(July 16, 2015 at 1:13 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: Posting blogs about debunking fine tuning and talks of multiverses is not an argument. I can post just as many from the other perspective. I did not bring God in to the discussion, you did. I in no way claim that there are not flaws in my argument just as the ones you espouse (multiverses) also have their flaws. I'm just saying I find it very interesting to see the more we know about science in this modern time, the more scientists are "shocked" about the improbability of our universes existence. Even the greatest mind of our time and vehement atheist Prof. Stephen Hawking mentioned it in his book, "A Brief History of Time". Other leading scientists such as Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
These are leading scientists who know far beyond you are I and they do not take the argument lightly.
You are now being purposefully deceitful. Fred Hoyle rejected the big bang. I would say that I have a better understanding of modern physics than he did.
According to Hawking, God is not needed to explain the origin of the fine-tuned universe.
If you're going to play at science, you mut realise it doesn't just involve quoting various scientist to prove your point, especially when they are in opposition to scientific concensus.
