Atheism

[jem]

when was the last time you posted a link to science to support any of your silly statements? How many times have I had to explain to you... scientifically speaking when you argue for a theory of everything you are not advancing your anti creator position.

So, yes I could have said Unicorn... but contrary to what you do, I don't simply make my arguments on science threads based on what I think... I provide science and scientists. On this thread alone I have provided multiple quotes from the best scientists in the world, many of whom are atheists who state one explanation for the fine tunings of our universe could be a tuner.

you seem to be a paid content provider who can't provide any real content.
You do however write specious stuff well.

Jump to what conclusions. 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.

 

[jimmiebarton]

stu is not paid content bot, his deep logis is way beyond bot

but, other hand, you are stupid enough to be a bot (my apology to AI everywhere)

 

[stu]

when was the last time you posted a link to science to support any of your silly statements? How many times have I had to explain to you... scientifically speaking when you argue for a theory of everything you are not advancing your anti creator position.

So, yes I could have said Unicorn... but contrary to what you do, I don't simply make my arguments on science threads based on what I think... I provide science and scientists. On this thread alone I have provided multiple quotes from the best scientists in the world, many of whom are atheists who state one explanation for the fine tunings of our universe could be a tuner.

you seem to be a paid content provider who can't provide any real content.
You do however write specious stuff well.

I haven't argued for theory of everything. You're the one who brought it up.
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 existence past imaginary.

There is non. Never has been. Unicorns are irrelevant to science as is your supernatural Creator . They're in the same category. Its why you have blind faith in place of science if you want to believe in them. Everyone knows and understands that, except it seems for you.

Science and scientists use the words fine -tuning as metaphor for the assumed values of unexplained parameters which seem to be necessary for the universe to exist. Everything in science and any rational argument outside it point to, bottom line, those parameters being what they are due to the inevitable outcome of natural events.

Frankly it's batty in the 21st century to be still arguing for -god of the gaps- like you are. Anything unexplained and it's.... Godidit (or Unicorns apparently). sheesh.

 

[jimmiebarton]

good men will do good things. evil me will do evil things.
takes religion to make a good man do evil things.

 

[jem]

Did I call him a bot?

There are professionals who provide content for money to forums.
I pretty much guarantee Jack Hershey was one.

One of my websites had been approached by content vendors many times. At the time I should have said yes. The topic has since died off but I when I was top of the search engines I made great money. I got so busy I ceased providing consistent content. Professional content may have kept me at the top of google longer. At the time I paid an seo pro to take a look. He said I had link rot. But good content probably would have kept the links coming.

stu is not paid content bot, his deep
logis is way beyond bot

but, other hand, you are stupid enough to be a bot (my apology to AI everywhere)

 

[jem]

you can keep on writing your distorted bullshit..

I will stick with the scientists and the science.


http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator\

What About God?
....



“I don’t think that the multiverse idea destroys the possibility of an intelligent, benevolent creator,” Weinberg says. “What it does is remove one of the arguments for it, just as Darwin’s theory of evolution made it unnecessary to appeal to a benevolent designer to understand how life developed with such remarkable abilities to survive and breed.”

On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”

...

 

[stu]

“I don’t think that the multiverse idea destroys the possibility of an intelligent, benevolent creator,” Weinberg says.

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.

On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists?

Where does that leave physicists?
With natural events of course, otherwise they aren't doing science.

He said I had link rot.

Are you sure he didn't say think rot.

 

[jimmiebarton]

if there is a creator you can't know his mind anyway. it is beyond comprehension.

 

[jem]

perhaps... or maybe we are all slightly connected to a larger deal. On this subject it may be beyond your comprehension for multiple reasons. I suspect Andre Linde... a seriously top physicist on this subject may have an opinion worth considering.

I will go back an get the quote.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator\

What About God?
....


On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”

As for Linde, he is especially interested in the mystery of consciousness and has speculated that consciousness may be a fundamental component of the universe, much like space and time. He wonders whether the physical universe, its laws, and conscious observers might form an integrated whole. A complete description of reality, he says, could require all three of those components, which he posits emerged simultaneously. “Without someone observing the universe,” he says, “the universe is actually dead.”

Yet for all of his boldness, Linde hesitates when I ask whether he truly believes that the multiverse idea will one day be as well established as Newton’s law of gravity and the Big Bang. “I do not want to predict the future,” he answers. “I once predicted my own future. I had a very firm prediction. I knew that I was going to die in the hospital at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow near where I worked. I would go there for all my physical examinations. Once, when I had an ulcer, I was lying there in bed, thinking I knew this was the place where I was going to die. Why? Because I knew I would always be living in Russia. Moscow was the only place in Russia where I could do physics. This was the only hospital for the Academy of Sciences, and so on. It was quite completely predictable.

if there is a creator you can't know his mind anyway. it is beyond comprehension.

 

[jem]

water fills gaps too. does that make it imaginary.

to those with minds big enough to think in systems... when you see the constants of our standard model be proven to be tuned to 20 or more decimal places and one constant being tuned to over 120 decimal places you understand that it is ridiculous to argue the universe was tuned this precisely by random luck of natural forces... unless you had almost infinite other universes.

apparently you don't understand that point. Luckily our top physicists do understand.

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 events of course, otherwise they aren't doing science.



Are you sure he didn't say think rot.