Search results

You're hysterical again. Is it the booze? Susskind has particularly dismissed fine tuning by way of a fine tuner and even specifically, by an intelligent designer-fine tuner. You chose Susskind as your authority and he has told you intelligent design is an illusion thereby ruling out your...

Only an ignorant troll like you could post a vid a million times and then not have the intellect to read the written word properly. That must be why you like moving talky pictures so much. ...a physicist who has already previously dismissed fine tuning by way of a fine tuner. It's...

So for all that, you are basically saying , contrary to what christians generally claim, the Bible is not the word of a God but rather writings attributed to people. You are essentially agreeing with piezoe, its authorship is a work of man . Did you mean to do that?

Now you've shown a million and one times the video of a physicist who has already previously dismissed fine tuning by way of a fine tuner.

Not a fact, you've shown nothing of the kind. You've shown a million times, a physicist who has already previously dismissed fine tuning by way of a fine tuner. A religious explanation is not a scientific one. That's the fact.

Your mistake is in assuming the entire account hasn't been taken in to full and open minded consideration. Often when someone hasn't done so, they'll start concluding the Bible and its characters compare as real alongside actual events like slavery. Takes one to know one.

Hoof, Using the Bible as evidence that its own characters are real, is like using Deathly Hallows as evidence Harry Potter is real.

Having dismissed fine tuning by way of a fine tuner, and with math and the laws of physics in evidence, only 3 explanations are going to remain applicable.

It's really gotten to the stage where it must be that you're constantly missing the point because you really are as dumb as your posts portray you to be. Can you really not follow what you are saying from one to the next? Everyone knows Susskind dismisses fine-tuning and intelligent...

OMG. You were talking -about a video- you must have posted more times than atoms in the universe. You said... "Starting at 6 minutes in Susskind states exactly what I have been saying." In response I said -about the video- you've posted more times than soft mick.... "Susskind doesn't...

A scientist says the word god and you go apoplectic. A god explanation , the 'Tuner' you are alluding to, would be a religious assertion, not a scientific explanation. This is how Susskind previously explained god...."The cosmic landscape: string theory and the illusion of intelligent...

Exactly the kind of dishonesty I am objecting to, along with the dissemblance that goes into trying to mix and confuse different and distinct arguments to which Ricter refers. The Tuner being alluded to is not science. It is religious and doesn't belong in science.

I agree with you to a point. Someone stating they want to believe there is a 'Creator' whatever science says or doesn't say, basically I have never had an argument with. If you think it's pointless to argue against misinformation and untrue statements like... "The constants of our universe...

Whatever might not be out of the question for you, a 'Creator' is out of any scientifically based question. That's the thing whether you like it or not. A religious so called explanation, is not a scientific one. Before multiverse comes into it, the rebuttal to that false conclusion is...

.... or rather, natural and inevitable consequences given the misnomer of random chance.

again... you're missing the point It really doesn't take faith. Multiverse is a science based, not a faith based possibility. What takes faith is no science no scientific evidence, just hoping for fine-tuning and a 'Tuner'.

No you are missing the point....and it takes science not faith to discover a plausible method of falsifiability where there was none.

You missed the point. The basis for postulating "fine-tuning/Tuner/Creator/god" is even more unsound (if that were even possible), when the scientifically not-testable multiverse argument it relies upon, becomes scientifically plausible and theoretically testable.

:D "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Get yourself an update Jem, broaden your horizons... Astronomers Find First Evidence Of Other Universes...

:D :D