Hawking writes a paragraph in his book. You copy part of it from a religious website and that is Hawking telling everyone how it is. The science from the scientist as you so ludicrously put it. But the part of the paragraph which inconveniently messes up the misdirection of the edit all of a sudden does not mean anything. No longer science from the scientist because of what he says.. Cite you to the page!!? Lol YOU gave the edited quote, the publisher and the page number. duh. You quoted Stephen Hawking suggesting something he doesn't, by copying selectively edited words that theist websites lifted from a paragraph in his book. You have form for doing these things from all over the place. You even deny the spoken words in videos that you post . That is sufficient reason to exhibit how nothing you post is reliable. Taking Stephen Hawkings words as unquestionable when they fit with your false choice between so called fine tuning or multiverse, ignoring every other physicist, the science itself, and Stephen Hawking too when they don't fit, is no more than the brainless theistic pick and choose way to ignorance.
Don't get your hopes up , it wasn't a question. See if your wife will maybe oblige. You never know until you ask him.
You creationist types are just plain weird. You see a question where there isn't one, you want a number for no valid reason, and you want science to say what you think it should. So yeah, you'd believe anything, really. Except reasonable.
you are really stooping low... what a crock of shit. Have you dignity...no spine... no honesty? It was not from a website... it was from his paper. I read his paper, excerpted a quote (completely in context) and gave you a link to the paper. Then later I used a quote from his book which supported the paper. The quote from the book is obviously in context... because that is the premise of the the entire book... THE GRAND DESIGN. The premise of his paper and the book is that top down cosmology coupled with the multiverse explains why our universe seems so incredibly fine tuned. For proof I will post the quote below... You can lead an ET atheist to science but you can't make him think.
The quote you gave from Hawkings book 'A Brief History Of Time' WAS EDITED to mislead..sheesh what would it take for you to see the light of day? Jumping into another quotes fest to make more of your wild assertions will not change that fact. As long as you can't understand you have been actually altering the words said in the vids you have posted for Dawkins, and Susskind in other threads, and the quotes you are cutting and pasting from bible sites are EDITED to give the wrong impression of what is really being said, the less your pathetic unfounded insults and denials mean. All you are doing is trolling pseudoscience and baseless assertion as science. And yeah ok , youâve really overworked the taking to science but canât make them think thing. Especially considering you misspelt theist as atheist.
You are a lying full of shit troll and you keep lying to avoid the issue. You want to blame the messenger and make up shit against the messenger instead of critiquing the science... What you are doing is being an intellectual fraud and liar. Address the science. Argue with Hawking. Here he is in this famous paper... telling you are universe appears carefully fine tuned... you alternative is to speculate there is a multiverse. That is the science... argue with the scientist. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf "In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned - as if prescribed by an outside agency..."
Hey troll show us how this hawking quote from wikipedia and quoted widely on the net is out of context. Cite the page and explain why it is out of context. Especially in light of the 2006 paper I presented.