The End of (the catholic) Church
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
PRATT my ass... Penrose is not religious and he a very top scholar... One of the worlds best in this field.
Bullshit... is the term used to describe what et atheists do when they are proven in correct.
you cited Penrose... and this video proves you and no thinker are liars and wrong.
So out of your experts mouth I was proven correct.
After addressing entropy and background radiation... he explains why what is going on in the universe is FINE TUNING.
Bullshit... is the term used to describe what et atheists do when they are proven in correct.
you cited Penrose... and this video proves you and no thinker are liars and wrong.
So out of your experts mouth I was proven correct.
After addressing entropy and background radiation... he explains why what is going on in the universe is FINE TUNING.
When you think about what transpired the last few pages... its pretty funny.
you got the et sock puppet atheists hurling arguments and insults at the person who tells them science does no support the random chance model. they start in with every anti God argument you can think of
1. No evidence of God... comparing God to santa clause
2. Arguing that this was an appeal to authority
3. A clown like stu throwing a term like entropy around as if the idea of entropy somehow magically supported his delusional crap.
4. Stu arguing the universe is cyclical - an argument educated atheist dropped decades ago. And has been rejected by just about every scientific mind in the world since there just about no evidence supporting it.
All that delusional atheist stuff countered in one short Video..
1. There is fine tuning.
2. Use of authority as opposed to "appeal to authority"
3. The authority explains that gravity is such a special exception to the initial state of the universe and the law of entropy that it is proof of FINE TUNING.
4. The background radiation virtually proves the big bang model. Thereby wiping out Stu's cyclical argument as being contrary to the scientific evidence.
The funny thing is these ET atheist's sock puppets still pretend science is on their side.
you got the et sock puppet atheists hurling arguments and insults at the person who tells them science does no support the random chance model. they start in with every anti God argument you can think of
1. No evidence of God... comparing God to santa clause
2. Arguing that this was an appeal to authority
3. A clown like stu throwing a term like entropy around as if the idea of entropy somehow magically supported his delusional crap.
4. Stu arguing the universe is cyclical - an argument educated atheist dropped decades ago. And has been rejected by just about every scientific mind in the world since there just about no evidence supporting it.
All that delusional atheist stuff countered in one short Video..
1. There is fine tuning.
2. Use of authority as opposed to "appeal to authority"
3. The authority explains that gravity is such a special exception to the initial state of the universe and the law of entropy that it is proof of FINE TUNING.
4. The background radiation virtually proves the big bang model. Thereby wiping out Stu's cyclical argument as being contrary to the scientific evidence.
The funny thing is these ET atheist's sock puppets still pretend science is on their side.
jem, you are SUCH an amusing little ignoramus. Too bad you can't market that talent on the Comedy Central channel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
"The existence and extent of fine-tuning in the Universe is a matter of dispute in the scientific community."
Quote from kut2k2:
jem, you are SUCH an amusing little ignoramus. Too bad you can't market that talent on the Comedy Central channel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
"The existence and extent of fine-tuning in the Universe is a matter of dispute in the scientific community."
Of course it is disputed...
science pretty much as drawn the line... you can either choose fine tuning... or you can guess there are 10 to the 500 (read almost infinite) other universes --- thereby explaining why we live in a universe which appears so finely tuned.
in other words fine tuning or faith in unprovable, unobservable almost infinite other universes.
--
from your article...
The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood.[1] The existence and extent of fine-tuning in the Universe is a matter of dispute in the scientific community.
Physicist Paul Davies has stated that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects âfine-tuned' for life".[2] However he continues "...the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires".[2] He also states that "... 'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently ..."[2] Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, e.g., the anthropic principle along with multiple universes. The proposition is also discussed among philosophers, theologians, creationists and intelligent design proponents.
...
The premise of the fine-tuned Universe assertion is that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the Universe radically different. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[8]
If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium.[9] This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the di-proton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang. [9] However, some of the fundamental constants describe the properties of the unstable strange, charmed, bottom and top quarks and mu and tau leptons that seem to play little part in the Universe or the structure of matter.[citation needed]
Everything is constrained to work together perfectly and in unity because it was all one once. There can be no contradictions within a whole.
I was thinking about the arrow of time that stops and starts. Not reversal of entropy.
You were talking of contradiction. Thinking about someone (someone!!? - seriously??) outside of this universe........that would be a contradiction.
My suggestion is that the spontaneous creation of a cyclic universe doesn't even require the contradiction ..."someone outside of it".
The use of "someone" is, obviously, a constraint of language.
A stopped arrow of time. Hmm. Where do you find one of those? You do realize that the Universe, as a closed, singular system, will obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics and move continuously towards greater entropy?
And that "spontaneous creation of a cyclic universe" is a downright theological statement?
Overall, rather an odd post.