Hawking: God did not create Universe

[jem]

its as if you have such a psychotic break with reality you didn't not even read the barrow, rees and hawking quotes... just above your crazy lies.

Look you troll moron...stop calling me a liar... when its you.

if the constants of the standard model were not very finely tuned... many of them to over 20 decimal places... CERN would not have been able to find the higgs boson.

that is not a religious statement... its fact.

"the constants of our standard model are very finely tuned to over 20 decimal places"

Yes, you've lied for years just like that...constants which are fine tuned.

Nowhere in your brainless posts has any reputable scientist from Penrose to Hawking to Susskind ever said constants are fine tuned or the universe is fine tuned.

The so called fine tuned values have generally been accounted for by Weinberg; the cosmological constant the exception. As long as that remains unanswered, it's the place your imaginary god Tuner looks for room to squat.

Yes you are a liar, a deluded one and dishonest to the core. Religion does that to people like you.

"he does not appreciate the fact that science refers to this as fine tuning without necessarily concluding a Tuner. "
Science refers to this as an appearance of fine tuning without requiring any need for a so called Tuner.

What Tuner if not god?
That's a deceit you own which will always make you a liar.

 

[jem]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuning

In theoretical physics, fine-tuning refers to circumstances when the parameters of a model must be adjusted very precisely in order to agree with observations. Theories requiring fine-tuning are regarded as problematic in the absence of a known mechanism to explain why the parameters happen to have precisely the needed values. Explanations often invoked to resolve fine-tuning problems include natural mechanisms by which the values of the parameters may be constrained to their observed values, and the anthropic principle.

The necessity of fine-tuning leads to various problems that do not show that the theories are incorrect, in the sense of falsifying observations, but nevertheless suggest that a piece of the story is missing. For example, the cosmological constant problem (why is thecosmological constant so small?); the hierarchy problem; the strong CP problem, and others.

An example of a fine-tuning problem considered by the scientific community to have a plausible "natural" solution is the cosmological flatness problem, which is solved if inflationary theory is correct: inflation forces the universe to become very flat, answering the question of why the universe is today observed to be flat to such a high degree.

 

[futurecurrents]

its as if you have such a psychotic break with reality you didn't not even read the barrow, rees and hawking quotes... just above your crazy lies.

Look you troll moron...stop calling me a liar... when its you.

if the constants of the standard model were not very finely tuned... many of them to over 20 decimal places... CERN would not have been able to find the higgs boson.

that is not a religious statement... its fact.

Funny you call him the troll moron liar. No, they are NOT fine tuned, nor do any scientists say they are fine tuned. THAT'S a fact. It's just like your troll moron lying AGW arguments.

You're actually getting amusing now. Like watching the local raving lunatic. Funny and sad at the time.

 

[jem]

wtf are you talking about fc... here are three from barrow, rees, hawking right below. you can find dozens more from top guys. doing a google search...
you can watch the half dozens videos I have presented with the top guys on this thread an others.

you lying ass, anti science trolls.

ironically... stu once again shows his ignorance of the science he states...

"Yes, you've lied for years just like that...constants which are fine tuned.
Nothing in science says constants are fine tuned."

I realize Stu is so under educated in this area... he does not appreciate the fact that science refers to this as fine tuning without necessarily concluding a Tuner.

However, he is a total dick for being ignorant of the science and calling me a liar...



https://godandsoul.wordpress.com/tag/leonard-mlodinow/

Barrow and Tipler aren’t using “fine-tuning” to promote theism. They are simply describing some of the fine-tuned conditions in the cosmos that make life possible. Similarly, cosmologist Martin Rees, Britain’s Astronomer Royal (and definitely not a theist), also uses “fine-tuning” in a purely objective, scientific fashion:

These six numbers constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be “untuned,” there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator? I take the view that it is neither. An infinity of other universes may well exist where the numbers are different. Most would be stillborn or sterile. We could only have emerged (and therefore we naturally now find ourselves) in a universe with the “right” combination. This realization offers a radically new perspective on our universe, on our place in it, and on the nature of physical laws. . . . If you imagine setting up a universe by adjusting six dials, then the tuning must be precise in order to yield a universe that could harbour life.

—Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 4 and 22.


and....


In The Grand Design, physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow also write about the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant in Einstein’s general relativity equations, calling it “the most impressive fine-tuning coincidence” in cosmology. They go on to describe other fine-tuning problems in cosmology:

Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. . . . The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being.

—Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York: Bantam, 2012), 160-161.

 

[futurecurrents]

wtf are you talking about fc... here are three from barrow, rees, hawking right below. you can find dozens more from top guys. doing a google search...
you can watch the half dozens videos I have presented with the top guys on this thread an others.

you lying ass, anti science trolls.

LOL Look at the lunatic ! Just like your AGW arguments, this one is also a lie. None of them say the universe is fine tuned. And you have the nerve to call US liars? Look in the mirror asshole.

 

[jem]

lets try this again...

if don't understand how big this number in the denominator is .. I understand.
but if you don't understand how finely tuned that makes the initial conditions of the universe... you should not even speak on this issue.

As penrose says... _________________________
please watch the short video and fill in his exact words. (hint its towards the end).


Roger Penrose on Cosmic Fine-Tuning: "Incredible Precision in the Organization of the Initial Universe"
Casey Luskin April 12, 2010 8:00 AM | Permalink
I have no reason to believe that the acclaimed physicist Roger Penrose supports intelligent design. But he's definitely not afraid to take on critics of the argument for fine-tuning. In the video below, he explains that the fine-tuning of the initial entropy of the universe is this precise:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/roger_penrose_on_cosmic_finetu033691.html




and here are the quotes from the 3 people below.
that is fine tuning...



https://godandsoul.wordpress.com/tag/leonard-mlodinow/

Barrow and Tipler aren’t using “fine-tuning” to promote theism. They are simply describing some of the fine-tuned conditions in the cosmos that make life possible. Similarly, cosmologist Martin Rees, Britain’s Astronomer Royal (and definitely not a theist), also uses “fine-tuning” in a purely objective, scientific fashion:

These six numbers constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be “untuned,” there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator? I take the view that it is neither. An infinity of other universes may well exist where the numbers are different. Most would be stillborn or sterile. We could only have emerged (and therefore we naturally now find ourselves) in a universe with the “right” combination. This realization offers a radically new perspective on our universe, on our place in it, and on the nature of physical laws. . . . If you imagine setting up a universe by adjusting six dials, then the tuning must be precise in order to yield a universe that could harbour life.

—Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 4 and 22.


and....


In The Grand Design, physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow also write about the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant in Einstein’s general relativity equations, calling it “the most impressive fine-tuning coincidence” in cosmology. They go on to describe other fine-tuning problems in cosmology:

Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. . . . The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being.

—Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York: Bantam, 2012), 160-161.

 

[Ricter]

If everyone agreed there is a god, would it matter? He or She clearly does sweetfuckall for us.

 

[stu]

If everyone agreed there is a god, would it matter? He or She clearly does sweetfuckall for us.

Except encourage Jem to be closed minded, thoroughly untruthful and a liar.

 

[stu]

lets try this again...

if don't understand how big this number in the denominator is .. I understand.

You're babbling in the incoherence of trying to troll the same posts out time after time in your mindless attempt to make scientists say something they simply do not say .

No reputable scientist from Penrose to Susskind to Hawking and all those in between say the universe is fine tuned.

Get over it and stop lying. You've already made yourself look an idiot.

 

[FortuneTeller]

There is no universe. You are all hallucinating. Ask the Buddhists. They know.