LOL All you've done is repeat the same things over. Thereâs not one justification for your ridiculous "wrong to be right" nonsense argument pointed out to you. Like I say , even a good fiction writer wouldn't make that stuff of yours up
Amazing the level of delusion that can be achieved when rewriting history. In the Catholic denial and contradiction of events anything goes. Still ....that's Catholic for you . Even jem can't deal with the reality of stuff he writes himself. Clearly it is a Catholic thing. Great historical significances like the Catholic Persecution of individuals for heresy and of heretics, Christian and otherwise throughout the ages will always go unnonticed by certain Catholics. Murder and oppression of the individual for nearly 700 years through the great Catholic Inquisitions. The Roman Catholic Church's violent suppression of Russian and Greek orthodox Christian opinion. Crusades against all other formal religions including Moslems and Christians. The Catholic persecution of Jews . The suppression of science and those benefits to humanity inconsistent with Catholic dogma.. The denial of individual unalienable rights by dogmatic Catholic creed to this day. The Post Reformation Roman Catholic religious wars Clearly you prefer to ignore such momentous eras as The Age of Enlightenment without which the world might not just appear as dark as a Catholic's imagination, but would be completely devoid of any illumination altogether. Interesting how it's the reactions against Catholic (and most other) religious doctrines which allowed true education for better understanding and a natural spread of knowledge.
you have no honor. This is written by phyics world as cited earlier. Not Susskind although the article discusses Susskind. So Weinberg set out to see if any bigger value would prevent life. The answer, it turned out, did not have anything to do with molecular chemistry or the stability of the solar system. Weinberg found that if L were just an order of magnitude bigger than 10-120, no galaxies, stars or planets would have formed. His anthropic arguments not only provided a limit on L, they also give some idea of its expected value. In 1992 he wrote, "Thus if such a cosmological constant is confirmed by observation, it will be reasonable to infer that our own existence plays an important role in explaining why the universe is the way it is." Even sceptics had to take notice, therefore, when recent astrophysical observations indicated that L is, in fact, non-zero and has just about the value Weinberg predicted. To avoid any intelligent-design connotations, however, there is still one missing ingredient: the "multiverse"
you are such a spineless troll. So emotional you do not even respond to on point statements. You attempt to redefine words like atheist. You pretend that scholars peer reviewed scholar deny that Jesus is an historical figure and cite some looney internet writer as a your authority. In argument after argument you puss out and never cite sources and you have the nerve to write what you did above.
Physics world article: An alternative answer to what makes our universe so special might be the anthropic principle. As its supporters note, all it takes is a small change in Newtonâs laws, or to the rules of atomic physics, and life would either be instantly extinguished or would never have formed. In other words, the anthropic principle says that the world is fine-tuned so that we can be here to observe it. Unfortunately, many physicists think the anthropic principle is uncomfortably close to intelligent design. Nevertheless, no less a person than Nobel laureate and arch-atheist Steven Weinberg believes that one particular constant of nature - Einsteinâs cosmological constant Λ - may be anthropically determined. The size of L has long been an enigma. Theoretically its most natural value would be unity in natural units, but anything bigger than 10-120 would be inconsistent with astronomical data - and a world record for the worst agreement between theory and experiment! "How do you respond to critics who see the anthropic approach as quasi-religious or unscientific? I cannot put it better than Steven Weinberg (nobel prize winner) did in a recent paper: Finally, I have heard the objection that, in trying to explain why the laws of nature are so well suited for the appearance and evolution of life, anthropic arguments take on some of the flavor of religion. I think that just the opposite is the case. Just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the wonderful adaptations of living forms could arise without supernatural intervention, so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator. I found this parallel well understood in a surprising place, a New York Times op-ed article by Christoph Schönborn, Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna. His article concludes as follows: Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human nature by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence. There is evident irony in the fact that the cardinal seems to understand the issue much better than some physicists." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/23676 It is ironic that the church understands this so much better than an idiot like you Stu... don't you think.
Gotta love all the Jews on this site taking the opportunity to libel Christians. Put something on here about a rabbi and it'll be off in seconds...
please note it was not a physics world article it was an American Scientist article quoted and linked below. (if the mod wants to delete my previous entry - I have no problem with that.) This following will be cited correctly: How do you respond to critics who see the anthropic approach as quasi-religious or unscientific? I cannot put it better than Steven Weinberg did in a recent paper: Finally, I have heard the objection that, in trying to explain why the laws of nature are so well suited for the appearance and evolution of life, anthropic arguments take on some of the flavor of religion. I think that just the opposite is the case. Just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the wonderful adaptations of living forms could arise without supernatural intervention, so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator. I found this parallel well understood in a surprising place, a New York Times op-ed article by Christoph Schönborn, Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna. His article concludes as follows: Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human nature by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence. There is evident irony in the fact that the cardinal seems to understand the issue much better than some physicists. David Gross of UC Santa Barbara says, "Science has managed to explain lots of other weird numbersâso why shouldn't we expect eventually to explain the cosmological constant and other key parameters?" David is entirely correct in one respect. The views that I have expressed are far from rigorous scientific facts. The observational evidence for a cosmological constant, for inflation, and the mathematical evidence for a string theory landscape could all evaporate. So far they show no signs of doing so, but surprises happen. It is certainly premature to declare victory and close the question. I would be very worried if all theoretical physicists "gave up" (as David puts it) looking for a mathematical explanation for the "weird" value of the cosmological constant. But I think David exaggerates when he claims that science has explained anything like the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant. http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/leonard-susskind
I'm sorry Belavia, but Elite Trader has a strict rule that nothing about a rabbi may be mentioned here. Those damn Jews here. We can't even mention our Lord Jesus here because he was a rabbi, and then they even have the audacity to question our most holy theology. You want to know why? It is simple economics. There are only 13 million Christians out there, but there are 2 BILLION Jews out there. What the 13 million Christians believe in doesn't matter. What the 2 BILLION Jews believe in matters a lot to Elite Trader because they are the ones that bring in the mullah. May I suggest these fine sites for you where you will be among friends -- not like on this Jew infested site. Jew Watch http://www.jewwatch.com/ Extreme Violent Racism - White Power White Victory http://www.whitehonor.com/ Stormfront White Nationalist Community http://www.stormfront.org/forum/ Ku Klux Clan (My favorite site. My Christian spirit just soars when I visit this site.) http://www.kkk.bz/