He goes on, but I'll summarize:
The Universe may not have any "knobs" to twiddle in the first place, they may depend upon eachother in as of yet unknown ways. And there could also be a multiverse or "landscape", which, although only speculation at this point, is simpler and more probable than an intelligent, calculating, all-knowing, all-powerful being arising out of nothingness.

We know that, however improbable the fundamental constants may have been, they did align that way because we're here studying them.

I await your "Anthropic Principle" post, BigWhammy. It'll be interesting to see if you actually bring up a point that hasn't been debunked a hundred times already.

What is one to make of all this? As with all scientific theories, we begin by asking for the evidence. So what is the empirical evidence for oscillating and parallel and multiple universes? Actually, there isn't any. As Weinberg admits, "These are very speculative ideas ... without any experimental support." Smolin is even more candid. He calls his ideas "a fantasy.... It is possible that all I have done here is cobble together a set of false clues that only seem to have something to do with each other.... There is every chance that these ideas will not succeed."

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Bigwhammy

---

1: you're quoting D'souza

2 - 7: see #1

the man fails at so many aspects of intellectual debate...just see his attempt to debate christopher hitchens, who, though a bit sauced in the debate, dismantles him thoroughly.

With that, the question and answer period began. Mr. Hitchens, mugging about alcoholism as is his wont, said his favorite miracle is the one where water was turned to wine. Mr. D'Souza reiterated that evolution can't account for morality. Mr. Hitchens said that when he was a socialist, he enjoyed giving blood. Mr. D'Souza said this was because Mr. Hitchens was raised in Christian Europe. Mr. Hitchens said "Yuck!"

And Mr. D'Souza got the last word, declaring that "the atheist is chafing under the laws of a world in which we are accountable. Atheism isn't an intellectual revolt, it's a moral one."

Phew. At this point anyone could have been forgiven for rushing the stage to grab Mr. Hitchens' cup and throwing it down his throat.

Mr. Hitchens lingered at his podium as the crowd clapped, looking as if there were more he wanted to say.

He didn't. And as Mr. D'Souza smiled and greeted admirers on the stage, signing copies of his new book, Mr. Hitchens made his way toward the door.

"Christopher is used to steamrolling his opponents," Mr. D'Souza told The Observer with all the boyish relish of a 26-year-old foreign-policy advisor to Ronald Reagan. (He's now 46.) "I've watched a couple of his debates, and they're very one-sided in his favor. So I was determined to be the equalizer."

He estimated that he'd done exactly that.

"I feel very pleased about it, and I'm looking forward to taking on the other atheists now," he said cheerfully.

Kiley Humphries, 22, the tall brunette Student Body President of King's College, was standing nearby.

"I feel like Dinesh won, because I don't feel like Hitchens ever answered the question of ‘Were these people really fighting for atheism?'" she said. She said that she was originally from Wichita, Kan. and that being a student at a Christian college in Manhattan is "a fascinating clash."

u seem to have a vendetta against atheism
i don't see why.

atheism is a benign nonbelief. it doesn't say to do or not do anything and how one goes about life as an atheist is entirely up to them.

atheists don't do anything in the name of atheism

we don't kill in the name of atheism
we don't commit genocide in the name of atheism

and we've been around as long as theism

we're not going to go away

just learn to live with us.

Originally posted by SlyCM
Let's put it this way BigWhammy:


I made it clear, and so did Dawkins, that so far it is mostly speculation.

At least you admit it.

I would like to see some "overwhelming evidence" for design that isn't just a misrepresentation/misinterpretation of the Anthropic Principle. Instead, you do little more than try to discredit your opponents (eg., Dawkins is "delusional")

Haha a response to "The God Delusion" ? Get it? It's called satire.

By the way, whatever happened to misrepresenting the Big Bang?

The Big Bang proves creation. The Bible was right atheists were wrong.

In the paragraph directly above you mention "weak cop outs". As far as astronomy and physics go, there was a beginning (to this particular universe and all it's energy and matter...) and there will be an end if current trends continue, in the form of heat death, freeze death, big crunch, etc. According to that logic, something cannot be eternal. You are postulating the existence of a being that is simulaneously incredibly scientific and beyond the reach of science.

This is amusing. Because for centuries atheists held an eternal universe to disprove Biblical creation. Along comes Lemaître, Einstein, Hubble, oops evidence disproved atheism... regroup... let's try a infinite number of univerese Pathetic.

So if an eternal universe was acceptable what so weird about an eternal creator. The anthropic principle is best explained by super intelligence. You're grasping at straws and violating Occams razor due to your atheist faith. Try to stick with the evidence like Dr Flew did and the truth will come afterwards.

Correct God is "incredibly scientific and beyond the reach of science." Actually he created the laws that science discovers. Science is just mans attempt to guess what God did and how.

Only one of those coins needed to be heads, and we are observing that "coin". That is what anthropic principle states. What you are failing to understand is that there is so much possibilty. There could be sequential universes, multiple universes, a "landscape", etcetera. Each one of those is mostly speculation, therefore on a similar level as the God hypothesis.

No you missed the point to describe mulitverse you would need infinite coins. Good luck with that. It's just New Age Dreaming for atheists. They all would have to be heads to match the level of precision our universe is tuned to. Actually worse.

As impossible as a calculating, omniscient, omnipotent being that defies most laws of physics?

Just to point this out... can you see what you are trying to do here? You are attacking man's desire to learn and to explore. If it weren't for science we would be no where, sacrificing pigs in the savannas of Africa. You are attacking man's nature and his development. I fail to see why any God would favour you over me. You are fulfilling every bad stereotype of religion and Christianity.

Science... even if it is the product of religion, doesn't raise religion to any higher levels. They stand in opposition, like a courageous son trying to overthrow a mindless, superstitious, arrogant, ignorant, control-freak father.

n fact, you've got 3 logical fallacies in response to one of my points.

because i was in disbelief that anyone could find that man as anything but hilariously incompetent at discourse

so?

you then quote one instance.
i'm going to have to say the proper set up to introducing that would be "this guy saw it differently"

i saw it. d'souza doesn't know how to argue, let alone debate.

nice justification. god also supports genocide.

does that mean that your vendetta against atheists is now genocidal?

honestly, admire the good things atheists have done for humanity
don't want to? then get off ATS because you shouldn't be using the computer you're on...invented by a gay atheist.
that's a double whammy against god, eh?

that's a personal message, not one of atheism.

odd that every crime an atheist commits seems to be in the name of atheism while that's not the case for people of other religions

one could argue that god is an atheist as he doesn't believe in anything and simply knows all...seeing that theism is a matter of faith and belief, god couldn't be theistic in any way, shape, or form
thus, god is an atheist...

good sir, i don't take kindly to threats.

and he's quite overdue...

1Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

if it was about denying ignorance, you wouldn't be quoting d'souza, espousing creationism, or saying that the garden of eden existed with a straight face