How do you measure it without a quantifiable scale?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

you might address the various essays which make up that website, which support the above conclusion, o great rationalist. facts, followed by a logical conclusion. someone of your professed intellect might be interested in.... learning more? or not.

p.s. i did not attack you. i just pointed out that your hero was few bricks shy of a load, so you might reconsider relying on her and quoting her... uh, verbiage.

__________________
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Why does it have to be measured? Too often, a measurement is merely to confirm that it exceeds someone or something else.

Money is a good way to keep score, if you want to keep score. In practice, once you have enough to meet your needs it doesn't matter.

I suppose that is the problem of measurement. It is finite and the answer is clear.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I finally read the book (actually listened to the audio book while driving). He is basically just making the case for multiverses and the strong anthropic principle. He includes some explanation of relativity and QED, but nothing too deep. He does a decent job of explaining Feynman diagrams, etc. without including any of the messy math. He takes the expected shots at the "intelligent design" wackos and explains that no "god" is necessary to "start" or maintain this type of model of the universe. We've heard it all before, but it's worth reading.

The non-necessity of a deity is not proof of his nonexistence. Hawking knows this I'm sure, but plenty of people do actually argue for the necessity of a deity.

Well, how else do you threaten someone?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Has anyone here ever listened to 'Alan Watts'..?

Of course, but if a "deity" is not required it has no place in science; I think that was his point. People can believe whatever they like, but they can't use the existence on the universe as "evidence" to support their belief systems. As someone said, I have no need of that hypothesis.

I'm not sure since it was long ago that I took that class but I think that is the "argument by design" aka Teleological Argument.

1. Nature exhibits complexity, order, adaptation, purpose and/or beauty.
2. The exhibited feature(s) cannot be explained by random or accidental processes, but only as a product of mind.
3. Therefore, there exists a mind that has produced or is producing nature.
4. A mind that produces nature is a definition of "God."
5. Therefore, God exists.

Obviously, the key problem is in #2. It cannot be explained by humans with current knowledge. It does not take into account that we have a lot of explanations today that we didn't have 1000 years ago. Who knows what explanations we will have in another 2000 years.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Read "The God Delusion," he does a pretty good job of addressing those arguments; but he is a little heavy handed.