Search results

..like the universe for instance.

creators must come from somewhere and must be created by someone/something.

when you argue for science where there is non. when you argue for facts when there are non. when you are a troll and you make a lot of noise and change the subject after you get caught spewing detritus you're gonna be Jem.

So you are saying we have to be content with an invisible magic sky fairy explaining nothing and built upon this the world came into fruition through the collision of some dirt being breathed upon by a supernatural wizard from nowhere not existing in nature and not any common sense notion...

Thought whales evolved from the crockoduck:confused:

yeah ok Jem calm down. You've already made your silly nonsensical point perfectly clear. Michio Kaku is only going to be a "great minds of science" when you say he is. He's not your "great minds of science"regarding AGW, because you say there isn't any science. He is your "great minds of...

.....go Michio Kaku!!!! "the best minds in science." ... oops "the best minds in science." sucks... :D If you ever doubted you were being idiotic Jem, now is the time to embrace the fact.

Receiving the physical phenomenon of being hit over the head with a baseball bat does not manifest itself in any way as faith-based. I'd suggest some religiously inclined folk really do try far too hard to make faith mean something it obviously doesn't, to the point of ridiculous.

No you haven't produced any science ever to show the universe IS fine tuned. There is non so you can't. Jem just stop getting so angry when you're wrong. There is no better context to see it in. The context always was - he didn't say it. You didn't check if he'd said it before you...

He didn't say it. You'd need to see it in the context that he didn't say it you dope. And just what exactly is your point in posting links and videos all the time of scientists who do not say they have any science to demonstrate how there IS any fine-tuning or any need for the universe to...

You obviously decided a long time ago not to understand what science is so there is no understanding for you Jem. Why should I be verifying what looks to anyone with half a brain cell to be nonsense. I've already mentioned there is nothing in Kaku's math or equations or in any one else's nor...

Perhaps because science is not in the business of proving things but is rather the accumulation of knowledge, it is capable of all those things leaving the impossible to philosophy. One crucial difference between science and philosophy and indeed the problem with philosophy, is that it has no...

Some people consider the Kardashions more meaningful or important than science. It doesn't mean they are or are not. But to inquire rationally about that or anything at all, requires the scientific method at some level . If a claim for further higher authority or rationality standards could be...

And I suppose no one should argue against the "great minds of science" like Isaac Newton and his non-scientific beliefs in the occult.:rolleyes: Problem is, a Creator a Tuner or God are not represented in any of Michio Kaku's mathematics or scientific equations or in any scientific...

LOL. Andre Linde is suggesting the universe is all there is and all there need be. :D so why choose something imaginary. :rolleyes: The standard model is incomplete which makes constants appear to need certain values to fit observations. It only needs for those values to be natural...

Nothing destroys the possibility of an intelligent, benevolent Unicorn either. Creators, Tuners, Gods and Unicorns fill gaps They don't provide science with any evidence, facts or reality of the physical world and as such are irrelevant to it. Where does that leave physicists? With natural...

I haven't argued for theory of everything. You're the one who brought it up.o_O And I certainly don't have an anti creator position either, seeing how nature is so good at it. Your Creator is a supernatural concept and as such you haven't and can't provide any science in argument for its...

Jump to what conclusions.o_O I asked you two questions. Nothing scientific points to a 'Creator'. And you may as well say a theory of everything might actually point to a.... Unicorn. The article, like most things you post, doesn't make sense to the point of silly. Par for the course.

Okay well, I've considered it... So is it supposed to be suggesting the universe might be chaotic indicating no 'Creator' or is it supposed to be suggesting the universe might fit to a Hawking equation indicating no 'Creator' ? Other than that it doesn't make much sense really.

Correct, more trolling and you managed a full 360 yet again :D jeez, Whose right? Whose truth? Unless you can define absolute right and absolute truth in all circumstances, then you'll need to rationalize them both. THAT is what's called relativism for fks sake. Facts change. The fact...