Search results

The universe must be able to accomodate any life that can observe it. Where's the explanation?

I didn't say there's anything wrong with it. I think it fair to say anthropic principle tautology isn't generally considered to be an explanation of anything.

Well I don't know about professors arguing semantics. History suggests you don't really want to reason at all, but basically prefer to use a lot of insult and usually utter garbage that is simply untrue. Good guys don't really get to be deceitful the way you are. You're the one who refers to...

I suppose as your reasoning is so fucked up by now all you can do is deny what you said and say I said things I didn't. You called multiverse "speculative pseudo science" , which it isn't, and then with an equal degree of brainlessness, denied you said it. I've never described the...

Utter bullshit. Unsupported undefined supernatural make-believe creator doesn't even fall into the realm of science. That's what religion's for. That's where you can get all illogically agnostic about it.

Still forming conclusion by wiki I see. Anyone relying on the anthropic principle might as well just propose fairies and not bother with any science at all. You know, like you are.

Lol. You've been teaching? Don't make me laugh. Teaching yourself how to be idiotic maybe. "speculative pseudo science of the multiverse" that's what you said. The underlying structure for both string theory and multiverse is theoretical particle physics. They are scientific hypotheses and...

That seems straightforward enough. Say the opposite of what's physically and scientifically factual and voila.....you're a creationist.

That seems straightforward enough. Say the opposite of what's physically and scientifically factual and voila.....you're a creationist.

Science, physics, math, quantum mechanics suggest a Multiverse model. You call that "pseudo science" At least try and get yourself and your own rubbish to agree with themselves. Yes it is, and as he states, it's the science of Gravity not of God.

Calling quantum mechanics and theoretical physics pseudoscience, is one of the endless reasons why your creator designer fine tuning God nonsense won't even make to up to the level of speculation. The Weinberg vid?.. oh yes that... where he said "I don't think it requires a fine tuning...

The written word of Hawking it is then.... "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." "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set...

Just let me decipher that bullshit.... <strike> Stu you truly are a lying troll. Nothing you say is accurate. I taught you all those questions...</strike> Here is the last paragraph of Hawkings paper...<strike> showing you to be an extreme fool.</strike> <strike>you are such a fricken...

1. Here's good context and the link for it. It was already pointed out to you pages ago. But then that's your dimwittedness in all its glory. You ignore everything then repeat the same question or post the same old clipped quotes like a brainless machine. vid at 2/10 "I don't think there's...

I do know a rock is smart enough to understand you talk total bollocks and how you like to keep saying " I provide quotes " yet select only certain snippets that sound like they might support your predispositions all the time to misinform yourself. You chose Weinberg. See what he says about...

1. You have described Steven Weinberg as a great scientist. So this great scientist has said, "I don't think there's really any evidence of very precise fine tuning of the constants of nature." On one constant in particular which needs much more information than the others , he says about...

Ignoring everything and adressing nothing of what I've said about both those ill-informed comments on every occasion, is really no reason for you to keep repeating them 1. No, you don't have to have an almost infinite multiverse. For one instance, Weinberg in the vid is talking about...

You're a troll calling everyone a troll. Face it , your not up to sorting anything out.

I'm not the one being moronic when the distinct inability you have to address the pure fatuousness of your argument leads you to make posts like that.

Well if one constant doesn't appear fined tuned then none do. If one doesn't need to be, none of them do. duh Constants with the appearance of fine tuning that don't need fine tuning kinda defeats your now even more silly, as if that were possible, position anyway .