Response You want math buy the books the articles cite. You want truth deal with this. I have shown you that the cofounder of string theory and a nobel prize winner state that confirmation of the earlier prediction is the best support for the anthropic contention that "some features of our own existence determine certain things about the laws of nature." Now you said I made a proclamation and tried to smear me as a religious zealout. Well you are agnostic without the balls to face up to simple on point english and current science. Show me your peer reviewed articles that say Weinberg did not say this. Anybody with a brain realizes that Weinbergs conclusion prior to the muiltiverse deal was that life influences the universe to make it hospitable to life. ( that means designed by life - that is not a made up a proclamation that is english) And you do not have peer reviewed articles saying a nobel prize winner did not say that. You are so full of shit on this subject. Any time a lawyer tries to pull the I have the proof back in my ofice stunt - I always said your honor I am willing to wait while his office producers the materials. You are a close minded agnostic who has no desire to comprehend the state of real science right now. You have no produced a single thing on this thread other than Susskind quotes that do not contradict anything I have quoted only put them in context of a multiverse.
The resident atheist zealot steps up lamely and tries to separate the process from the authoritative conclusions....laughable. It is for the sake of these authoritative conclusions that the process is performed....doh! It is the scientists who have reached these conclusions that are held up as authority figures, and therefore the arguments made are from authority, not logic per say. I would dare say that none of the ET atheistic scientist could really reproduce the "math" on their own from scratch, but have learned it and quote it much in the same way theists spout their scriptures in defense of their argument from authority of the Bible.
Your creed makes a distinction between what is "begotten" , and what is "made". Then it goes on to say that the Son "made" all "things". Think about that one. Whether it is a uni or a multiverse, it is made up. The Son has real creations. This is not one of them. Jesus
jem, Don't get too hung up on a quote from a "Nobel Prize winner." First, you don't understand what they're talking about. Second, if you do, then you know that they're as likely to be wrong as anyone else. If you really want to learn about the AP and the cosmology constant, read the peer-reviewed literature. For starter, get this paper and read it: http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00097000020201301000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes " Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 201301 (2006) Why Anthropic Reasoning Cannot Predict Lambda Glenn D. Starkman1,2 and Roberto Trotta1 1Astrophysics Department, Oxford University, Denys Wilkinson Building, Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3RH, United Kingdom 2Department of Physics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7079, USA (Received 17 July 2006; published 16 November 2006) We revisit anthropic arguments purporting to explain the measured value of the cosmological constant. We argue that different ways of assigning probabilities to candidate universes lead to totally different anthropic predictions. As an explicit example, we show that weighting different universes by the total number of possible observations leads to an extremely small probability for observing a value of Lambda equal to or greater than what we now measure. We conclude that anthropic reasoning within the framework of probability as frequency is ill-defined and that in the absence of a fundamental motivation for selecting one weighting scheme over another the anthropic principle cannot be used to explain the value of Lambda, nor, likely, any other physical parameters." Follow the thread of discussion by looking at the papers that they cite, and by searching out new papers that cite this one. Then you'll get a full picture of the discussion. Hopefully this way you won't make a fool of yourself again.
Snore. As usual, you start proclaiming conclusions about your hypotheses before you define your terms. Define "motive" before you start to argue what it means, otherwise when I demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about, you will simply move the goalpost and alter your definition. If you refuse to define your terms, then I won't argue with you, because it is empirically demonstrable from all of the other arguments with you, by me and others, as being a total waste of time.
You don't know what motive is, and you are an attorney? LOL! Very funny attempt at dodging a very simple issue... We can only wonder what your motive is for such a silly response...
The fact is, you have no idea what I believe, other than to accept what I say. It may be difficult for you to comprehend that I don't care whether or not a supreme creator exists. But, the fact is that I don't, so you'll just have to get over your disbelief, if you want to have a discussion with me.
I'll tell ya what, you define the issue, just like you would in an appellate brief: by stating a single succinct question for the court, and then I'll be happy to argue the facts with you. Otherwise, this is a waste of time.
I know how I define motive. And, from previous arguments, I know that you will refuse to define anything, so that you can avoid losing your argument by moving the goalpost as soon as I demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. That's my motive, to avoid wasting my time, arguing with someone who's not actually interested in resolving anything.
jem is not going to do anything other than parrot out-of-context quotes from pop-science writings, because that way, he doesn't have to define his terms or the issues. The best way to avoid losing an argument is to refuse to agree on the subject matter. That way, you can just move the goalpost whenever your opponent is about to score a touchdown.