Store up for yourselves treasures in Heaven
where moth and rust cannot destroy and thieves cannot break in and steal

Saturday, May 8, 2010

The 1.6% Solution

1.6% of the North American population says that this universe’s finely tuned constants can be explained by the existence of an infinite number of totally imaginary universes. According to this “scientific theory” (snerk) having an infinite number of universes makes all things possible. It even makes an exquisitely designed, mathematically precise, finely tuned, life supporting cosmos like our own coming into existence by accident, sans Designer a done deal. This, from the same people who say that without observation and verification nothing can be believed. Yet believe they do.

If you think that the above sounds outlandishly stupid, you need to know that the calculations that have been made by scientists to explain what fine tuning means is called, by the dumbest of atheists, “a philosophy.”

“The philosophy of the laws of science, and physics.” This is not a joke!

Here is what real scientists say about this so called “philosophy.”
Anthony Flew - The fine tuning of the universe at every level is simply too perfect to be the result of chance. Flew’s lifelong commitment “to go where the evidence leads” compelled him to become a believer in a Creator God.

The Fine Tuning to which Flew is referring is a neutral secular term in that it refers to constants and quantities (atomic weight, gravitational constant, strong & weak force, etc.) and how they govern the existence of our universe. These are measurements that are observed, tested, verified, weighed, measured etc. etc.. The consequence of these measurements being different than they are is known, - none of us, not even the universe itself would exist.

So why do atheists call this a philosophy of fine tuning? Because the exquisitely finely tuned laws of physics that govern the existence of our universe obviously point to a Designer. And that, as we all know cannot be allowed into the faith system of this 1.6%. If science supports a Theistic universe then the only option is to revert to using hot button terms. Eg. Using the terms “religion” or “philosophy” in concert with ANYTHING they don’t want to believe, like “fine tuning,” allows this group to discount the very findings of science itself.

Arthur Eddington - “The beginning [of the universe] seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look at it as frankly supernatural.”

Stephen Hawking - “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”

Don’t forget, the people making these comments, including Hawking, are atheists. So committed to their faith based world-view are atheists that even though they know what Hawking just stated to be true, they refuse to go where the evidence leads. So lacking in integrity is this group of people that individuals like Anthony Flew, who actually DO follow the evidence are far and away the exception to the rule.

Physicist Freeman Dyson - ‘The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”

Again, Hawking "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

The reason that atheists are now calling the findings of science “a philosophy of fine tuning” is because the level of bigotry among atheists is so high, simply mentioning religion or philosophy, in the presence of scientific facts that atheists find distasteful, allows them to dispense with those scientific facts altogether. And they will do that if it allows them to ignore information that they don’t like.

The second reason that atheists are calling the findings of science “a philosophy of fine tuning” is that atheists are philosophically illiterate. Not a clue. Dumb as a post.

The third reason atheists discard fine tuning as philosophy is because, regarding origins, philosophy itself stands in direct opposition to what atheists (in what is a working definition of blind faith - see reason #4), hope is true.

The forth reason that atheists discard fine tuning as philosophy is because these people only say (emphasis on the word “say”) they believe nothing without observation, verification and testing - you know like an infinite number of universes.

. If the evidence doesn’t contradict their world view, they accept it.
. If the evidence does contradict their world view, they discard that evidence (like the fine tuning of the constants) as easily as throwing out a stinky ashtray.

Even though there is not one shred of evidence for an infinite number of universes, these people believe this explanation anyway. They have to or their world view would collapse.

Even though there is not the faintest hint of evidence for an inflationary multi-verse, atheists cling to it in belief like a drowning person clings to a tall weed. An imaginary tall weed. They have to or their world view would collapse.

Atheists propose imaginary universes with different constants and say, “See! Things could be different.” Well, yes, in an imaginary cosmos things could be different. Thank you atheists for that insight.

But we aren’t talking about an imaginary cosmos are we? We’re talking about our cosmos where things need to be exactly as they are or there would not be a cosmos at all.

Nevertheless, these people have to maintain this implausible position or their belief system will collapse.

That’s how these people think. It’s the way they are.

12 comments:

  1. That’s how these people think. It’s the way they are.

    You have no clue, but thanks for making it as explicit as possible, day after day!

    Look at how many times you wrote something like 'these people believe...' without representing a belief but a mere possibility.

    The multi-verse theory is one; it's possible, but it's not an atheistic belief, you're just being silly. It's simply a concept, just like God, that could explain the origin of the universe. For now we can only believe 1 universe exists because we are in it...

    ReplyDelete
  2. *************************************************************************
    how about I believe in WHATEVER I want - even in the FLYING SPAGHETTI
    MONSTER! - and you have nothing to say!
    *******************************************************************************

    let me show you the end results of this particular *ONE-DIMENSIONAL SCIENTIFIC MODE*
    of thinking that is called *CRITICAL THINKING*, which is completely divorced from
    any human objectives...

    this style has been perfected by dawkins, pz, randi and the other *NEW ATHEISTS*
    **
    THE BOOBQUAKE - 911!
    ***
    hey, atheists don't even BELIEVE IN BOOBIES!!!
    they thought BOOBIES had no effect... WRONG!

    see, I just want to make it clear to the rest of you:
    jen is unable to see that there is a CONFLICT BETWEEN EROS & SCIENCE....

    http://www.blaghag.com/2010/04/in-name-of-science-i-offer-my-boobs.html


    see how we take a term and convert it into its AUTHENTIC POLITICAL DIMENSION - THAT
    OF LIBERATION - not just merely harmless expression...

    Visit for the BOOBQUAKE:

    http://dissidentphilosophy.lifediscussion.net/philosophy-f1/the-boobquake-911-t1310.htm



    ***************************************************

    FSM....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster


    http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx302/AtheismPics/fsmlogo.png

    *****************************

    DOUBLE!


    FOR THE WIN...

    *******************************************

    ReplyDelete
  3. The multi-verse theory is one; it's possible"

    It is NOT possible! Have you got shit for brains, or why can't you get that? It has been proven impossible for even a multi-verse or ANY theory of an expanding universe to exist without a definitive space / time boundary, a beginning, a Big Bang creation event where all the matter included in the multi-verse came into being out of nothing - literally nothing.

    It doesn't matter how far back you push the beginning, there has to have been a beginning - from nothing.

    And it is an atheist theory because only an atheist would continue to press for theories that avoid a Big Bang singularity because only atheists have a vested interest in avoiding a universe with a beginning.

    There is NO other valid reason for avoiding the evidence much less not following the evidence.

    Only an atheist needs to do that in order to preserve h/her world-view.

    Imagine how much further along we might be if resources were spend following instead of avoiding the evidence! But we can't do that because of the irrational fear that atheist have over what we might find out.

    It's pitiful.
    It's pathetic.
    It's how atheists think.
    It's how they are.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Flew’s lifelong commitment “to go where the evidence leads” compelled him to become a believer in a Creator God.

    Ah no. He went senile. He didn't know what was in the book. He didn't recall saying those things. He was taken advantage of by lying Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Quote mine of Hawkins.
    Context here:
    http://www.holysmoke.org/cre014.htm

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not sure why you call it quote mining when the context supports the statement itself. Nor do I understand why you didn't give the context for the next quote of Hawkins which is from the very next page of the book. but . . .

    Anyhow, that's priceless - if an atheist becomes a deist he must have gone senile - desperate but not out unpredictable from people who think like this. This is just the way they are.

    ReplyDelete
  7. He had gone senile. He couldn't remember writing that. He said that wasn't what he believed. He couldn't even remember the people involved.
    He was taken advantage of.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "He had gone senile."

    Ya, and so did C. S. Lewis and so did Josh McDowell, and so did Lee Strobel and on and on and on - all of them must have been senile to reject atheism while you, the man who believes in an infinite number of universes, the one who believes in an infinite regress of cause, the one who believes in causeless beginnings, the one who believes that this exquisitely designed, mathematically precise, finely tuned, life supporting universe came into being by accident, you are the sane one.

    ReplyDelete
  9. where all the matter included in the multi-verse came into being out of nothing - literally nothing.

    It doesn't matter how far back you push the beginning, there has to have been a beginning - from nothing.


    Nope, you have to justify that sir. That's what I keep telling you again and again and again. You have no evidence that there could be nothing, as it does not even make sense for us to talk about literally nothing. You suppose that because there is something now, there could be nothing; that's illogical.
    (NO THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I BELIEVE IN AN INFINITE MATERIAL)

    We all agree that there is something we call the beginning of time, some sort of time t = 0. The problem is that you believe that this moment actually exist, as a real moment. But it is not. It's conceptual, just like infinity. I know I keep saying the same thing but you never reply to that... can you?

    In other words, when discussing the origin of the universe, can you tell me clearly, where you draw the line between what's being proven as being real, and what's being explained using mathematical conceptual representation?

    ReplyDelete
  10. No, Flew had gone senile.

    In "There Is a God," Flew quotes extensively from a conversation he had with Leftow, a professor at Oxford. So I asked Flew, "Do you know Brian Leftow?"

    "No," he said. "I don't think I do."

    "Do you know the work of the philosopher John Leslie?" Leslie is discussed extensively in the book.

    Flew paused, seeming unsure. "I think he's quite good." But he said he did not remember the specifics of Leslie's work.

    "Have you ever run across the philosopher Paul Davies?" In his book, Flew calls Paul Davies "arguably the most influential contemporary expositor of modern science."

    "I'm afraid this is a spectacle of my not remembering!"

    He said this with a laugh. When we began the interview, he warned me, with merry self-deprecation, that he suffers from "nominal aphasia," or the inability to reproduce names. But he forgot more than names. He didn't remember talking with Paul Kurtz about his introduction to "God and Philosophy" just two years ago. There were words in his book, like "abiogenesis," that now he could not define
    .

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?_r=1

    Also from this article:
    "When I asked Varghese, he freely admitted that the book was his idea and that he had done all the original writing for it. "

    ReplyDelete
  11. Atheists,


    see, you degenerates have last names like first names...


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster



    *************************************************
    how about I believe in WHATEVER I want - even in the FLYING SPAGHETTI
    MONSTER! - and you have nothing to say!
    *******************************************************************

    let me show you the end results of this particular *ONE-DIMENSIONAL SCIENTIFIC MODE*
    of thinking that is called *CRITICAL THINKING*, which is completely divorced from
    any human objectives...

    this style has been perfected by dawkins, pz, randi and the other *NEW ATHEISTS*
    **
    THE BOOBQUAKE - 911!
    ***
    hey, atheists don't even BELIEVE IN BOOBIES!!!
    they thought BOOBIES had no effect... WRONG!

    see, I just want to make it clear to the rest of you:
    jen is unable to see that there is a CONFLICT BETWEEN EROS & SCIENCE....

    http://www.blaghag.com/2010/04/in-name-of-science-i-offer-my-boobs.html

    http://www.blaghag.com/2010/04/quick-clarification-about-boobquake.html

    see how we take a term and convert it into its AUTHENTIC POLITICAL DIMENSION - THAT
    OF LIBERATION - not just merely harmless expression...

    Visit for the BOOBQUAKE:

    http://dissidentphilosophy.lifediscussion.net/philosophy-f1/the-boobquake-911-t1310.htm

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ya I like this article you posted Anon; had read it before and I am pretty sure I had pointed Rod to it, in the Makarios days, but why would he care, right...?

    ReplyDelete