Quote from Ricter:
You guys have yourselves all fired up, and I want to try and stay out of that. Just want to ask, what good is this "there's a Tuner" stuff, anyway? I mean, who tuned the Tuner's universe? This sounds like one of those creation myths where a a rabbit sits on a turtle sits on a cow. What is wrong with, I believe you called it, the weak anthropic principle? It makes sense mathematically (to me anyway), and still leaves room for something beyond understanding in the creation of the universe...
Its important for this reason..
ET atheists like Stu and nonthinker state there is no evidence for a Creator..
However, the tuning of our universe is evidence of Tuner.
If Science some days discovers evidence of almost infinite other universes you could counter the tuning argument.
As far as weak or strong anthropic principles... you will have to explain what you mean. I know we addressed this months ago, but I do not see yourpoint now.
But I say this the argument is summed up by another scientist here... which I have presented many times and these loony atheist refuse to engage on this science... they just keep on presenting 1950s atheist speak.
"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: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât 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.â
But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât 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 âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât 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
So here is a challenge to ets loony atheists..
explain why penrose is wrong when he says our universe is tuned in the video.
Explain why rees is wrong.
did you see the last minute and a half of the penrose video.
He says to those that don't want to hear about fine tuning arguments... This is fine tuning this is fine tuning to incredible precision in the universe.
