Does anyone actually believe in God or are they just afraid...

[WaveStrider]

Physicists have still NOT renounced the idea of a multiverse!!

Where are the atheists (so-called) to demand proof of their existence? Have they abandoned their principles??

We know for a fact that a multiverse does not exist because we can apply the same logic:

FACT: There is no past verifiable proof of a multiverse.
FACT: There is no verifiable proof of a multiverse in the present.
FACT: Because we can see infinitely into all future time, we know there will never be proof of a multiverse in the future.

This is iron-clad logic. It must be what the Pope of Atheism, Richard Dawkins, follows.

Atheists (so-called) MUST DEMAND that physicists stop believing in such Tooth Fairies!! Next, they will start postulating about Flying Spaghetti Monsters!! Any further inquiry must stop NOW!

DEMAND THEY STOP LOOKING!! STOP! STOP! STOP!!!!!!!!

Thank you.

 

[murray t turtle]

Does anyone actually believe in God or are they just afraid of the personal ridicule they would receive if they said they didn't?

Over the last 2 weeks I've gone on dates with 4 single girls that all swear to me that they are very religious, I don't say anything about it. I just say I was raised in a Catholic household.

Well after our 1st date I "drop a bomb" the next day and tell them, that I don't think it's going to work because I'm agnostic. Hesitant at first, they are all ok with it after I tell them that 80% of my friends go to church and that I participate in volunteer activities, and social events at a local church, just because I find that it's typically made of high quality people.

After saying this, they have no issue... so my thinking is that no one actually believes, they just like the type of people that go... typically thought of as conservative, college educated well mannered and successful.

============
Well, Joe, you did notice some valid patterns;
easier to talk than walk.

Fear of God, could be a valid reason to believe , perhaps not the best reason.But since about 24,000 people get struck by lightning[about 58/+, in US]; that is a an acceptable reason to recieve the death, burial, resurrection of Jesus Christ according to the holy scriptures.

As far as the gate being strait+ few finding Him, that proves holy scripture ; it does not disprove Holy Scripture. Good question

 

[jem]

thank you. interesting.

fwiw - I read this yesterday, you have probably all seen it anyway.

http://aeon.co/magazine/nature-and-cosmos/can-we-tell-if-reality-is-a-computer-simulation/

 

[jem]

no -- in our universe the value could not be zero... if you change the cosmological constant by about -.122 or larger our universe would have crunched our universe or torn it apart. The cosmological constant balances out gravity... that perfectly. It is that finely tuned.

Do you really not understand the concept of fine tuning of this universe? or are you just trolling?
While the universe had infinite combinations possible... the combinations which could have allowed us to come into existence are incredible finely tuned.
Don't you get it. Do you not watch the videos?

If you change the Cosmological Constant by just one part in .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (count 122 zeros) the universe ceases to exist.

The Standard model of the universe has 20 or so constants tuned to 32 decimal places. If you change a constant ever so slightly the universe ceases to exist.

Virtually no one with a brain thinks that kind of tuning can happen by random chance if there is only one universe.

Are you suggesting now that any value must be fine tuned , including zero, and an ever so very slightly non zero also - as if nature is incapable of falling into any value by itself.



You've proven nothing other than how much you're relying on mentioning multiverse to prop up your deity.
You've previously called me liar for even suggesting constants in regions of this universe could vary, now you're acknowledging it. I suppose that’s progress for you, of sorts.
With infinite variations possible in the laws of nature, any kind of universe is possible. The need or question for a supernatural agency rendered pointless.

 

[stu]

no -- in our universe the value could not be zero...

Don't you get it. Do you not watch the videos?

If I got all information from only watching the videos you do, then I'd understand as little as you.

what you say is untrue.....it simply is not known what value the cosmological constant will turn out to be. And anyway......

http://www.technologyreview.com/vie...-laws-of-physics-are-not-fine-tuned-for-life/

But I'll let the Captain say it for me perhaps you'll understand better

It's all "settled science" don't ya' know. Opinion is now fact in the new world of science turned political activism. No real scientist would ever make such a absurd claim as to know for certain what is currently unknowable.

..and there's you all the time Captain, saying how its all "atheists" who need to have an open mind and some humility, when the one here being a closed minded settled science know it all is a rabid theist.

 

[stu]

In Uranus?

...the planet

 

[WaveStrider]

Have the atheists (so-called) stopped that physicists idea nonsense yet?...

Because as surely as night follows day (or, is that day follows night....?)

First it is "Multiverse", then it will be Spaghetti Monsters. That is not a non sequitur assertion, it is a FACT since "S" follows "M" in the alphabet! It is the natural order of how that works! FACT! Look it up!!

Atheists must not be hypocrites and let these physicists get away with such nonsense! Stop them! NOW!!

 

[jem]

First of all Stu... let me congratulate for the first time (maybe the second time) in 5-10 years in which you produced science to counter the science I was linking to.
I guess you finally figured your troll bullshit had lost all credibility.

As your article states its pretty well settled that the cosmological constant is tuned to 122 places... but your scientist might have found a hint that it might not be the case.


good... let the SCIENCE, not stu bullshit, challenging the idea of our constants in our universe being finely tuned... finely begin here on ET.



Here is the link to the cornell library to the paper your article cited....
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.2444


Preliminary Inconclusive Hint of Evidence Against Optimal Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant for Maximizing the Fraction of Baryons Becoming Life

Don N. Page
(Submitted on 12 Jan 2011 (v1), last revised 28 Jan 2011 (this version, v2))
The effective coupling `constants' of physics, especially the cosmological constant, are observed to have highly biophilic values. If this is not a hugely improbable accident, or a consequence of some mysterious logical necessity or of some simple principle of physics, it might be explained as a consequence either of an observership selection principle within a multiverse of many sets of effective coupling constants, or else of some biophilic principle that fine tunes the constants of physics to optimize life. Here a very preliminary inconclusive hint of evidence is presented against the hypothesis of optimal fine tuning of the cosmological constant by a biophilic principle that would maximize the fraction of baryons that form living organisms or observers.

 

[Ricter]

First of all Stu... let me congratulate for the first time (maybe second in 5-10 years in which you produced science to counter the science I was linking to.
I guess you finally figured your troll bullshit had lost all credibility...

Excellent way to generate Stu's interest in your reply!

 

[jem]

Here is a quote from Stu's paper. Pretty much confirming what I have been saying is the state of science for the last 5-10 years here on ET.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.2444v2.pdf

1 Introduction
It has long been recognized that many of the apparent constants of physics are
observed to take values that are much more biophilic (in the sense of being conducive
to life and observership) than values significantly different are believed to be [1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. For example, the cosmological constant (or dark energy density)
that quantifies the gravitational repulsion of empty space is roughly 122 orders
of magnitude smaller than the Planck value, but if it were just a few orders of
magnitude larger than its tiny positive observed value [8, 9], with the other constants
of physics kept the same, life as we know it would appear to be very difficult.
A partial explanation for this apparent fine tuning is the anthropic principle
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], that as observers we can observe only conditions (including the
constants of physics) that permit our existence. However, it has been controversial
what the deeper implications of this are.
One view is it is purely an accident or coincidence that the constants of physics
have biophilic values, and that there is no deeper explanation. However, the fact
that the cosmological constant is roughly 122 orders of magnitude smaller than the
apparently simplest natural nonzero value for it (the Planck value) cries out for
an explanation beyond pure coincidence, since the probability of such a remarkable
coincidence from a random selection of the cosmological constant with a measure
uniformly distributed over a range roughly the Planck value is extremely low, much
less than the probability of having a monkey randomly type on a simple typewriter
in one go,
The cosmological constant is 10^(-122) in Planck units
====

by the way... the next section should disabuse Stu of more of his 7 years of bullshit..