You were whining about the blatant bias of the Politics forum -- the same blatant bias which resulted in you getting exiled.

.

Anyone who starts out a thread by saying "I think.......", gets asked to provide evidence of why he thinks that, provides absolutely none, and then eventually resorts to "Well, I said 'I THINK' not 'I KNOW'" lost the argument. It's that simple. But of course, as previously established, you have too big of an ego to ever admit that you were wrong or that you made a mistake.

Whining about blatant bias is not whining about getting exiled. You are being dishonest by trying to say as much.

I did not start that thread when I was exiled. When I was initially exiled I was content just to suck it up which I did for a couple of days. However when the politics cabal began their next witch hunt I decided to point out thier hypocrisy. Their witchhunt came to a screeching halt.

What was the witchhunt over?

Rizeagainst...if you want to believe you won that argument thats fine with me. I think you're being delusional though.

What you said there is factually incorrect. I post in other forums without problems from the mods.

LOL yeah, I'm illiterate.*













_{*Figuratively speaking.}

True, I confused you and Stu.

What post did you make in this thread that adequately supported your original statement of

You threw out 2 random names from wiki/google who may or may not have changed from atheists to theists, neither of which were actual cosmologists and then ran away. You are a horrible, horrible poster.

Materialim is predicated on matter. Matter is that which has dimensional properties and resists acceleration. That's it. That's the foundation upon which materialism rests. Considering those properties only seem to exist when we're looking at them and change as we're moving towards or away, that's not a whole lot for the materialist to hang their hat on. And some are taking their hat off Dr. Establishment's hook.

As to how that leads a former atheist to theism, he (Prof. Henry) explained in fairly short order in his review:

But that kind of argument is not the essence of Haisch's case for God. Let me quote a single sentence from his book, which I have chosen because it so perfectly encapsulates my own understanding: "It is not matter that creates an illusion of consciousness, but consciousness that creates an illusion of matter." That is correct physics: it is not controversial in the slightest degree that there is no reality; this has been demonstrated in both theory and experiment (Gröblacher et al., Nature, 446, 871, 2007).

And yet in how many physics classes today are students made aware of this most fundamental discovery? In all of my classes, I assure you; but I am confident that this is not common. The illusion of matter, which is to say the illusion of a really-existing world, is so strong, that I think most scientists are unable to overcome it. It took me decades to finally realize that this is not a joke, and that the universe is purely mental: that mind is fundamental; matter merely an illusion—and that this is physics, not philosophy (or religion).

And how, out of this, does God appear? Well, the only mind I know exists is my own. My choice is solipsism or God. A leap of faith is required, yes — but it is an easy leap indeed!

http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/haisch.html

is that a serious post

Prof. Henry is purely mental IMO.

At least no one can say he's out there.

He may be but afaik he's the only person who's come up with plausible empirical explanations for many bible miracles.

He didn't just reject them out of hand like the typical skeptic.

Anyway he's sane enough to hold down a university position and publish a book.

Stu clearly made it up for no good reason. And I would say it is probably maximally false. The fact that the cosmological constant is non zero makes the universe look very arbitrary and undesigned. Weinberg's ballpark guess of the cosmological constant was based on our universe not being specially designed but picked out randomly (taking into account anthropics) from all possible universes. Just like we learned that the Earth is not special and just one of a huge number of planets in some random place in a large universe, modern cosmological observations seem to hint that the whole observable universe is just some random bubble in a unimaginably large multiverse. If a person was an atheist, it seems ridiculous to change to deism/agnosticism because of recent cosmology. I would bet my entire role that there is no "small movement" among people who study cosmology to deism/agnosticism. Stu continues to be in the running for biggest joke in RGT.

What's sad is that he's not winning that race by a mile lol

That is some of the doltish dribble I have ever seen you write....and you've written a lot of dribble. When you have heavy hitters like Susskind admitting the universe has the appearance of intelligent design its foolish to believe some waterboy like yourself when you come and say "no it doesn't...the appearance of ID is maximally false"

Roger Penrose said "I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along–it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it."

I know Susskind pretty well. He agrees with what I wrote. He has said that if the universe was designed whoever did it did a terrible job because it looks so arbitrary and inelegant. To see why that is is way way way past your abilities. We might as well just start talking about algebraic geometry. You wouldn't sound any dumber.

Do you have a reference for this? I knew Penrose was a dualist - didn't realise he was a deist/theist/whatever is required for him to have said the above.

about 45-50 seconds into the video

I remember Max Tegmark making a similar comment but I can't remember where.

So you didn't want to reply to this Stu? I wonder why.

Bunny I did find this video of Max Tegmark talking about Penrose. You might find it interesting.

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-p...x-Tegmark-/888

There was one point where Max Tegmark admonishes "physics types" that was slightly comical because he was describing Maxraker to the T.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_P...eligious_views

And get this - not only does he not hold to any religious doctrine, he actually wrote a supportive blurb for Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation"!

So - once again - you have shown yourself to either be a complete intellectual failure, completely dishonest, or some hideous amalgamation of both.

You sound like you're talking out of your ass crack......again.

We argued this before Max and I believe I provided a link of Susskind saying that if the multiverse/landscape models fail for whatever reason science would be hard pressed to continue to say ID'st are wrong. Susskind was essentially admitting that the universe does has the appearance of being fine tuned(of course he doesn't think it is fine-tuned).

Here is a video of Freeman Dyson talking about the universe having a mental component to it.