1. I have faith that Jesus is God. I do not have scientific evidence of it. 2. When almost all the top scientists in the field state there is the appearance of fine tuning of the constants in our universe... how do you have the knowledge to say they are incorrect?
A couple of out of context quotes about "appearance " of fine tuning is not evidence of fine tuning, that's all I'm saying.
none of my quotes are out of context... you really fall for stus bullshit? how is this out of context... <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> or this in which dawkins state there are physicists who say there appear to be fine tuings. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mlD-CJPGt1A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I suppose as your reasoning is so fucked up by now all you can do is deny what you said and say I said things I didn't. You called multiverse "speculative pseudo science" , which it isn't, and then with an equal degree of brainlessness, denied you said it. I've never described the multiverse in terms of "real science" nor have I said it wasn't speculative. The anthropic principle isn't pushed as an explanation you idiot. The 'multiverse guys' have theoretical lines of scientifically reasoned hypotheses. There is no corresponding science for warp drives. Maybe try not to be such a tool all your life. ...and no, not a troll and not saying either of those things. However yourself, whilst trolling the same worn out bs and false claims, is calling everyone a troll whenever you can't follow because it doesn't leave space for your imaginary magical macrocosm manufacturer.
Well I don't know about professors arguing semantics. History suggests you don't really want to reason at all, but basically prefer to use a lot of insult and usually utter garbage that is simply untrue. Good guys don't really get to be deceitful the way you are. You're the one who refers to Hawking - who says the only Tuner required ... is Gravity. You're the one who refers to Weinberg - who states "I don't think there's really any evidence of very precise fine tuning of the constants of nature." So why do you keep trying to pretend, distort, misrepresent that, with half baked ill-reasoned conclusions you form by the moronic endless repeating of a couple of Penrose and Dawkin videos that don't make your case anyway (whatever the hell your case is from one minute to the next). In any appearance of fine tuning, that means, in the first instance, any so called tunings; values that can result in a habitable universe and values that don't, are all equally unlikely. Just because one particular set occurs and it meant you could know about those numbers (thanks only to science), doesn't make them any more exceptional in themselves to any or all of the others. One obvious reason why it's said to be an appearance only .
I didn't say there's anything wrong with it. I think it fair to say anthropic principle tautology isn't generally considered to be an explanation of anything.
To me it explains why the universe appears so perfectly tuned for human life. I don't think it explains why the universe does have the constants and ranges that it does.