Hawking: God did not create Universe

[dbphoenix]

free thinker left, leaving me me in charge of this thread.
(i realize your troll / content creation team can resurrect his handle and say I made that up.)

If he could see how stu is mopping up the floor with you, he might change his mind.

Or maybe he got a life . . .

 

[jem]

if you are off you meds db... you might want to read this again... as this is one more quote showing stu to have been lying....

"Such extreme fine-tuning supports the anthropic view of our Universe," he adds.

its at the link... in this study...

New evidence for anthropic theory that fundamental physics constants underlie life-enabling universe
http://phys.org/news/2015-01-evidence-anthropic-theory-fundamental-physics.html
For nearly half a century, theoretical physicists have made a series of discoveries that certain constants in fundamental physics seem extraordinarily fine-tuned to allow for the emergence of a life-enabling universe. Constants that crisscross the Standard Model of Particle Physics guided the formation of hydrogen nuclei during the Big Bang, along with the carbon and oxygen atoms initially fused at the center of massive first-generation stars that exploded as supernovae; these processes in turn set the stage for solar systems and planets capable of supporting carbon-based life dependent on water and oxygen.

The theory that an Anthropic Principle guided the physics and evolution of the universe was initially proposed by Brandon Carter while he was a post-doctoral researcher in astrophysics at the University of Cambridge; this theory was later debated by Cambridge scholar Stephen Hawking and a widening web of physicists around the world.

German scholar Ulf-G Meißner, chair in theoretical nuclear physics at the Helmholtz Institute, University of Bonn, adds to a series of discoveries that support this Anthropic Principle.

In a new study titled "Anthropic considerations in nuclear physics" and published in the Beijing-based journal Science Bulletin (previously titled Chinese Science Bulletin), Professor Meißner provides an overview of the Anthropic Principle (AP) in astrophysics and particle physics and states: "One can indeed perform physics tests of this rather abstract [AP] statement for specific processes like element generation."

"This can be done with the help of high performance computers that allow us to simulate worlds in which the fundamental parameters underlying nuclear physics take values different from the ones in Nature," he explains.

"Specific physics problems we want to address, namely how sensitive the generation of the light elements in the Big Bang is to changes in the light quark mass m_q and also, how robust the resonance condition in the triple alpha process, i.e. the closeness of the so-called Hoyle state to the energy of 4He+8Be, is under variations in m_q and the electromagnetic fine structure constant α_{EM}," he adds.

Brandon Carter initially posited the theory: "The universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage."

Stephen Hawking, expert on the Big Bang and cosmic inflation, extended the dialogue on the Anthropic Principle in a series of papers and books. In "A Brief History of Time," he outlines an array of astrophysics phenomena and constants that seem to support the AP theory, and asks: "Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, ten thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate?"



(More at above url)

 

[stu]

if you are off you meds db... you might want to read this again... as this is one more quote showing stu to have been lying....

"Such extreme fine-tuning supports the anthropic view of our Universe," he adds.

its at the link... in this study...

Of course as a fundamentally dishonest person you would say people are lying.

So not a Creator then. Now it's the anthropic theory as to why the Universe is how it is.

Your general lack of intellect and understanding has ironically done away with the need for a Creator all by itself.

 

[stu]

Exactly like that, but one mans conjecture is another's reasoned opinion. I am not threatened by any mans belief. I have no issues with anyone who doesn't try to impose theory as fact, be they true believers of God, Atheists or Agnostic like myself. Believe what you will, but at this point in time the true facts of all creation is clearly unknowable. That may change in the future, but today it is unknowable.

Yes, but in search for the true facts of all creation so it might not remain unknowable, it simply would not be reasonable or sensible to assume supernatural irrational beliefs should be given equal weight to reasoned scientific knowledge. They are incompatible.

 

[jem]

years ago, you lied for years saying I was lying when I said there were scientists stating our universe appears finely tuned.
I proved you to be the liar.

lately many scientists and much of the literature have / has stated our universe is finely tuned or fine tuned for life.
you lied and said I was lying about that.

I have proven you on this thread again... showing you to be lying your ass off.



now you are trying to act like i am saying the scientists say there is a creator... which is not what I am saying.

you are misrepresenting my argument after I have proven you to be a lying troll over and over and over.

Of course as a fundamentally dishonest person you would say people are lying.

So not a Creator then. Now it's the anthropic theory as to why the Universe is how it is.

Your general lack of intellect and understanding has ironically done away with the need for a Creator all by itself.

 

[jem]

no one is saying that... no one need assume a creator...you need not get your atheistic panties in a bunch when a scientist is accurately quoted.

many of the top scientists have said the constants or our universe are incredibly fine tuned. (proven here on this thread with many quotes)

that situation cries out for an answer. (if you are a thinking person...you would say what could have caused this?)

a. one of the reasonable guesses is that our universe was tuned for life by a Tuner.

b. another guess is the multiverse

c. another is that someday we find the reason the tunings had to be that way.

that is not religion....
that is the state of our current science.
if you could bring your atheist self to admit that... you would become more educated and cease being a troll on this subject.

Yes, but in search for the true facts of all creation so it might not remain unknowable, it simply would not be reasonable or sensible to assume supernatural irrational beliefs should be given equal weight to reasoned scientific knowledge. They are incompatible.

 

[stu]

years ago, you lied for years saying I was lying when I said there were scientists stating our universe appears finely tuned.
I proved you to be the liar.

lately many scientists and much of the literature have / has stated our universe is finely tuned or fine tuned for life.
you lied and said I was lying about that.

I have proven you on this thread again... showing you to be lying your ass off.



now you are trying to act like i am saying the scientists say there is a creator... which is not what I am saying.

you are misrepresenting my argument after I have proven you to be a lying troll over and over and over.

You don't even know what you said or what you're saying. You're untruthful and dishonest, so you wouldn't.
Watching you back-peddle into yet more deceit is the sheer manifestation of your inability to be truthful.

All my argument has been is, scientists say the Universe appears fine tuned, not that it IS.
I've never called you a liar for stating the universe appears fine-tuned, nor would I. So now you've even lied about that.

But that's not what you've been desperately trying to lie about for years.

You've been dishonestly stating directly and indirectly that science and scientists were saying definitively that the universe IS fine tuned.

You do that only to deceitfully try to insert your Creator/Tuner/god into what you say science states or suggests, which of course it does no such thing.

The only thing you have been able to prove is that you are fundamentally dishonest, an inveterate liar and don't have the integrity or intellect to even understand what you say.

 

[stu]

no one is saying that... no one need assume a creator...you need not get your atheistic panties in a bunch when a scientist is accurately quoted.

many of the top scientists have said the constants or our universe are incredibly fine tuned. (proven here on this thread with many quotes)

that situation cries out for an answer. (if you are a thinking person...you would say what could have caused this?)

a. one of the reasonable guesses is that our universe was tuned for life by a Tuner.

b. another guess is the multiverse

c. another is that someday we find the reason the tunings had to be that way.

that is not religion....
that is the state of our current science.
if you could bring your atheist self to admit that... you would become more educated and cease being a troll on this subject.

Perfect example of how you troll that dishonesty of yours. They say it appears fine tuned. To say constants ARE fine tuned would require at least some scientific evidence.
There is none. None at all.

That's the whole thing. How, or even if, a particular value is or what it seems to be, is not scientifically established or accounted for yet.

Guessing the Universe is tuned , is the massive guess before anything else. That is what's sheer speculation.
It is perfectly possible the Universe could not produce any other values than it does; that constants are incapable of being any other way than they are.

That is Inevitability.
An option which removes any guess for what you are calling a Tuner, or whatever.

Of course the situation cries out for an answer. A scientific answer. A supernatural answer in the form of a Tuner is in any event, no answer at all and can never prove anything.

What is your Tuner if it isn't god? You can't even be honest about that! If it isn't something religious, then wtf are you going on about?
You're feigning science only in a disreputable effort to insert and imply an unscientific religious theistic belief.

That's all this is and has ever been about.

Your unintellectual unscientific religious answer, from being the liar you are, can't admit to hiding behind the complete load of unscientific bollocks you constantly troll spun out of non-scientific assertions.

"that is the state of our current science."
Truth is you don't even want to know the current state of science as it smacks you in the face.

 

[dbphoenix]

He's a lawyer (allegedly). What do you expect?

 

[artemstreb]

look at sam harris face @8min