you have not debunked a single thing any of the quotes I have presented from theses scientists ever. you have a deluded troll self aggrandized mind. The update to the video... is 1. Rees telling you that God is one possible answer. 2. Susskind was added... in which he explains the cosmological constant is an example of incredible fine tuning. Then.... 3. The repeat of that Weinberg is telling you... you are dead ass wrong and a liar. We have speculations but we do not have science explaining the reasons for the fine tuning. You delusion of debunking nobel prize winners, the co founder of string theory and the astronomer royal is amazing.
I'm not sure why everyone can't agree that the universe appears fine-tuned. So what? The apple's fall is uncannily straight.
Stu's has been stuck in 1950s atheist thinking and now has massive trouble adjusting his world view to the fact that science has found evidence of a Tuner. The evidence may be neutered when and if we find a massive multiverse... or perhaps someday it may be explained by a Theory of Everything . (you can see nobel prize winner weinberg addressing that idea about 3/4s of the way into the video on posted on the front page.) so its odd that many of us believers have no problem accepting the fact the tunings might someday be found to not be evidence of a Tuner... but some of the crazy atheists here on et like Stu can not accept the fact that the fine tuning of our universe might be evidence of a Tuner. Even though I have produced quotes and videos of the very top scientists in the world telling them in plan English a Tuner or God could be one explanation.
Alright, if the scientifically minded should accept that the appearance of tuning is evidence it's all been tuned, then the religiously minded should accept that the appearance of mere chance, for example, in mutation and natural selection, is evidence it's all by chance.
that is a non sequitor. the drive to evolve could be "directed" as in directed evolution or programmed in to the basic components of the universe. In fact a nobel prize winning scientists in the field has suggested there may be a drive to life programmed into DNA. If you were to show me a complete plausible pathway for non life to life and prove it could have all happened by random chance... that would would be evidence it could have happened by random chance.
You must have missed this part. Or intentionally left it out. "the National Academy of Science charted belief in God as low as 5.5 percent among biologists and 7.5 percent among physicist and astronomers in a 1998 study." Just like with AGW, the people who are the most expert in the subject closest to the question at hand are the most definitive and overwhelming in consensus. Only a fool believes within their heart that there is a God. The whole concept is absurd and akin to belief in ghosts and Sasquatch.
Then you should show me a pathway that God did the tuning. We have the evidence (in appearance) of tuning, so where's the God?
How many times. I've debunked YOU and the batshit nonsense spun from their quotes . Try to get a hold of that and you might start to get a clue. The only "Tuner" necessary is gravity. Your 'best minds in science' have told YOU in plain English that because there is gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. How come you have such a problem with a straight forward statement like that, but not with the ridiculous fantasized add-ons you keep trying to attach onto ambiguous expressions like the universe appears fine tuned. "...the tuning of our universe...". So you've magicked it into fact now. Lol Tuning?...then there already is evidence, scientific evidence no less, that gravity is your Tuner. Not god. No god necessary. You have no argument. But then you never did.