This is the kind of thing that happens when a society accepts homosexuality

[jem]

I realize you do not understand science. So I spoon it out for you.

Susskind said at the end of trendlovers video that the universe in
which we live "looks as if it was intelligently designed.

What more do you fricken need? are you some kind or moron.

Now the whole buildup to that sentence was the his speculation about infinite other universes... But if you understood science - you would know we have no proof of other universes or landscapes.

Listen for yourself. it is about 2min 25 seconds in.

Then back it up and understand that when Susskind says there are "many different environments" he is referring to his string theory speculation that there are almost infinite universes.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDgzRIiQ4b8

 

[jem]

The quote below makes it clear stu is wrong.

P.s. this is my last post on this subject unless STU quotes a true authority.

His own rants will not suffice as a worthy response.

Quote from jem:




Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: “Everyone has their own reason why they’re keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.”

But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isn’t conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?

Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it “an abdication of human intelligence.” That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.” But even if you don’t go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why.

http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

below is all you need to know that stu is delusional.

Stu -

1. Is this a U.S. Supreme Court case?

2. Does it cite state Supreme Court Case law and State Constitutions.

3. If your answer is yes - than you were delusional. If you answer is no you still are delusional.

1. Is this a Supreme Court case directly to do with making law to found a [christian] state or nation?

2. Did you brainlessly or fraudulently mention a Supreme Court case which itself is not about making such law?

3. Whatever , you are a first class pratt either way , but through it all were able to learn how to spell cite.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

I realize you do not understand science. So I spoon it out for you.

Susskind said at the end of trendlovers video that the universe in
which we live "looks as if it was intelligently designed.

What more do you fricken need? are you some kind or moron.

Now the whole buildup to that sentence was the his speculation about infinite other universes... But if you understood science - you would know we have no proof of other universes or landscapes.

Listen for yourself. it is about 2min 25 seconds in.

Then back it up and understand that when Susskind says there are "many different environments" he is referring to his string theory speculation that there are almost infinite universes.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDgzRIiQ4b8

So ok, you just can't get it in your thick head that the vid itself always did bust your silly idea to bits.
For 2 min 25 Susskind flat out says the opposite to what you say he does.

Then , whether or not there are other universes, it is nothing to do with the fact he is saying all the time this universe isn't designed.

" I don't believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence. "
"Random mutation, a bunch of carbon, oxygen, [and] other stuff for that mutation to work on... "

Susskind even says at the end there, that [mutiverse] is his view but other people have different views.

Multiverse in no way alters his comments about no (intelligent) design anywhere in the recording .

There are plenty other physicist, some who actually do have one of what you say is a "noble " prize, who will agree with Susskind there's no (intelligent) design and will show him alternative models which need no multiverses.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

The quote below makes it clear stu is wrong.

P.s. this is my last post on this subject unless STU quotes a true authority.

His own rants will not suffice as a worthy response.

That's right, way past time you backed down.

The true authority is the Constitution and the fact there is no Supreme Court Law to confirm this country is founded on [christian] religion
The quote merely displays your ignorance on such matters.

Bernard Carr's philosophizing is not science or physics or law JEM. It's essentially pontificating. Shows how much you understand anything.

Still any old quote will do for you even when it actually proves your own daft points to be wrong. You are that dumb.

Just like Trinity Law is not founding law and Trinity dicta is not rule of law.

Good idea to shut up seeing how you've already made such an utter fool of yourself .

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

So ok, you just can't get it in your thick head that the vid itself always did bust your silly idea to bits.
For 2 min 25 Susskind flat out says the opposite to what you say he does.

Then , whether or not there are other universes, it is nothing to do with the fact he is saying all the time this universe isn't designed.

" I don't believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence. "
"Random mutation, a bunch of carbon, oxygen, [and] other stuff for that mutation to work on... "

Susskind even says at the end there, that [mutiverse] is his view but other people have different views.

Multiverse in no way alters his comments about no (intelligent) design anywhere in the recording .

There are plenty other physicist, some who actually do have one of what you say is a "noble " prize, who will agree with Susskind there's no (intelligent) design and will show him alternative models which need no multiverses.

Let me teach you critical thinking....

1. is there proof of multiverse -- no it is conjecture.

2. The universe we know of appears designed.

3. Posit the conjecture of infinite universes (multiverse - landscape - environments) to defeat idea there must be a designer.

4. Use string theory to support that conjecture could be possible.

5. Write book, give lectures.

6. Understand that scientists and a cardinal schorboom understand but zealous atheists will not understand because they do not understand probability.

7. Bernard Carr comes along (after JEM started explaining to atheist dolts at ET) and explains it clearly so that even a 2nd grader could understand.

Zealous atheist calls the explanation philosophizing.

 

[jem]

Try answering the questions troll.


Stu -

1. Is the trinity case a U.S. Supreme Court case?

2. Does it cite state Supreme Court Case law and State Constitutions.

3. If your answer is yes - than you were delusional. If you answer is no you still are delusional.

Apparently you would rather make a fool of yourself than be truthful.

Let me explain something to you.

If the U.s. Supreme court cites a state supreme court case... or state constitution... approvingly... that means that case is good law.


Your questions below show how juvenile your thought process is.


Your quotes have numbers next to them.

1. Is this a Supreme Court case directly to do with making law to found a [christian] state or nation?

jem -- To answer your truly silly question... the Supreme Court said the foundation of its is ruling is that we are a Christian Nation. The court did not make that law because it found the law already existed. It applied the existing law to the issue at bar. Yes.. that was the law. We are a Christian nation. (at that time)


2. Did you brainlessly or fraudulently mention a Supreme Court case which itself is not about making such law?

This is where you are a fool. The holding or dicta did not matter to the question.

It was the citation of State Supreme Court Cases and State Constitutions which matters for our issue.

In the trinity case the Supreme Court cited those ties as constitutional and appropriate.

Those citations are proof you are delusional when you claim those ties were unconstitutional. (The court cited those ties... therefore they were constitutional. ) That is how the law works. Your ignorance is now manifest.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Let me teach you critical thinking....
LOL you’ve got to be kidding.. Before you try to teach anyone critical thinking, first off you are going to have to learn how to THINK!

1. is there proof of multiverse -- no it is conjecture.
So from now on when anyone asks you is there proof of God, presumably you'll now reply "-- no it is conjecture"

2. The universe we know of appears designed.
...though It doesn’t appear intelligently designed when you look at it scientifically and Susskind says it isn't.
So no, wrong, fail. The universe “we” know of does not appear intelligently designed.

3. Posit the conjecture of infinite universes (multiverse - landscape - environments) to defeat idea there must be a designer.
Why would you posit something you say is only conjecture, and expect it to defeat something else that is far worse - an unfounded and wild assertion?
When does the critical thinking "teach" start?

4. Use string theory to support that conjecture could be possible. Susskind can't. You most certainly can’t.
That’s why he says …. “others don't agree with me”.
He's technically being honest.
Unlike you who is non-technical to the point of buffoonery, and dishonest.

5. Write book, give lectures.
ok for Susskind to do, but going by your posts, I suggest you don't waste too much time trying to write your own name.

6. Understand that scientists and a cardinal schorboom understand but zealous atheists will not understand because they do not understand probability.
Exactly, you don't understand probability and you don't understand what anyone like Susskind , "scientists" and "a cardinal schorboom" is actually saying, even when you hear or look at the words they use.

7. Bernard Carr comes along (after JEM started explaining to atheist dolts at ET) and explains it clearly so that even a 2nd grader could understand.
Zealous atheist calls the explanation philosophizing.
The clue is in the title of the link you used and in one very simple question, any one who was using any critical thinking could ask themselves or Bernard Carr for that matter, if there need be a designer, then there need also be a designer for the designer.

Infinite regress is all that comes out of Bernard Carr's own conjecture.

Never mind the critical thinking, when are you ever going to be able to get past the raging theist in you to just think in a straight line JEM?

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Try answering the questions troll.


Stu -

1. Is the trinity case a U.S. Supreme Court case?

2. Does it cite state Supreme Court Case law and State Constitutions.

3. If your answer is yes - than you were delusional. If you answer is no you still are delusional.

You would rather make a fool of yourself than be truthful.

Let me explain something to you. If the supreme court cites a State supreme court case... or state constitution... approvingly... that means that case is good law. There is no higher authority.

I did not think I had to spell that out. My 4th grader understands that concept.

Your questions below show how juvenile your thought process is.

Why are you still asking erroneous questions which have nothing to do with whether Trinity was a US Supreme Court Case, making Law on US being a [christian] nation.
Which of course it did not and is not.

You are either really very dense or being deceitful. Which is it?

 

[jem]

Quote from jem:

Try answering the questions troll.


Stu -

1. Is the trinity case a U.S. Supreme Court case?

2. Does it cite state Supreme Court Case law and State Constitutions.

3. If your answer is yes - than you were delusional. If you answer is no you still are delusional.

Apparently you would rather make a fool of yourself than be truthful.

Let me explain something to you.

If the U.s. Supreme court cites a state supreme court case... or state constitution... approvingly... that means that case is good law.


Your questions below show how juvenile your thought process is.


Your quotes have numbers next to them.

1. Is this a Supreme Court case directly to do with making law to found a [christian] state or nation?

jem -- To answer your truly silly question... the Supreme Court said the foundation of its is ruling is that we are a Christian Nation. The court did not make that law because it found the law already existed. It applied the existing law to the issue at bar. Yes.. that was the law. We are a Christian nation. (at that time)


2. Did you brainlessly or fraudulently mention a Supreme Court case which itself is not about making such law?

This is where you are a fool. The holding or dicta did not matter to the question.

It was the citation of State Supreme Court Cases and State Constitutions which matters for our issue.

In the trinity case the Supreme Court cited those ties as constitutional and appropriate.

Those citations are proof you are delusional when you claim those ties were unconstitutional. (The court cited those ties... therefore they were constitutional. ) That is how the law works. Your ignorance is now manifest.