Quote from jem:
again you are mixing theory and fact.
if you wish to say that you are denying the standard model and therefore do not accept that the some of the constants are tuned from 30 to 120 ish decimal places just say it.
stop bullshitting your ass off and just admit you deny current science.
just admit the standard model is very bad for your atheist random chance worldview.
Quote from stu:
Your understanding is Multiverse answers appearances of fine tuning. Well duh.
Why the hell you started a thread to contradict yourself should be your next understanding.
Only 2 lies - one sentence. You're slipping.Quote from jem:
for the guy who used to deny the appearance of fine tuning and state that Susskind would never say God could be one of the reasons for the tuning.
Quote from jem:
now just one correction...
the speculation of a Multiverse would answer the appearance of fine tuning...
Quote from jem:
through all your troll fits... you have really advanced quite far...
Quote from stu:
Only 2 lies - one sentence. You're slipping.
Yay.... capitulation.
Glad I could help you eventually grasp the blindingly obvious.
Still not sure you understand what you did though.
Oh my, one thing you can do so well straight off the bat is that self analysis projection stuff.
Quote from stu:
Right, so when you said a thousand times "That is extreme fine tuning." of the universe, you thought you were saying the universe appears to be fine tuned.
Sure, that figures. pfft.
Truth being, trying to slot your god into everything, you're a thousand times vague, imprecise , misleading and dishonest in order to push the deceit.
Fine tuning has always been a speculation. Bang again goes the argument you never had which you thought warranted starting a thread.
You hear Susskind mention the word god so you get all giddy but don't hear him assign it with accident and who knows at the same time.
Quite honestly all you've shown is how you'll say any bullshit thing.
You can't even provide my exact quotes, nevermind Susskind's Penrose's and others.Quote from jem:
when you search on jem and the word appears... you see 15 pages of posts... almost all on this subject.
If the scientists posit there is a multiverse... of course they use the word appears.
once again you display the logic of a troll.
i have already educated you on the fact... susskind and penrose and other top scientists use the words extreme, spectacular, incredible fine tuning for the fine tuning of our universe.
I frequently provide you their exact quotes.
Think of how stupid you are acting.
Do you deny that our universe is fine tuned for our existence.
Do you even understand the standard model?
Quote from stu:
You can't even provide my exact quotes, nevermind Susskind's Penrose's and others.
Scientists say appears fine tuned. You say IS fine tuned.
Adding superlatives like extreme, spectacular, incredible doesnât change that fact, nor that you are just being dishonest about the whole subject.
In this day and age, only someone acting like an idiot would claim the universe "IS fine tuned for our existence."
Do YOU deny one of your chosen authorities when he says "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. .....It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
Do YOU even understand The Standard Model is not a Ford?