Hawking: God did not create Universe

[jem]

this is important for you fc... you have no clue as to whether its tuned or not.
go ahead tell us how you know the standard model of physics apparent fine tuning is actually natural.

the truth is you keep yourself ignorant of the science so you don't even really understand what I am asking.

 

[stu]

this is important for you fc... you have no clue as to whether its tuned or not.
go ahead tell us how you know the standard model of physics apparent fine tuning is actually natural.

the truth is you keep yourself ignorant of the science so you don't even really understand what I am asking.

All those invalid conclusions you have lodged in your closed mind is ignorance, not science.

When in science you have a number which needs explanation, a number only occurring in the first place by doing science from the scientific method, the supernatural is no explanation at all and is not science.

You might choose a supernatural proposition as an option, but it is still not science and can't ever be.
When you do consider the supernatural you are not doing science.
Science is the study of the physical and natural world not the supernatural. It's why science works.

Scientists refer only to an appearance of fine tuning to emphasize the peculiarity of a number. Dishonest believers in the supernatural claim there is fine tuning because they are being fundamentally dishonest.

But then as a believer in the supernatural, you're even too dishonest to understand the question or answers, except for your own supernatural one.

 

[jem]

what a deceitful misleading troll response stu. you took my question and argued as if I was arguing the converse is the answer... which is not what I am doing.


1., the point is there is no known or observable natural explanation...

so as you say...

"You might choose a supernatural proposition as an option"....
or you might opt for belief in the unobserved un proven almost infinite universe option.

2. Top atheistic physicists say the universe in which we live appears fine tuned.
I have given you quotes and videos from at least a dozen top guys.
why do you mislead about basic facts. I have given you quotes from Hawking Susskind and many others. Rees and other have written books on the subject.

summary...

there is an argument/discussion over over the cause of the apparent fine tuning... not whether it exists.

if you deny that you are a troll liar and a moron.

 

[stu]

you took my question and argued as if I was arguing the converse is the answer...

wtf?

which is not what I am doing.

Quite frankly by now it must be obvious to most people except yourself, that you don't know what you are doing.

1., the point is there is no known or observable natural explanation...

so as you say...

"You might choose a supernatural proposition as an option"....

which would be non scientific, unsupported by any science, with no math and no physics. In fact it's no kind of a scientific proposition at all.

or you might opt for belief in the unobserved un proven almost infinite universe option.

which nevertheless is scientific, supported by science, with lots of math and physics indicating it to be a possible explanation.

there is an argument/discussion over over the cause of the apparent fine tuning... not whether it exists.

It is only an apparent fine tuning. It may be the number is an inevitable outcome as Hawking states and therefore not even exist as anything that can be considered as fine tuning, apparent or not, in the first place.

Whatever you're confusing yourself with, it isn't science.
You're simply trying to squeeze in a supernatural Creator where science is incomplete.
God of the gaps.
It's old , it's crap and utterly dishonest.

 

[FortuneTeller]

God didn't create the Universe. The Universe created God. And God has been here ever since.

 

[stu]

The religious fine tuning claim merely illustrates how imaginary divine creators are obviously unable to create a universe whose conditions do not allow for it.

 

[dbphoenix]

The religious fine tuning claim merely illustrates how imaginary divine creators are obviously unable to create a universe whose conditions do not allow for it.

One might consider this to be a failure of imagination, but it is also at least a complete failure to understand what science and the scientific process are all about.

 

[jem]

see how stu just fooled you.
he qualified his entire line of bullshit... by putting the world religious in front of "fine tuning". its typical of his crafty troll lies. if called out he denies any intent to mislead.

but... the claim that the the standard model of physics is fine tuned with some of the physical constants being tuned to over 120 decimal places.

Stu did not understand that for years here on ET. he argued the cosmological constant could be zero.
he apparently did not understand that changing the number to a 3 out 120 places out causes.

you go are leftists who just stick you head in the sand.
here is one of the smartest smartest guys in the world on this:

and susskind the cofounder of string theory...

here is an atheist arguing against the science...
I find it funny that that the shirt the atheist is wearing is that monkey into man drawing I saw in the NY natural history museum as a kid which I could not find the last time I was there.

why not? because science has progressed since the 60s and 70s...(although not for Stu and the lefties here.) we know believe man did not spring forth from a monkey but we may have a common ancestor.

 

[futurecurrents]

But it was not fine tuned because there is no fine tuner. "Appearing" fine tuned does not mean it "is" fine tuned nor do the scientists say that in way shape or form.

Who are you trying to kid jem? Just like with AGW, you are being dishonest.

 

[jem]

you are a lying troll fool.

every scientists with a degree from a real school will say...
that as of now science can not rule out a Creator because we can not see back past the big bang and consequently we do not know what if anything created the big bang.