Still getting the wrong end of the stick on purpose from repeating only one half of things I see. What you have c&p'd is why Stephen Hawking is proposing in that document 'top down' and not 'bottom up' , explaining that with 'top down', there need be no postulation of an initial state being so called "fine-tuned". sheesh ...at least make your fatuous non-arguments look a bit more convincing.
Not sure about consequences in the After Life. Does believing in the After Life, 40 virgins or whatever, Heaven, Hell, all that mean that all these actions in Real Life are somehow sanctioned by a Creator? How would you, or could you, reconcile all the killing and hating between religions? Some believe life starts when not within the mother or the test tube. Do you feel that all test tube bacteria should be allowed to live as well? OK to kill murderers, which I have no problem with really, but not ok to abort a combination of body fluids? I am against abortion, especially when used for contraception. I have personally saved more than one, would be aborted individuals, and damn proud of it. But, to turn back the clock by legislation, is not right IMO.
If you had more than a troll I.Q. you would read that the novel propostion is Hawkings top down... but that that if you use our currently classical framework our universe appears designed as if by an outside agency or you can make no predictions by speculating eternal inflation. And if you choose to speculate top down... you speculate about the existence of almost infinite other universes... as we just disucussed and as we have discussed on many other threads. you atheists keep hanging your hat on... unseen, unproven, untestable, faith in other univereses... good for you. I stick to the science we know.
My point is not that these beliefs are correct or incorrect, just that it is no more valid to say a Catholic has to leave his faith on the steps of congress or the voting booth than to say the same thing to someone who has faith there is no creator. They are both unproven points of view... we all view the world through different lens... you really can not say your lens is superior voting lens. Lets say you were gay in the 50s... when gay was still a disorder. Should we have said gays can't vote to repeal sodomy laws because they had a viewpoint dictated by their homosexuality.
Right, thus it is better to just keep Religious beliefs to ones self, as Kennedy said. Politics and Pontification don't mix IMO.
So what you're really saying when you keep posting only half a story is that not using the classical bottom-up model, but applying a top-down model instead as presented by Hawkings, resolves those appearances of design as if buy an outside agency as he explains. You are wrong in saying top-down cosmology speculates requiring infinite other universes. It does no such thing. Top-down cosmology proposes an anthropic (compatible with human cognizance) explanation without requiring any multiverse. Unlike politics and government, a separation of religioous beliefs at a fundamental level is not necessary as by definition, unseen unproven un-testable faith will never be science. It is the antithesis of it.
what makes you think biblegod is anti abortion in the first place? there are several examples in the bible of god using or commanding abortion.
You are missing the point... and I do not need to get sidetracked by your bullshit... if you had the quotes in context you would link to them. The country was founded with a respect for religion. We taught Christianity in public schools for the first 150 years. Office holders had to show they believed in God. People had to swear oaths on a bible. So the founders certain wanted voters with and conscience informed by their religious beliefs. In fact if you think about it, its intolerant to have voters with other worldviews voting their beliefs and then telling a christian not to voter theirs.
what you are attempting to obfuscate... is that hawking stated classical physics tell you our universe appears designed as if by an outside agency... but there may be other explanations... none of them proven.
It's all really straight forward once you stop trying to make this into something it isn't. Stephen Hawking explains a bottom-up approach to cosmology leads to one losing "all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is." He makes it clear that from his perspective, both carefully fine tuned or eternal inflation as a basis to work from, are both of no use as they prevent discovery. Thus he proposes what he says is the more useful approach of top-down. An anthropic approach, which is not referring to any "appearance of design as if by outside agency", or for eternal inflation, and by the way once again, top-down does not require infinite other universes as you wrongly assert. You like to repeatedly quote Stephen Hawking. He also states this. Why don't you ever use it instead of trying to misunderstand papers that don't say what you say they do? No appearance or need of (intelligent)design nor unobservable eternal inflation, nor multiverses, just simply because there is gravity....... "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing". "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." Stephen Hawking At least you constantly make it very obvious why religion needs to be kept clear of things that have real and practical implications for everyone.