High School Student, Forbidden From Wearing Rosary For His Grandma

[jem]

Quote from futurecurrents:

So like I said. If you ask the top relevant scientists to this argument whether they believe in God, the vast majority would say no. If pressed to ask whether this means there is no possibility of God, those same scientists would say no, there is no way we can say that with 100% confidence. And Susskind is an example.


Leonard Susskind Author, The Cosmic Landscape: String theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design.

Wow you leftist lie rather than admit your worldview is wrong.

You said 95% of scientists were atheist. You did not say agnostic... you said atheist.

I called bullshit... scientists would basically have no position on the subject of creator because science does not penetrate farther back then the first split second after the big bang. I said they were agnostic. And gave the perfect definition from merriam websters...

now you claiming to be correct when you were 100 percent dead ass wrong. Are you stu's sock puppet you argue the same way.

 

[jem]

here was my quote on the issue --

the vast majority of scientist are agnostic, using traditional definitions.

1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

here was my quote on the issue --

the vast majority of scientist are agnostic, using traditional definitions.

1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

Yeah but they would say they're atheists.

 

[jem]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Yeah but they would say they're atheists.

from what I just read on the net... 26 - 40 % depending on the discipline claim to have a disbelief in God and that was in 2007.

but again... I don't really care as about a scientists faith... what I was arguing is that that almost all the top scientists state our universe appears fine tuned.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

As a tuning denialist... you are grasping at speculative faith to deny reality.

alternate universes are not even scientific theory. They are speculation.
They require as much faith as a tuner.

----

Susskind says in this video

He state there are 4 possibilities to explain the knife's edge fine tuning...

guess what one explanation is...

1. God (that is correct... susskind says it)
2. luck
3. megaverse/ multiverse
4. someday find a theory of everything.

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-...d-Susskind-/431

Stu you have been proven wrong on a cosmic level to an epic degree.
and you have been lying your ass off for 7 years.
did you enjoy it.

One of the most famous scientists as you refer to him, says not. Stephen Hawking states the multiverse is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology.
So you're talking bollocks again aren't you.

Brainlessly repeating yourself won't make you right. Address the points that refuted your false suppositions.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

... what I was arguing is that that almost all the top scientists state our universe appears fine tuned.

... and then all those same top scientists explain why it wouldn't be .

Just as the earth appears flat.... and here's why it isn't.

You don't have an argument.

 

[Ricter]

Corn tortillas with an image of the Virgin Mary on them become, when folded and baked, finely tuned tacos.

 

[jem]

their explanations are they following... either

1. Tuner... reasonable speculation if you see tuning.
2. Luck - all agree it is ridiculous given what we know now
3. Multiverse... pure speculation...no observable proof.
4. Hope of a Theory of that explains why we are tuned... which is most likely a Theory of Everything... again speculation.

Quote from stu:

... and then all those same top scientists explain why it wouldn't be .

Just as the earth appears flat.... and here's why it isn't.

You don't have an argument.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

If you consider string theory a valid theory and you speculate that each solution to string theory is a real universe or potential for a universe, I agree with hawking. Susskind just explained it to you. there are blue prints and inflation to make mega verse.

Your game of misrepresenting what I say is not working.

So when you said string theory/multiverse/megaverse was "speculative pseudo science" you must have been misrepresenting yourself then if you would now "agree with Hawking"..
..as of course, he doesn't deal in "pseudo science", speculative or otherwise.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

One of the most famous scientists as you refer to him, says not. Stephen Hawking states the multiverse is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology.
So you're talking bollocks again aren't you.

Brainlessly repeating yourself won't make you right. Address the points that refuted your false suppositions.

So....

The multiverse may be predicted by some theories... but it is still completely speculative.

Even Penrose told you on video M theory is just a collection of ideas.