The Ownership of Science

[GaryAnderson]

I see that you’re confused again. Here’s an example.
1 - Science has shown us the values of Fundamental forces in this universe.
2 - A theist says: these values  are fine-tuned by God.
Do you have any problems with theists saying that?

3 - A philosopher says that “these values are created randomly in an infinite multiverse, where universes collide and create new random big bangs”
Do you have any problems with him saying that?

I'm not confused at all, but your statements are.

1 - Scientists have identified the fundamental forces using the scientific method.  (I assume you mean the strength of each force).

A theist can hypothesize that statement 2 is true, but this is just a hypothesis, not a theory.  I have no problem with someone asserting such a hypothesis, but that's all it is.  He will have to do the necessary work to move this to theory territory.

3 - Again, this is a loosely supported theory, not a very strong one.  He can assert this all he wants but it doesn't mean its true.  

The only thing you stated before that was very well supported was that the big bang marked the beginning of our universe.  This is supported by very strong scientific evidence and thus is beyond any whimsical arguments to the contrary.  Those other arguments are far weaker and thus less worthy of acceptance.

I don't know what's so confusion about this for you.

Okay based on what you’ve said there’s is no confusion between you and I and I agree with everything you’ve said. It’s also good to see that you don’t have a problem with anyone asserting a hypothesis.