Video| Fine Tuning from the Top Scientists

Don't flush if you want to keep what little is left of your brains.
That's the thing with a closed mind like yours. You can't tolerate anything that questions it.

Some certainly don't learn much about basic humility in a monastery then.
Having outed yourself as gay , you were a gay what, monk or just a visiter for a year, in a monestry full of men, mingling with someone you think might be possibly deemed a saint ".

Good grief.

So which of those attributes make you so particularly narrow-minded enough to be driven towards the crude and emotional disorder most of your posts display.

Not "Engrish" pisspoor, wtf. Perhaps when you've sobered up you might avoid the confusion you have with reading.

The obsession in starting a dozen threads every day, day in day out, mustn't be helping you either, to get out of the delusion that you’ve made something resembling a sensible statement.

Not going to be able to properly discuss much anyway when you've already reached conclusions despite the facts.

Yeah Jem... I debunked... your bullshit. You're making progress.

For all the spamming and incessant repetition of the same old videos, you still get debunked. The unscientific illogical dysfunctional claims you make on the back of them... get debunked.

It's because your claims are baseless bullshit so it's straightforward enough.

Hypocritical too, like most delusional god botherers are.
One minute you’re quoting scientists as truth personified, the next you're decrying them , demanding what they say is merely conjecture. Then claim it's me who is arguing against them. phttt.

That's the same delusion of thought your fellow religious thread spammers look to be impeded by.

You have no argument. Just a computer full of cobbled together vids conjured by more fanatical religious extremists ready to jump to conclusions despite the facts, and on which you cannot debate or even think straight.
That's a pretty shitty way of going about stuff.

But a little reassuring at least when you say I got it wrong about 'inflation and the landscape and the multiverse', although you've no idea how or why.
Coming from you, it's good enough confirmation quite the opposite will be true.

He said ....."Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. ...It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

..the He in that case being Stephen Hawking.

Funny how you like to use scientists in an appeal to authority, yet will only accept the ones as authority which you think are saying something you want them to say.

You delude yourself as being capable of arguing against Hawking's unambiguous statement which just goes to show the unfetterd hubris you have; but don't bother questioning anything of Susskind.

But then, non of the scientists is actually saying what you want them to say, and neither does the science anyway . That’s how sad your ridiculous ideas are.

Not a problem with what they say but with what YOU say.

 

The kind of universe needing a specific narrow range of properties which counter existence and life itself, would evidence natural causes.
Intelligent designer tuner suggests far better expectations than either appear or actually are.

 

stu... just wrote half a page of bullshit.

this most recent video I posted is from the co founder of string theory. It contains scientific understanding regarding the state of science and our universe's incredible fine tuning.

Stu is now so desperate... the idea of a fine tuned universe makes is atheist mind so troubled... he now conflates a complete conjecture by Hawking and Hartle with scientific fact. You are correct his statement about gravity is unambiguously conditioned upon 2 pieces of conjecture.

a. a massive almost infinite universe multiverse...

b. his concept of top down cosomology... in which the conditions of your line of universe... sort of self selected the conditions post big bang.

 

Do you think you've been stupid all your life or just since you got out of the Special Ed school?

Stu, you just have no logical arguments. You have enough trouble just trying to sting a proper sentence together. Most aren't. You do know the problem with trying to prove a negative, don't you? So, why do you try? You don't have enough acumen to even make a logical argument.

Now, go put me on ignore since you cannot say anything to me that has an ounce of thought and then go stick your head back up your arss.

 

stu's specious bullshit is now running counter to hawking..

look at how he distorts science. Compare his quote below with hawkings paper on the very subject we are addressing.



...
1. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.

from the hawking and hartle paper...
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf


2. "Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: “Everyone has their own reason why they’re keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.”

But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isn’t conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?

Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it “an abdication of human intelligence.” That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.” But even if you don’t go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why."

http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137

 

yada yada yada "closed minded " yada yada

Let me know when you've got something more than just your opinion about my closed mindedness.

 

LOL Good find PT. I'm sure I'll be using your meter in the near future.

 

Lol.
With that alone you make it more fact than opinion.
And for one that doesn't give a fuck, you sure show a need to keep posting.

Here...


Nevermind a give a fuck o meter. You really need this to measure yourself by. Coming straight after your "Engrish" lesson too. OMG .

Because you don't make logical argument doesn't mean it's me who doesn't. You can presumably understand that much.

So you can't debate because it appears you can only understand short sentences.
That's your escape card.
What you don't know apparently is how to read sentences with things like , or ; in them.

Perhaps you can only read in short bursts.
The way you doge any points you don't like is to say it isn't written properly.
But you don't even write properly.
What a weed .
Not up to it.
I thought as much.

You're welcome.

Non of this is about ' the proving a negative problem'. It's basic comprehension of which you give the impression you have little of.
It's to do with answering the groundless unsupportable claims and comments dicks like you make .

And wtf is an arss. Lol!

Look Jem , I realize you and the others in the ET Let's Be Really Dumb Together Club can't handle the fucking obvious whenever it brings into question the simply fucking pudding head unintelligent arguments YOU try to use to prop up YOUR mythical sky beastie ideas with.

But it's simple.

YOU are arguing against Hawking's statement.

His statement couldn't be more clear.
It is the least ambiguous of all the statements made by all the others you keep puking up like a sick parrot, but which you swallow without question only because you can piss about in your ignorance of what they are actually saying.

YOU are the one attempting to avoid having to recognize what Hawking says about 'no God required' . It is nevertheless just that , and is perfectly clear.

Now go on, go make some more guffaw noises with your two demented colleagues up there in the gallery. It's much easier for yourselves when challenged by the bleeding obvious to act like the complete ET idiots you are.

 

does Hawking say he knows gravity caused our universe to form?
is that your troll argument?

Of course not.

one faith based answer to why our universe appears so incredibly fine tuned is :

to have faith in a multiverse coupled with top down cosmology.
just like hawking said.

of course in the video susskind also tells you another explanation is God.

So you may put your faith in almost infinite universes...
I choose the far more efficient idea... the tuned has a Tuner.


And that is what is killing your atheist mind.

We now have evidence of a Tuner.
And Susskind and Hawking and Rees and Carr and the dozens of other top guys tell you that...

And it is killing your atheist emotions so much you lie your ass off about this topic.

 

Awwe poor wittle stu gets bent outta shape when I accurately identify his opinion about "God" as such.

If you think you've got proof otherwise, I'm open minded enough to hear you out.

Of course we ALL know that isn't the case, the rest is just destined to be red herring and moving the goal posts nonsense from you.
Game set match.LOL