ah so you did listen. so you heard that one option (although disliked by Dawkins) to explain the fine tunings is a Designer.... so now lets see if his dismissal stands up to scrutiny. if there had to be a a (insert multiverse) all you are doing is pushing the answer one step further back. eventually you have to resort to magic. so multiverse or designer... both fall subject to Dawkins problem. Not lets examine the logic... Dawkins dismissal is a non sequitor. Just because he thinks a designer would need magic to appear ... does not mean that a designer could not be responsible for the appearance of design in this universe. it just means Dawkins can not explain the Designer.
so no natural forces = magic? lol. you are losing it. It is always amusing to hear theists proclaim that they dont believe in evolution because it sounds too complicated yet they will readily believe that some grey haired old deity in the sky just spoke and everything we see today popped up from nothing by magic. --Freethinker
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God â the design argument of Paley â updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)
You make an eloquent and rational case but in the end, philosophy, the thinking of, and science, the putting of a practical thought to the test, are essentially two different things. Necessarily distinct. I don't deny the two go hand in hand, but they cannot be the same or even especially similar. Your suggestion that pure science is essentially propositional is simply not so. It is impossible for example, to develop physiology (pure science) without extensive knowledge already gained from scientific discovery (applied science) to enable say for instance, biotech ( further applied science). As the Wright brothers no doubt knew , all the epistemology , philosophy and propositions of flight in the world, would never get them airborne unless they did something completely different and separate to all that - called science.
same old same old....it sounds too complicated yet they will readily believe that some grey haired old deity jem i dont know why you bother here. you are not going to convince educated adults that some invisible guy in the sky made the world. wouldnt your talents be better put to use in childrens sunday school?
here is a recap of stu's understanding of this science.... Quote from stu: "I have a Nobel prize winner telling me there is no need for what you call design - but is meant to mean intelligent design - in the universe. You have a built in incomprehension of what a Nobel Prize winner is actually telling me. Were you to ever stop trying to read stuff which isn't there, into already clear explanations that are there, you might one day comprehend like a normal person. He clearly states that even without a fundamental principle, recent developments in cosmology offer the possibility of an explanation of why the cosmological constants are favorable for intelligent life. You're hoping cosmology is going to say the explanation is God. Lol. Dream on. Only religion can ever do that as it remains the ultimate non-explanation of all time. No. He says nothing about infinite universes. One universe, many big bangs. Shouting liar along with with your phony choice is being demolished by the very people you like to constantly quote - a Nobel prize winning scientist ,who actually won his distinction within his field of expertise, unlike the many others you like to misrepresent so much. One universe which actually exists does not propose a possibility of multiverses. There was never a need for your fake choice between infinite universes or intelligent design anyway. Now your Nobel prize winner tells you no need for possible infinite universes, things could be explained by just one that exists in reality. Trouble with you Jem for the last 10 years is you've made no progress towards understanding anything at all with your worn out dumb ass non-arguments. I have defined my position on numerous occasions. All you do is ignore every response, make the same weary thick headed argument about what the dictionary states and some brainless comment about agnostic, only to then hopelessly repeat the same question over again. In every aspect of these religious topics, even though refuted over and over and over again, all you can think of is to constantly drone out the same old dead excuse for an argument for it to be knocked down for the umpteenth time. That's what the religious virus can do against thinking for yourself ,and in your case, just thinking in general." ------------------------------------- jems response... 1. you are so ignorant of the science, you should be embarrassed. Whether its trillions of other universes or trillions of other patches of space with different tunings... its the same thing. You were fooled by the nomenclature... and completely misunderstand the point. To counter the conclusion of tuner... some scientists hope to find other differently tuned universes or patches of our universe. Depending on how you Define the word UNIverse or Multiverse. 2. I notice you still don't have the balls to state your own form atheism. And yes we know why... as a troll you state there is no God. However, you realize that stance is indefensible in an adult conversation. so you prefer to troll you ass of.