"In line with the laws physics, the inevitable consequence of uncaused natural forces can be a universe." that is pure speculation. its less scientific than saying a Tuner did it. (remember if you try to quote Hawking, his statement is within a multiverse top down cosmology context. ) wow... the lengths you will go to avoid dealing with science.
lets leave the world of stu's wild speculations and return to what scientists have said.. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator\ What About God? .... If the multiverse is the final stage of the Copernican revolution, with our universe but a speck in an infinite megacosmos, where does humanity fit in? If the life-friendly fine-tuning of our universe is just a chance occurrence, something that inevitably arises in an endless array of universes, is there any need for a fine-tuner—for a god? “I don’t think that the multiverse idea destroys the possibility of an intelligent, benevolent creator,” Weinberg says. “What it does is remove one of the arguments for it, just as Darwin’s theory of evolution made it unnecessary to appeal to a benevolent designer to understand how life developed with such remarkable abilities to survive and breed.” On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” As for Linde, he is especially interested in the mystery of consciousness and has speculated that consciousness may be a fundamental component of the universe, much like space and time. He wonders whether the physical universe, its laws, and conscious observers might form an integrated whole. A complete description of reality, he says, could require all three of those components, which he posits emerged simultaneously. “Without someone observing the universe,” he says, “the universe is actually dead.” Yet for all of his boldness, Linde hesitates when I ask whether he truly believes that the multiverse idea will one day be as well established as Newton’s law of gravity and the Big Bang. “I do not want to predict the future,” he answers. “I once predicted my own future. I had a very firm prediction. I knew that I was going to die in the hospital at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow near where I worked. I would go there for all my physical examinations. Once, when I had an ulcer, I was lying there in bed, thinking I knew this was the place where I was going to die. Why? Because I knew I would always be living in Russia. Moscow was the only place in Russia where I could do physics. This was the only hospital for the Academy of Sciences, and so on. It was quite completely predictable.
Thankyou for posting this and illustrating my point exactly..This is the problem with moral relativity. Moral relativity is the main cause of Humanities loss of freedom. People having the ability to choose subjectively what is right and wrong at any given moment according to their personnel preferences or agendas. LOL a fact cannot be changed to a false definitively . To say a behavior is right or moral at any given moment because it was considered so is ludicrous! Tell that one to the slaves and see what they say about it being right and moral at the time lol What are you going on about I never mentioned anything about the earth being immoral and what does morality have do with the shape of the earth, wtf?
Correct, more trolling and you managed a full 360 yet again jeez, Whose right? Whose truth? Unless you can define absolute right and absolute truth in all circumstances, then you'll need to rationalize them both. THAT is what's called relativism for fks sake. Facts change. The fact that diamonds are the hardest substance on earth will change definitively to false when something harder is made. Do you not think about what you type at all? It's not my fault you can't follow your own stupid argument. One minute you attach morality to right behavior based in truth. Then you talk about the Earth not being flat as truth. As it is you who has connected morality to truth, those who thought it was flat, and who still do, against what is true, ....are they being moral or not? It is that ridiculous trying to talk of morality being linked to what's right and true as if it made morality absolute. And having to explain your own defunct arguments back to you simply illustrates the degree to which you obviously haven't or are incapable of thinking your bullshit through. hmmm seems to me if nothing else, history shows not being able to refine by rationalizing what is considered morally acceptable, because someone decrees an absolute, will contribute more than anything to loss of freedom. People, societies, cultures, have to rationalize, sometimes subjectively, what is right and wrong given what is known or has been learned at the time. There is no choice because there is no -fits all- absolute right and absolute truth. They cannot be defined that way for all situations. yeah please do yourself a favor and put me on ignore. It's tiresome pointing out so many flaws in your idiotic comments, especially when you're doing such a good job of making so many.
Your truth definitions are so messed up it's not funny and to tell you the truth I would say tragic, definitvely....
The truth is: I was not trying to define what is truth! Instead, I was merely trying to challenge your statement/definition of truth! Just 2 cents!
Denver Broncos quarterback Mark Sanchez, San Francisco Giants pitcher Jake Peavy and former MLB pitcher Roy Oswalt were cheated out of millions of dollars in what is being described as a “Ponzi-like scheme.” “Sanchez, and major league baseball pitchers Jake Peavy and Roy Oswalt were defrauded out of about $30 million, according to a recently unsealed U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit in Dallas federal court,” per Matt Robinson of Bloomberg News. “The athletes all used the same broker, Ash Narayan, formerly of RGT Capital Management. The adviser gained their trust through religion and their interest in charitable works, the SEC said.” The lawsuit alleges that Narayan got through to the athletes by “appealing to their Christian faith.” Per the SEC, Narayan “fraudulently funneled their savings into a money-losing business and his own pocket” and forged documents to make it all happen. Representatives of Sanchez, Peavy and Oswalt didn’t respond to requests for comments. Narayan’s attorney Howard Privette however, did. “Mr. Narayan has always sought to act in his clients’ best interests,” Robinson quoted Privette saying. “Accordingly, he will continue to work with the SEC to ensure that this matter is resolved in the most favorable manner for those clients.” This is sadly a relatively common story with professional athletes. Given how much money they make, athletes are a common target for schemes like the ones Narayan is alleged to have committed. This is certainly a matter that we’ll hear more about in the coming weeks and months. Per the SEC, Narayan “fraudulently funneled their savings into a money-losing business and his own pocket” and forged documents to make it all happen... http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl...t-of-millions-in-ponzi-like-scheme/ar-AAhppRx