Search results

When ignoring all others, you keep snipping bits of text only because they sound to you like they agree with whatever you have already decided to believe, you'll never learn better. It's known as willful ignorance.

Predictions can be made. There is an assurance the constants were self selected. It appears you aren't even aware what your sentence says. Of course, Stephen Hawking is using quantum mechanics, physics and math in proposing top-down. It can't in any way be reasonably described as...

Lol yes, game set match against yourself. The constants are self selecting. You said so. No need for 'fine tuning then. The constants' values of course will be what they are, inevitably. Back peddling, by pasting more stock text to confuse yourself by, is not going to help .

Jem, you already nuked your own argument. You bumbled into explaining why there is no need for so called fine tuning. As you clearly don't know what Hawking is saying, there's really no use in you endlessly trolling the same pieces of text about the place . You've made yourself look silly...

Then wtf are you bothered about!!? You've just destroyed your own position all by yourself!!! The constants are self selecting. OMG. You intend to show me you understand this because you've just demolished your own nonsense by yourself? Well thanks anyway. I don't think there is a smiley...

By your own admission then, you are a "troll fraud". sheesh you're pathetic. Yes you linked to the paper a million times. That does not mean you understand what the paper means. Nor does it stop you misrepresenting what it says. Do you know what top down cosmology is or not? Do you even...

murray t turtle, (not an alias, right?) There is no genuine Bible. Only a version which agrees with your beliefs. There are genuine $100 bills, despite your agreement or beliefs.

Of course you will. You have no argument. It's all you can ever manage to do.

I did suggest you stop responding like a twelve year old. Show where Penrose, using only rhetoric "what are the chances", turns into the math probability calculation you are so ignorantly trying to peddle. Leonard Sussind , your authority, gives enough support for himself . "The...

I realize you get angry nasty and abusive because you can't get the ridiculous non-argument you have to work. "whereas in ice cream one certainly envisions chocolate" That however is not what ice cream is. "whereas in top down cosmology one envisions a set of alternative universes" That...

Why haven't you listened to the authority you already relied upon to explain "how all the tuning were set" as you put it? I suggest you listen better to Steven Weinberg who has already told you "I don't think it requires a fine tuning of the constants of nature." Then stop trying to...

No, it's the theist story claiming to be what the atheist story is.

There are many bible believers that will say they and the Bible can prove you wrong. They have GOD on their side just as much as you. About evolution however, you most certainly are wrong . Evolution is not disproved by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, easily or otherwise. With a Bible, or with...

Obviously all together, the odds of any of them occurring are all the same. What is it that you don't get about that? An influence, gravity, means certain combinations will form a fully fledged universe. Stephen Hawking, someone you like to mention a lot can inform you about it, if you'd...

Read again what I said, stop responding like a 12 year old, if you can.

So what after all this time has induced you to write that, instead of what one would normally expect from you, which is to abruptly halt that sentence half way through ....."susskind said the universe appears fine tuned" ...in order to falsely try to infer a tuner/designer/creator on behalf of...

...then you ignore what they otherwise say. Because you're only interested in blindly swallowing, not even querying, selected cut and paste sound bite text a religious website has ripped out of context, to make wrong claims against. I said - you don't understand the missing, though...

It makes no sense and it's wrong. The universe testifies to a universe in the absence of facts to the contrary.

According to the authority you keep repeating like a crazed cut&paste machine-bot, the answer is no. Leonard Susskind included "The Illusion of Intelligent Design" in his book title. So 'a tuner' doesn't even make it to speculative.

Stop repeating the same old same old and address the response already made to this a couple pages back. Susskind's book rules God out. The vid allows God, (do you really not see the context for that!?) but then immediately rules God out again a few seconds later with a God cancelling...