I will prove to you that God exists

[The Architect Of Fate]

I love how he keeps doing this

A had to happen so B happens and with we wouldn't have C 

Do we know this .....No 

C could have come about another way 

The B that never happened may have been replace by a different B that would result in D with which is just as good as C 

A may function totally differently under different conditions which may result in C anyway 

Why is C even needed ? why not F or G or H or I or J or ADFPE1111111111111

He keeps saying this force or that force started here missing the possibility these are alterations in preexisting forces or derivatives of prior forces or manifestation of a greater prior force also when people say the big bang is the collapse of known physics well what unknown physics ? 

Also and he engages in an infinite number of  false dilemmas and either or fallacies and does so in total ignorance and incredulity 

Assumptions Assumptions Assumptions

[Angrboda]

In this video Rees details that while his speculations about the constants preceded the theorems of inflation, it wasn't the work on the constants but rather the ideas and theorems concerning inflation that led to the supposition that there might be multiple universes, and that these universes might have different constants and laws.  He makes the point that inflation and string theory both play a role in the suggestion of a multiverse.  It was not his work on fine-tuning that led to it.  He says as much in the book that Drew cites, Just Six Numbers, which I will quote as well.

"[B]ack in the 1970s we speculated about this [fine tuning] and I wrote a paper with Bernard Carr ... I don't think at that stage we had any partcular view as to whether these counterfactual universes might be a consequence of a real physical theory but the development of the idea of inflation and the realization that our universe might go far beyond the observational horizon did lead one to speculate that may actually be places ... the inflationary idea was developed in 1980s and that led to the possibilities that there could be domains and at the same time the realization came about that perhaps different big bangs might as it were cool down differently, it was the idea that the laws of low energy physics in the world we inhabit may be the outcome of so-called phase transitions as a universe cools down and these may have happened differently in different universes and this leads to the idea that what we call universal laws might be as it were environmental accidents in our cosmic patch and not the deepest level of universal laws.  So I think the idea that there might be other big bangs became discussed widely after the development of inflation, and there have since then been other ideas involving other space times."





"This ‘multiverse’ concept, though speculative, is a natural extension of current cosmological theories, which gain credence because they account for things that we do observe. The physical laws and geometry could be different in other universes, and this offers a new perspective on the seemingly special values that the six numbers take in ours."

Martin Rees.  Just Six Numbers.

In the book you refer to he fields the hypothetical that universe had to be as it is. He rebuts the hypothesis because it begs the question why if a universe has to be in a certain configuration, why is it the narrow configuration that causes planets, star, galaxies, molecules and ultimately life to exist. It doesn't solve the problem only pushes it back. That's why he continues to believe in multiverse theory.

In Just Six Numbers, Martin Rees does not use the phrase begging the question a single time. I'll need an actual quotation before I comment on this.

Given that I've just shown you misrepresenting Martin Rees, it's not a stretch to imagine that you are doing so again.

(Other words Martin Rees doesn't use as you've used them here: 'solve', 'problem', 'push', and 'back'.)

If the underlying laws determine all the key numbers uniquely, so that no other universe is mathematically consistent with those laws, then we would have to accept that the ‘tuning’ was a brute fact, or providence. - MR

[Nay_Sayer]

By that ‘logic’ a municipal sewer is supernatural because it’s an extreme example of a pit toilet.

You’re an idiot.

Boru

And just think yesterday you didn't know how to spell idiot and now you're using it in a sentence. Bravo.

Just a few days ago you weren't a cowardly, lying, hypocritical troll.  The wonders of time.

Thoughts and prayers. RAmen

[arewethereyet]

And just think yesterday you didn't know how to spell idiot and now you're using it in a sentence. Bravo.

Just a few days ago you weren't a cowardly, lying, hypocritical troll.  The wonders of time.

Thoughts and prayers. RAmen

Some of them devolve pretty quickly.  

The slow burn is more interesting to watch.

[Paleophyte]

Black holes are not supernatural you infinitely dense motherfucker. 

Black holes  are natural right? They're an extreme example of nature. Just as supernova's are an extreme example of a nova.

Exactly. Natural. Not supernatural. No black hole ever has required a cause or explanation other than the natural one. Event horizons aren't enforced by the ghosts or pixies.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Did nature have to have gravity?

Did it have to be in a range that allows the universe to expand, for stars to exist, for planets to exist.

Did there have to be laws of physics that turn helium and hydrogen to turn into the ingredients necessary for life to exist?

Did dark matter have to exist?

The answer to any of these questions is who the hell knows ?

Could different physics have lead to to different universe or a different of forces lead to similar outcomes 

This guy assumes everything had to be in place exactly the way it happened . Who knows

[Paleophyte]

@Paleophyte Wrote:

It's hilarious that you're asking Google to make your arguments for you AND you're too lazy or dumb to strip the code from your post.

Its anal of you to worry about it.

No, have you? I note that you don't list all of the scientists that don't support your peculiar little worldview.

You're more anal retentive than I thought. I've never claimed I support multiverse theory. 

The micro world is dominated by quantum physics one of the most difficult things to understand is it simple? Is the double slit experiment where matter behaves differently if its being observed than not being observed? Any simple explanations for that?  Is the singularity from which its alleged the universe came from simple? Is whatever existed prior to the big bang is simple? Scientists describe it as where the known laws of physics break down. Even in biology it was thought at one time that single cells are simple but as they dug into it, it became vastly more complex than originally thought. Mindless natural forces without plan, intent or a degree in biology somehow figured out how to transform non-biological matter into living matter. A feat that still eludes scientists...shouldn't that have been simplicity in itself?

thank you for making my argument for me? Really not sure what you're trying to achieve with this. Let me simplify for you:

See? This ^^^ is what I meant. He's totally rubbish with those quote tags. It might as well be Egyptian hieroglyphs.

Step 1: Start with some very simple rules, aka fundamental forces.

We start with the big bang.

When I say "start" I'm talking about a logical progression, not a temporal one. If you don't have fundamental forces then you don't get a Big Bang. You need raisins to make raisin bread.

Whatever caused the big bang was outside of spacetime and our laws of physics. 

So speculating about a "cause" "outside" of spacetime and our laws of physics is pretty pointless yes? Like asking what time it was before time began? Or where things were before there was space? Causes are events and describing events requires space and time.

Trigger warning I coped this from AI. 

Literally translated, "I'm quoting a parrot and know so little about what I'm talking about that you don't need me. The parrot knows this shit better than I do." But thanks for the warning that it's the parrot doing the talking.

The singularity at the heart of the Big Bang theory...

Dear parrot, please explain to Drew that the singularity is a theoretical artifact similar to a divide by zero error and likely doesn't have any application to the real world.

Even though something like this appears to be what would happen if we rolled the universe back about 13.8 billion years ago. Still infinite density, infinite gravity? If that's not supernatural I don't what would be.

So are you measuring gravity and density or ectoplasm and the number of angels you can fit on the head of a pin? Hint, even this theoretical artifact is being described in natural terms. You're wrong about being wrong.

In order to make a time-line for all the events...

And he's off into the weeds.  

The first emergence was matter over antimatter.

OK, so you clearly have no clue what emergence is. Go look it up and get back to us.

You're living in a fantasy world where somehow matter is compressed infinitely, a little baking a little shaking and out comes a universe with all the laws of physics and properties to cause life to exist minus any plan or intent to do so. 

There's nothing miraculous about your inability to understand the argument.

By the way how is it we haven't been able to create life? We already have all the ingredients. It was the result of a few simple rules right?

We're handicapped by not using apparatus smaller than 97 billion light-years across with a run-time of less than 13.8 billion years. What part of simple begets complex did you miss? All of it?

[Paleophyte]

By the way how is it we haven't been able to create life? We already have all the ingredients. It was the result of a few simple rules right?

1. Not being able recreate something doesn't mean it wasn't simple 

2. Life took millions of years and the resources of a entire planet under completely different conditions to develop we wouldn't live long enough to see the results 

3. We also can't recreate stars that doesn't mean they are the result of magic 

4. Use magic to create life ....Oh wait you can't ....lol

Stars are easy right? You just need hydrogen and time. Where's the thermonuclear facepalm emoji when I need it?

[The Architect Of Fate]

I love how his assumption is anything that isn't current physics must be the supernatural as if somehow nature is only constrained to current physics within the cosmos

[The Architect Of Fate]

The notion that any universe or every universe has a narrow path is incredulity and ignorance