You apparently did read the quotations you posted. No mention of āfine tuningā by your gods. That seems odd because your claim regarding āfine tuningā was: "discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang admit to the fine tuning facts". If Hawking discovered that your gods āfine tunedā the universe, why do you think ha never made that statement?Nonsense. Your claim regarding "fine tuning" specifically stated it was "discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang admit to the fine tuning facts "You seem to be fact challenged.
Stephen Hawking did not discover any fine-tuning facts. Your claim he did is false, misleading and a misrepresentation of fact. Letās have you identify a submission to one of the peer reviewed journals made by Hawking delineating his āfine tuningā facts.
Yes, Hawking admitted it in 2010 (read The Grand Design), but then babbled on about multiverse. What a maroon. Anyway, he is another atheist scientist who died without any aliens or abiogenesis just like Carl Sagan. All of us here will die before aliens or abiogenesis because science shows that it does not happen. It means there are no aliens and abiogenesis.
As for the rest, it's you getting all emo about this. Poor baby.
That simply is false and a fraud.
In his book A Brief History of Time (1996 edition) Hawking quite clearly does not propose any "fine tuning". (p. 133):
"Moreover, the rate of expansion of the universe would automatically become very close to the critical rate determined by the energy density of the universe. This could then explain why the rate of expansion is still so close to the critical rate, without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion of the universe was very carefully chosen."
Once again. it falls to you to support your claim. Letās have you identify a submission to one of the peer reviewed journals made by Hawking delineating his āfine tuningā facts. Let's have you provide the Exact Citation wherein "fine tuning facts (discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang)"
Coincidently, page 133 of The Grand Design has this statement:
But just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit.
Did you actually read The Grand Design? Or did you do a cut and paste job?
What about p. 155, p. 159, p. 161, and p. 162?
p. 155
"The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints not just on our environment but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life but also the characteristics of our entire universe, and that is much more difficult to explain."
p. 159
"Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4 percent in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it."
p. 161
"The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system hat is extremely fine-tuned, and very litle in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being."
p. 162
"Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained, and raises the natural question of why it is that way."
It goes to show you that Hawking admitted to fine tuning and a STRONG Anthropic Principle. He still wouldn't admit that it's just Earth and no other life besides humans.
However, the articles from around the same time discussing fine tuning have been deleted.
Here's an article and atheist opinion piece from 2018:
Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God?
"Scientists have discovered a surprising fact about our universe in the past 40 years: against incredible odds, the numbers in basic physics are exactly as they need to be to accommodate the possibility of life. If gravity had been slightly weaker, stars would not have exploded into supernovae, a crucial source of many of the heavier elements involved in life. Conversely, if gravity had been slightly stronger, stars would have lived for thousands rather than billions of years, not leaving enough time for biological evolution to take place. This is just one example ā there are many others ā of the āfine-tuningā of the laws of physics for life."
The rest is just atheist blabber and opinion.
Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff
In his final paper on the multiverse hypothesis, the worldās best-known atheist made a supernatural creator more plausible, says academic and author Philip Goffwww.theguardian.com
So can you admit that there are no aliens and no abiogenesis now? That creation scientists, Dr. William Lane Craig, and I were right and you were wrong after your disbeliefs for so long?
Why is āfine tuningā by your gods not identified in the quotes you posted when you insist such a discovery was made by Hawking? Did Hawking forget to announce his discovery?