I would not be happy to find out that we are just a computer science project that some kid made in a universe much different than ours populated with beings infinitely more intelligent and advanced than ourselves. Could such a being be God or would he/she/it have created our God, too? On the other hand, could we figure out how to gain access to the software and re-write sections making us the immortal masters of the Universe?
So because our universe can be compartmentalized/digitized at all sorts of levels and criteria, - alive/not alive, energy/matter, upspinning /downspinnig, positive/negative - which is sorta like a computer, there has to be a creator? Seems like quite a leap.
I asked the Guy that made it, He nixed the idea but he says since I'm his friend He can make changes for me if I ask nice..
Then nothing is the creator. I bet that's not what you meant to say. bullshit. What I have been arguing about, while you keep arguing against yourself, is that you can't even understand an appearance of fine tuning is no more use to explaining anything than an appearance of Flat Earth is. a. You already have, and failed miserably, time after time after time. b. At least scientific theory is supported by math, physics. Your so called fine tuning has no support other than some imaginary wizard is supposed to be responsible for it.
Of course it is. It's simply that you are incorrect. That comment is what I'm saying is incorrect. Particle physics is not a case of "no idea". It might be far more accurate to say mathematics does not explain the big bang at singularity. But who said it does? I didn't. Warning.. contains Math!
More pre school games from the facile mind of the troll. Then the creator is nothing... ha. From the point of view of the observer... the big bang is creation --- What you seem to be arguing with is documented fact... I have cited you to their recent videos and papers. That you continue to insistent there is no appearance of fine tunings in our universe... is troll ignorance. How do you explain... that 20 constants taken to 32 decimal places are what was used to predict and find the higss boson... and not call that extreme fine tuning. Your worldview is causing you to misrepresent clear science.
Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe Parameter Max. Deviation Ratio of Electronsrotons 1:1037 Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:1040 Expansion Rate of Universe 1:1055 Mass Density of Universe1 1:1059 Cosmological Constant 1:10120 http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life. Degree of fine tuning Recent Studies have confirmed the fine tuning of the cosmological constant (also known as "dark energy"). This cosmological constant is a force that increases with the increasing size of the universe. First hypothesized by Albert Einstein, the cosmological constant was rejected by him, because of lack of real world data. However, recent supernova 1A data demonstrated the existence of a cosmological constant that probably made up for the lack of light and dark matter in the universe.2 However, the data was tentative, since there was some variability among observations. Recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurement not only demonstrate the existence of the cosmological constant, but the value of the constant. It turns out that the value of the cosmological constant exactly makes up for the lack of matter in the universe.3 The degree of fine-tuning is difficult to imagine. Dr. Hugh Ross gives an example of the least fine-tuned of the above four examples in his book, The Creator and the Cosmos, which is reproduced here: One part in 1037 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037. (p. 115) The ripples in the universe from the original Big Bang event are detectable at one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of gas - no planets, no life. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist only of large black holes. Obviously, no life would be possible in such a universe. Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force (the force that holds atoms together). The Sun "burns" by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smallerâ0.6% instead of 0.7%â a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly largerâ0.8%, fusion would happen so readily and rapidly that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8% (Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers).