Specious reasoning. You are bringing in a red herring here. First, there is no scientific evidence of a designer/creator. Second, you are trying to make it personal by asking US what evidence we bring. It is not about us; it is about the scientific evidence, of which there is none. I would agree, nevertheless, that many respected scientists are of the OPINION that there is an intelligent designer. But the fact that scientists hold an opinion does not necessarily make it scientific, now, does it?
More importantly, the anthropic principle that jem continually attempts to use as a means of inferring the existence of intelligent design was never intended for that purpos by its originator: physicist Steven Weinberg. The cosmological constant when calculated using quantum field theory generates a number far to large to permit a universe in the configuration of our own. This leads to the inference that there is some sort of matter that we cannot observe which is necessary to bring the equations and the universe into balance. Similarly, calculations using Einstein's tensor equations produce results which also do not permit our universe to exist as it presently appears, but the outcome is an entirely different number than that produced with quantum equations. So, Dr. Weinberg determined to calculate the cosmological constant (aka vacuum density) of the universe by simply stating that given the universe we observe, what must the density be. Weinberg's calculations were conducted prior to when we had the instrumentation to actually measure the cosmological constant. When it was finally measured, Weinberg's calculation was found to be within one decimal point of reality (1E^-120). Thus, a remarkably small but non-zero energy level was realized, via the idea that were the number other than what it is measured, then the universe would not exist. Creationists immediately leaped at the idea that physicists were somehow claiming that this constant was fine tuned by some alien intelligence, when nothing of the sort was ever considered. The cosmological constant is just a number that happens to fit with the universe as we know it. Whether or not there is only one or 10^500 universes, this says absolutely nothing about the existence of a designer. If there is only one universe, then the number is just what it is because it is. If there are trillions of universes, then the number is still just what it is. Either way, there is no scientific connection to any diety. There may actually be such a connection, but there is absolutely nothing about the cosmological constant from which we may draw that conclusion.
Didn't you know? In their world (the world of ghosts and goblins) a thing is true if we cannot prove that it is not true. As the Disgusting Alcoholic Troll ZZZ said ......
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz The Universe appears to be designed by a Creator God to me. Can you prove that it is not designed? If you cannot, then the Universe is by definition designed Can you prove that a pink Unicorn does not exist? If you cannot, then by definition a pink Unicorn does exist (This proves what an idiot he is, we knew that though )
I have never even considered trying to prove the a pink unicorn doesn't not exist. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but I have never seen anyone try to say that a pink unicorn is the creator of the universe. This type of argument is typical of the atheists, and they try to make an equivalency between unicorns, Santa Claus etc. and God. They are not equivalents by definition, so the argument fails from the very beginning. There are ontological arguments for the existence of God, have seen none for the existence of what is by definition a limited entity, i.e. a pink unicorn, Santa Claus, etc. "we knew that though" Another member of a "we" collective... Independent thinking is just not your forte LongShot...
they (ontological) don't begin "if you can't disprove then that's proof" ROFL Z. you are Et's biggest CRANK! LMAO
No, ontological arguments don't say "if you can't disprove then that's proof." Neither did I... You must be in the mood for name calling LongShot. Let it be then...
================ Some writings mean much more than others; some opinions are much better thought out/written like jems,Sir Isaac Newton. And ever read some of Sir Isaac Newtons theology books.?? With all due respect Turok,that is your opinion about opinions, few if any would rate your or my opinion/writing concerning science with Sir Isaac Newtion or his Biblical theology books..
Turtle: >some opinions are much better thought out/written >like jems,Sir Isaac Newton. Thanks MT. I haven't laughed that hard in a long time -- putting the writings of jem and Sir Isaac Newton in a class together. I suggest that's a stretch, but then that's just my opinion and everyone has one. >With all due respect Turok,that is your opinion >about opinions, No disrespect taken -- I have no problem differentiating "opinion" from "fact", even when that opinion is my own. JB
all facts are one opinion away from being obliterated.... here's a popular one ... The sun rises in the east ... "Rises" ??? relative to what?