Search results

No I am not saying that. I've already pointed out you haven't understood what I did say. Perhaps you would like to try again, go back and read what I actually said. As I say, it is straightforward, afterall.

Bible blocked? Sure. You can't even address the straightforward common conflict created by two biblical commandments. Tying to change the subject by putting blame on everyone and their dog for even mentioning it is the dodge, and you own it.

String theory landscape is referring to the false vacuums or vacua in string theory. It is not part of M-Theory or Multiverse/Megaverse, nor are either of those two a necessary part of string theory landscape. String theory landscape has been used to go on to make various proposals, one of...

This was not about appending anything to anything. You have hierarchical commandments. They constitute real conflicts by their own wording and the way many people take and have taken such superstitions literally. I explained why and you went off on one. I notice it very soon gets to the...

No, really, stop it. You're being far too modest. You always do that way before I possibly could.

Producing false claims and then making no sense is apparently the highest level of religious argument available.

LoL That's not what I said at all. It's straightforward enough. What's your problem in comprehending. Bible block?

Not sure it is just my opinion. Commandment 1 subordinates commandment 2, being biblically described as "This is the first and great commandment." Inevitably there is a conflict, as history so often demonstrates, about first 'loving' an imaginary Lord and such concepts, giving precedence...

The creationist approach of accusing me of doing what you are doing, is old and doesn't work anyway. Making false claims like this "you said the string landscape does not include a multiverse" I didn't and this "...top scientists say the constants are tuned..." they didn't...

One cannot stick to both, nor can one consider humanity, where commandment 1 requires an override of commandment 2. That couldn't happen the other way about. Usurping intent would be to switch commandment 1 with commandment 2.

String theory is not M-Theory. M-Theory is an add-on, an expansion, an extension, an extra to string theory. The text you copied even smirkingly refers to a rechristening of string theory for which the founder of M can't explain. That would include most others too like Stephen Hawking for...

I think there is a conflict. Complete subservience to the first as stated, before all others, contradicts the second. It is a clear testimony to do what you like, so long as one is convinced it is for and by the 'love' of the imaginary Lord. It must include overcoming your neighbor for no...

You've been deceitful in saying "...top scientists say the constants are tuned..." . They don't say that, so you say I'm lying. At least you're maintaining the creationist standard of dimwittery. Where does Stephen Hawkins use the word Multiverse in any of that opening or in the whole...

What action deed or word is less ethical because you didn't first think it necessary to become utterly submissive toward 'loving' an abstract concept before another human being, your neighbor. Would you not suppose it less honorable, more troublesome, for a testament to be demanding first...

Lol. Obviously in your case there isn't even a need for intelligence.

Changed your tune. Now it only appears fine tuned. Stephen Hawkings doesn't even give credence to the word Multiverse. He doesn't use it as an explanation. Now you've learned how the word is does not mean the same as appears , you will next need to stop seeing words that are not being...

If the "god particle" doesn't need a creator, then there's simply no need for a creator. If a creator doesn't need a creator, it's just another description for no need of a creator, without even establishing the need for one in the first place.

You made this false claim. "...top scientists say the constants are tuned..." You obviously need a god , but false claims, deceit and infantile insult is all you have to justify it. Everyone knows, apparently except yourself , that Stephen Hawking states clearly and categorically , no god...

I answered your first claim, which was an untrue claim. So make your mind up. If you can’t even make the distinction between the words are and appear then you're not going to understand much of anything Stephen Hawking says, including his comments about no need for a God/tuner/designer...

No one including "top scientists" has ever supported with science the statement that the cosmological constants are tuned for life, or are tuned for anything else. Richard Dawkins raising the point is not Richard Dawkins saying the constants are fine tuned. Stephen Hawkins says categorically...