You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Richard Dawkins, Famed Atheist, Supports Free Bibles In Schools
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Ignoring everything and adressing nothing of what I've said about both those ill-informed comments on every occasion, is really no reason for you to keep repeating themQuote from jem:
The G word might become gravity for Hawking given the 2 conditions which are pure speculation... it is not even theory.
1. you have to have an almost infinite multiverse.
2. you have to accept that a top down approach is even possible.
then gravity may / would select the line of universes you are in to observe.
Weinberg just told you the multiverse is not even a theory, it is pure speculation conjured up to explain the appearance of incredible fine tuning in our universe.
1.
No, you don't have to have an almost infinite multiverse.
For one instance, Weinberg in the vid is talking about the only one constant he thinks has anything to with to do with questions of appearances, and says about it ...
" it's possible that would be explained in a way that has nothing to do with the multiverse."
There, something else you can start to ignore as well now.
2.
Once you can start to understand the significance of top down in relation to this.....
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."
...you might start to appreciate how trying to get the word God, creator or designer into science really will not work.
Your repeated trolling of that bogus question is comedy enough andQuote from jem:
is there such thing as troll comedy or are you just a troll being pathetic and afraid to answer the qeustion?
I've made it clear in this thread about what I think about it.....
Do some highly respected scientists talk about an appearance of fine tuning of the universe....but explain why it would not be?Quote from jem:
1. Do some highly respected scientists state there an appearance of fine tuning of our universe?
Yes or No.
Yes.
Now you can go troll your incomprehension of that about the place.
1. you ignoramus...
he is speculating --- it's possible that would be explained in a way that has nothing to do with the multiverse...
but that is not even a theory... and according to weinberg neither is the mulitiverse.... its just speculation....
at the moment there is no explanation for the appearance of fine tuning with respect to dark energy....
listen to what he says at 3:40 in the video you provided.
2. As I have stated a prerequisite for the Top down approach is the multiverse.... otherwise there would be only one universe and no other universes to proceed from top down.
Not sure what your point is... I do not think you understand the subject matter.
Are you stating hawking was not using a top down approach coupled with the multiverse to suggest that gravity might select the universe you are observing?
3. With respect to explanations of why the universe may appear to be fine tuned -- do you Stu, have any non speculative explanations for the appearance of fine tuning of dark energy?
he is speculating --- it's possible that would be explained in a way that has nothing to do with the multiverse...
but that is not even a theory... and according to weinberg neither is the mulitiverse.... its just speculation....
at the moment there is no explanation for the appearance of fine tuning with respect to dark energy....
listen to what he says at 3:40 in the video you provided.
2. As I have stated a prerequisite for the Top down approach is the multiverse.... otherwise there would be only one universe and no other universes to proceed from top down.
Not sure what your point is... I do not think you understand the subject matter.
Are you stating hawking was not using a top down approach coupled with the multiverse to suggest that gravity might select the universe you are observing?
3. With respect to explanations of why the universe may appear to be fine tuned -- do you Stu, have any non speculative explanations for the appearance of fine tuning of dark energy?
Quote from stu:
Ignoring everything and adressing nothing of what I've said about both those ill-informed comments on every occasion, is really no reason for you to keep repeating them
1.
No, you don't have to have an almost infinite multiverse.
For one instance, Weinberg in the vid is talking about the only one constant he thinks has anything to with to do with questions of appearances, and says about it ...
" it's possible that would be explained in a way that has nothing to do with the multiverse."
There, something else you can start to ignore as well now.
2.
Once you can start to understand the significance of top down in relation to this.....
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."
...you might start to appreciate how trying to get the word God, creator or designer into science really will not work.
Your repeated trolling of that bogus question is comedy enough and
I've made it clear in this thread about what I think about it.....
Do some highly respected scientists talk about an appearance of fine tuning of the universe....but explain why it would not be?
Yes.
Now you can go troll your incomprehension of that about the place.
Quote from bigarrow:
1. you creationist
he is speculating --- design
but that is not even a theory... design
Not sure what your point is... I do not think you understand the subject matter.
1. even though I do understand it... for my argument it is irrelevant.
I provide quotes and support form Nobel Prize winners and top scientsts for the concept that our universe appears to be fine tuned.
This is my argument...
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
".... In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately
led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.
---
Yeah but the universe is not fine tuned by a tuner or designed by a designer, it is simply the way it is. There is no conventional "God" except the laws of nature, and the vast majority of cosmologists, physicists, biologist etc agree with that.
Quote from jem:
1. even though I do understand it... for my argument it is irrelevant.
I provide quotes and support form Nobel Prize winners and top scientsts for the concept that our universe appears to be fine tuned.
This is my argument...
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
".... In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately
led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.
---
Quote from futurecurrents:
Yeah but the universe is not fine tuned by a tuner or designed by a designer, it is simply the way it is. There is no conventional "God" except the laws of nature, and the vast majority of cosmologists, physicists, biologist etc agree with that.
The overwhelmingly vast majority of scientists would have no opinion as to a TOE or Creator. In fact with discovery of the big bang... you could say the faith of scientists change from... the eternal universe to perhaps a creator because the universe had a beginning. When scientist found the background radiation consistent with the big bang... that was a very tough day for eternal universe people. Weinberg was once an eternal universe guy. But the scientific evidence helped pull him off that theory.
You realize you have faith your statement above is correct... Weinberg discussed that in the video...he said we may never find proof that the universe is the way it is (the theory of everything) and weinberg said even if we were to find that the universe is the way it is for natural reasons... that just takes it back part of the way. it does not explain why the universe is the way it is.