Richard Dawkins, Famed Atheist, Supports Free Bibles In Schools

[stu]

Quote from jem:
you are such a troll.
Penrose's work is consistent with the idea of incredible fine tuning.
Penrose's work on the subject even calls bullshit on the multiverse explanation.
He says the initial state is so special the multiverse can not even explain the fine tuning.

Penrose's work/proposal supports a different model. A cyclic universe not a multiverse. He is arguing a competing hypothesis.
If you weren't concentrating on name calling so much you might get a clue.

Quote from jem:
do you know what 10 to the 10 to the 123 even represents.
You are a complete fraud to suggest that video is not in context.
I cited to the math in one of our previous threads.

"10 to the 10 to the 123" is not representing a probability in math. How many times until you get it. The necessary constituent parts to form a probability calculation are not available. They are not known. It's like trying to work out probability from a deck of cards when you don't know what values the cards have or what they consist of.

If this universe is said to have a "10 to the 10 to the 123" chance of popping up, then every other possibility also has the same equal "10 to the 10 to the 123" chance of popping up. No pop up is different in its chances from any another. Their chances are equal.

Penrose uses a 'chances are' description in his lecture to argue how a cyclic universe disposes with questions of chance. The snippet in that vid is a typical creationist intentional misrepresentation of what is actually being said.

Quote from jem:
Suskind's video which I cited too numerous times on this thread states God is one of the 4 possible explanations for the fine tuning... one of the others is the multiverse. Susskind freely admits that... I can't figure out why you won't.

Susskind's book clearly rules God out. It's even in the title. You've found an interview on a God Я Us video where he allows it in. Context. Can you work it out?

So his book rules God out, the vid rules it in, but then immediately rules it out with a cancelling God multiverse .
What do you think the chances are that Susskind does not really think God is any kind of explanation? Clue.. it sure ain't a "10 to the 10 to the 123" one. Has to be bigger than that.

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

Lol, you do have a sense of humor after all.

I am totally devastated you didn't realize.
ok, over it.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from stu:


If this universe is said to have a "10 to the 10 to the 123" chance of popping up, then every other possibility also has the same equal "10 to the 10 to the 123" chance of popping up. No pop up is different in its chances from any another. Their chances are equal.

If he could understood that it would take away the magic of belief.

 

[jem]

1. in reverse order...

you did not understand the book when I explained it to you 7 years ago.

here is susskind on tape showing your ignorance.


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




2.
Next... there you are again... telling penrose he does not understand probability.

You could not be more ignorant. He is just about the smartest guy in the world when it comes to calculating probabilities... and you have the nerve to say he does not understand the material.

Stu vs. Penrose

You are completely misrepresenting the science. I gave you a link to the paper. Penrose does the calculations. He explains the necessary constituent parts. You lie and lie and bullshit and lie.

Quote from stu:

Penrose's work/proposal supports a different model. A cyclic universe not a multiverse. He is arguing a competing hypothesis.
If you weren't concentrating on name calling so much you might get a clue.


"10 to the 10 to the 123" is not representing a probability in math. How many times until you get it. The necessary constituent parts to form a probability calculation are not available. They are not known. It's like trying to work out probability from a deck of cards when you don't know what values the cards have or what they consist of.

If this universe is said to have a "10 to the 10 to the 123" chance of popping up, then every other possibility also has the same equal "10 to the 10 to the 123" chance of popping up. No pop up is different in its chances from any another. Their chances are equal.

Penrose uses a 'chances are' description in his lecture to argue how a cyclic universe disposes with questions of chance. The snippet in that vid is a typical creationist intentional misrepresentation of what is actually being said.


Susskind's book clearly rules God out. It's even in the title. You've found an interview on a God Я Us video where he allows it in. Context. Can you work it out?

So his book rules God out, the vid rules it in, but then immediately rules it out with a cancelling God multiverse .
What do you think the chances are that Susskind does not really think God is any kind of explanation? Clue.. it sure ain't a "10 to the 10 to the 123" one. Has to be bigger than that.

 

[stu]

The only response you have when your argument has been debunked is to repeat the debunked argument.

That's moronic.

Quote from jem:
1. in reverse order...

you did not understand the book when I explained it to you 7 years ago.

here is susskind on tape showing your ignorance.


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


2.
Next... there you are again... telling penrose he does not understand probability.

You could not be more ignorant. He is just about the smartest guy in the world when it comes to calculating probabilities... and you have the nerve to say he does not understand the material.

Stu vs. Penrose

You are completely misrepresenting the science. I gave you a link to the paper. Penrose does the calculations. He explains the necessary constituent parts. You lie and lie and bullshit and lie.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

The only response you have when your argument has been debunked is to repeat the debunked argument.

That's moronic.

that is funny...

you state the same bullshit... I provide video proof you are lying and disregard the proof.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
that is funny...

you state the same bullshit... I provide video proof you are lying and disregard the proof.

Constantly puking the same video up, making ill-informed comment from it and then not addressing any of the faults and errors you've made but just repeating the vid again, is proof you are acting like an idiot. Nothing else.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Constantly puking the same video up, making ill-informed comment from it and then not addressing any of the faults and errors you've made but just repeating the vid again, is proof you are acting like an idiot. Nothing else.

does susskind state God is one possible option for explaining the fine tuning of our universe?
There is no controversy, there is no fault, there is no error.
The answer is yes.
The proof is the video of him saying it.

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


I present video proof... you present detritus from your keyboard with a few buzzwords tossed in.

 

[stu]

Stop repeating the same old same old and address the response already made to this a couple pages back.
Susskind's book rules God out. The vid allows God, (do you really not see the context for that!?) but then immediately rules God out again a few seconds later with a God cancelling multiverse.
Susskind does not endorse any God, that much is perfectly clear.

This is a crap reference for a possible God option. Mind you, they all are.

Quote from jem:

does susskind state God is one possible option for explaining the fine tuning of our universe?
There is no controversy, there is no fault, there is no error.
The answer is yes.
The proof is the video of him saying it.

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


I present video proof... you present detritus from your keyboard with a few buzzwords tossed in.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Stop repeating the same old same old and address the response already made to this a couple pages back.
Susskind's book rules God out. The vid allows God, (do you really not see the context for that!?) but then immediately rules God out again a few seconds later with a God cancelling multiverse.
Susskind does not endorse any God, that much is perfectly clear.

This is a crap reference for a possible God option. Mind you, they all are.

you present no response and no logic...

God is an option... multiverse is an option.
listen again...
http://www.closertotruth.com/video-...d-Susskind-/431



Susskind promotes the multiverse option but in so doing, he can rule out God. The multiverse is pure speculation.

you do not cancel out one possible answer by preferring a different possible answer.



and note... even your lies are faulty.

a. multiverse is complete speculation
b. multiverse does not cancel God. It just would explain how our universe could be this fine tuned without a tuner. it does not mean there was no tuner.