Quote from jem:
Stu - you have now come much closer to understanding what I have been saying all along.
In the past you denied that Susskind even said the universe appears designed.
If you do a little more reading you will see the entire point of Susskind book was to show that string theory allows almost infinite solutions to the question of why our universe looks so fine tuned.
He combined his work with the Cosmological Constant work of Steven Weinberg and takes the position that solving equations expecting fine tuning is not anti - science because of the almost infinite solutions String theory offers.
His book and these speeches are very much about explaining why fine tunings can be present and not due to a Creator.
He then states very clearly as I have quoted to you dozens of times. If science shows that there are not almost infinite universes then physicists will be hard pressed to answer the IDers.
jem,
I have understood well what you have been saying all along. It's really not that difficult.
Perhaps you're starting to feel a little better now apparently able to understand a little of what Susskind is actually saying, as all the usual aggression and swearing and cursing in your post has subsided.
But you still seem to be using the word design as if it can be used to mean intelligent design. Design does not mean intelligent design. Susskind does not support any idea of intelligent design.
It should be obvious to anyone who is quoting Susskind or reading or listening to what he says, that if he is wrong, then why should that leave only one other option open to everyone else?
It's obviously also clear if you took the trouble to look, many other physicists and those who actually have won Noble Prizes which you wrongly attributed to Susskind, do not share his views on infinite universes.
They also do not agree with his comment that suggests if he is wrong then others will be any the more hard pressed.
All physicists are "hard pressed" to gain knowledge, despite all the nonsensical misquoting , distortion of meaning, lack of explanation and downright dishonesty of ID'ers.
But really that is not the what your spurious argument is all about.
You have always put forward the intention to suggest what you called " best scientific minds" while constantly quoting one person whom you said was a Nobel winner but actually wasn't, is saying something that he isn't , and therefore if this "top minds in science" as you described Susskind is wrong and there are no infinite universes, then he is saying there could be 'design' , because he says others will be hard pressed to answer ID , even though Susskind flatly says no to 'design'.
Yes your argument is as ridiculous as it sounds.
If you ever were one and if you weren't told to, just going by the things you type, you definitely made the right decision giving up being an attorney dude.
