But beyond that, science is pretty much worthless because it has nothing to say about the most important topic of all - God.