All it would need are more attempts than 10^10^123 to make that no zeros, to put the odds at 1:1. Cosmologists support that so called probability also. Or even like some lottery winners, achieve a win on the first attempt.
Go ahead show us some cosmologists who support 10^10^123 attempts with science as opposed to speculation and guess work. I hope some are able to see how far a troll atheist evangelist will go to try and discount the idea the universe is finely tuned by a Tuner. No wonder stu gets the random chance idea wrong...he believes in an impossible lucky universe fairy.
Why so angry all the time. I have never discounted a Tuner; Gravity is a very fine Tuner indeed! God, the impossible lucky universe fairy. Now you're onto something there.
you have zero integrity... you are not supporting that so called probability... with cns. CNS is pure speculation... you wrote... "All it would need are more attempts than 10^10^123 to make that no zeros, to put the odds at 1:1. Cosmologists support that so called probability also." when challenged you answered vaguely with CNS which is this... http://evodevouniverse.com/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selection_(fecund_universes) In a process analogous to Darwinian natural selection, those universes best able to reproduce and adapt would be expected to predominate in the multiverse. As with biological natural selection, universal mechanisms for reproduction, variation, and the phenotypic effects of alternate parameter heritability must be found for the model to be valid, and may be explored by simulation. To assess adaptation, proposed universal fitness functions (black hole fecundity, universal complexity, etc.) may be simulated to the extent present physical theory and computation allow, by exploring phenotypic features in the ensemble of possible universes adjacent to our present universe in parameter space. But strategies for validating the appropriateness of fitness functions remain unclear at present, as do any hypotheses of adaptation with respect to the multiverse, other universes, or other black holes
I am not the least bit angry... I just can't believe you keep trolling out the same stuff without any real understanding. You parrot hawking on this gravity subject but you manifest no ability to explain it. If I recall, last time you argued gravity created the universe out of nothing... but you never came close to showing how that could be. you wish to try again? or you prefer to troll?
Who said I was supporting it? What I am doing is not supporting your angry name calling and the ill considered, serious lack of rational thought you portray all the time. That so called Probability you keep trolling out is speculation. That's where the zero integrity is. It started right there with you. How about Roger Penrose himself then! He proposes a Cyclic Universe. The same guy who you keep saying gives 10^10^123 chance of a universe, is supporting, with science, a 100% chance of no 10^10^123 chance! HE is sayingNo zeros required for a universe.!! So Cosmological natural selection or Cyclic, they both address the guess work of chance. It's science when you want it to be, then it's speculation whenever you don't want it to be. You always did come across as knowing little of what anyone is saying and understanding even less. Constantly trying to attach that "impossible lucky universe fairy" Creator onto the coat tails of science, but never understanding why you can't, so you'll read anything you want into anything that's said. There are many science based reasons why the universe has no need of a Creator. You clearly have only some angry and irrational wishful thinking for why it would.
I'm thinking......white holes, in accordance with gravitational field equations of general relativity