News:

Nitpicky? Hell yes.

Main Menu

Anthropic principle

Started by lifeatlast, July 01, 2008, 09:04:04 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Whitney

Quote from: "lifeatlast"why should we appreciate a sun set?

Well no one has to appreciate a sun set...but they are pretty.  There is a lot of beauty and ugliness in nature.  I don't see how that proves that a god exists.

Quote from: "lifeatlast"[anyways. we'll never agree then. see ya later.

Does that mean you are leaving the forum?

Anyway, if you do come back.  I would suggest reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.  It approaches the faults in various theistic arguments on a level that is accessible to those who don't have a background in philosophy.

Actually, what I would really suggest doing is finding a philosophy of religion textbook (perhaps at a local library) and reading it until you understand it well enough that you could defend views that are against your own.  I took that class in college and it really helped in being able to straighten out my views; not only for myself but in a way that makes it easier to explain to others.

curiosityandthecat

Quote from: "lifeatlast"Dr. Carl Sagan once calculated the probability of man evolving (via macroevolutiuon/abiogenesis) at 1 chance in 10 to the 2 billionth power. Likewise, Muncaster calculated the probability of an evolutionary start of mankind by calculating the probability of randomly producing a single living cell at 1 chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. Since Borel's Single Law of Chance states that beyond 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power events never occur, I'd say that both Sagan and Muncaster proved the chance of life via evolution to be zero.

1 in 10^2,000,000,000.... And? This assumes that "man" is the desired result, not just the chance result. We aren't special in that we are merely a specific form on a long line of evolutionary steps (to which there is no "goal"). Incidentally, here's something you'll find interesting, based on what you just referenced:

Quote from: "Infidels.org"Even Carl Sagan has been cited, from a book he edited, Communication with Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (MIT Press, 1973), a record of the proceedings of a conference on SETI. Sagan himself presented a paper at that conference, in which he reports (pp. 45-6) the odds against a specific human genome being assembled by chance as 1 in 10^2,000,000,000 (in other words, the genome of a specific person, and not just any human). As a build-up to this irrelevant statistic he states that a simple protein "might consist" of 100 amino acids (for each of which there are 20 "biological varieties") for a chance of random assembly, for one specific protein of this sort, of 1 in 10^130. He uses these statistics as a rhetorical foil for the fact that no human genome is assembled at random, nor did life have to start with only one possible protein of a particular, specific type, but that "the preferential replication, the preferential reproduction of organisms, through the natural selection of small mutations, acts as a kind of probability sieve, a probability selector," so that one must account for natural selection in estimating the odds of any alien species existing elsewhere in the universe, and not just calculate the odds of random assembly like the examples he just gave. Nevertheless, Sagan's words are used against him by Christians who grab at the numbers without paying attention to their context, or indeed to the fact that Sagan uses extremely simplified equations and assumptions.

So... no, he didn't really say that. Good try, though!

And, as we're on the subject of Sagan and life evolving in the universe, here's something else you'll find interesting. Here Dr. Sagan explains the Sagan-Drake equation, attempts to calculate (roughly) the number of planets upon which intelligent life can (and likely does) exist solely in our own galaxy:

[youtube:1wqn1dw3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB_v99FSTYc[/youtube:1wqn1dw3]


Quote from: "laetusatheos"I took that class in college and it really helped in being able to straighten out my views; not only for myself but in a way that makes it easier to explain to others.

Side note (not thread hijack): I was in my Philosophy of Religion course while the planes were crashing into the WTC.  :blink:
-Curio

Whitney

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Side note (not thread hijack): I was in my Philosophy of Religion course while the planes were crashing into the WTC.  :blink:

</hijack>Interesting...I was in Physics taking an exam just minutes after it all stated.

 ...not that I expect the thread to continue since it appears that life gave up.
</end hijack>

myleviathan

#33
Quote from: "lifeatlast"human lifespan? did we used to die younger? like 18?

On average depending on location, possibly. Either way much less than the current life span. We enjoy hard-won comforts and much longer lives in this day and age and on this side of the globe. If the purpose of the universe is to support life, why doesn't space rain manna instead of asteroids and cancer-causing gamma rays?

Quote from: "lifeatlast"crappy job? heh. oh yeah. what was i thinking.

You can pass my comment off as absurd and skip along in eternal bliss if you like. But one large meteor or virus or nuclear attack could wipe humanity out of existence. Maybe you believe Jesus' magic powers will protect us from destruction, but these are very real threats.

Quote from: "lifeatlast"I'd say that both Sagan and Muncaster proved the chance of life via evolution to be zero.anyways. we'll never agree then. see ya later.

Life is precious because of its rarity in the universe. What makes it rare if God can wipe it out with a flood and rebuild again?
"On the moon our weekends are so far advanced they encompass the entire week. Jobs have been phased out. We get checks from the government, and we spend it on beer! Mexican beer! That's the cheapest of all beers." --- Ignignokt & Err

mrwynd

Quote from: "lifeatlast"
Quote from: "mrwynd"who created the creator?

basic question. many answers. one would be http://answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/universe.asp

I disagree with this view, mainly because I don't believe some of the basic "truths" it states:

"But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe" - This makes no sense if your arguement is that everything must have been created, you're assuming something absolutely omnipotent/omnipresent exists without being created

"Everything which has a beginning has a cause." - I don't believe this either. Why must everything have a cause? I see no proof of beginnings needing causes. As humans we create our own purpose, some devote this to religious practice.

Tom62

Quote from: "lifeatlast"Dr. Carl Sagan once calculated the probability of man evolving (via macroevolutiuon/abiogenesis) at 1 chance in 10 to the 2 billionth power. Likewise, Muncaster calculated the probability of an evolutionary start of mankind by calculating the probability of randomly producing a single living cell at 1 chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. Since Borel's Single Law of Chance states that beyond 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power events never occur, I'd say that both Sagan and Muncaster proved the chance of life via evolution to be zero.

anyways. we'll never agree then. see ya later.

You fell in the trap of Bad Christian Science, which takes things completely out of context and give a creationist twist. Carl Sagan reports in his book "Communication with Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (MIT Press, 1973)" : the odds against a specific human genome being assembled by chance as 1 in 10^2,000,000,000 (in other words, the genome of a specific person, and not just any human).
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

lifeatlast

#36
Quote from: "laetusatheos"
Quote from: "lifeatlast"why should we appreciate a sun set?
I don't see how that proves that a god exists.


you really can't? i'm being honest. i won't repeat for the sake of repeating.


Quote from: "laetusatheos"
Quote from: "lifeatlast"[anyways. we'll never agree then. see ya later.

Does that mean you are leaving the forum?

meh. i'm useless at trying to get my point across.


Quote from: "laetusatheos"Anyway, if you do come back.  I would suggest reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.  It approaches the faults in various theistic arguments on a level that is accessible to those who don't have a background in philosophy.

oh man. i can't take that guy seriously. he's like you watching kent hovind....


Quote from: "laetusatheos"Actually, what I would really suggest doing is finding a philosophy of religion textbook (perhaps at a local library) and reading it until you understand it well enough that you could defend views that are against your own.  I took that class in college and it really helped in being able to straighten out my views; not only for myself but in a way that makes it easier to explain to others.

it's not that i don't read enough that i can't defent my point of view. it's the reason i never bothered with school. i can't remember things. thus, when i explain things i sound stupid....i'm not. but it's frustrating.

but i'd like to say, you can't change one's faith. people see what they want to see. everyone cames at everything with presupositions. so if you come at the subject of God with the mindset that he doens't exist how can you look at it objectivly?

anyways. i don't hate. just wish i was smarter and could carry a good thread more than, why can't you see what i'm saying!!

wordup

mrwynd

but why is the existence of god so threatened at the mere thought of his non-existence? It would seem like an all knowing, all-seeing god wouldn't be taken down by simple words.

Whitney

Quote from: "lifeatlast"you really can't? i'm being honest. i won't repeat for the sake of repeating.

I really do not see how a sunset proves a god.  Just because some things about his world are beautiful does not mean they are created.  Through your reasoning, it would in turn be proper to claim that ebola proves that god does not exist.

Quoteoh man. i can't take that guy seriously. he's like you watching kent hovind....

Well...a marked difference between Dawkins and Hovind is that one of them has a real degree.  I would compare Dawkins more to like me not wanting to read a lot of C.S. Lewis.

Quoteit's not that i don't read enough that i can't defent my point of view. it's the reason i never bothered with school. i can't remember things. thus, when i explain things i sound stupid....i'm not. but it's frustrating.

Have you tried memory exercises?  Things such as playing the memory card game (like when you were a kid), doing crossword puzzles, associating things that are hard to remember with more simple ideas you can remember easily.  I don't have a great memory either, but through explaining things, reading about them numerous times, and having to use them in conversation I am able to keep things to memory more easily.

Quotebut i'd like to say, you can't change one's faith. people see what they want to see. everyone cames at everything with presupositions. so if you come at the subject of God with the mindset that he doens't exist how can you look at it objectivly?

See, I don't think that is true.  Mainly because I became an atheist while I was trying to convince myself that god really was real.  I knew very well back then that it would be easier to become faithful again than it would be to be an atheist.  So, I can honestly say I was trying to go with the mindset of god existing despite my doubts.  But the more I looked for holes in atheist arguments the more holes I found in theistic arguments.  Not that all theistic arguments are all terrible, they just aren't very solid.

Loffler

EVERYONE--

Skimming this thread I can't get over the apparent absence of correct usage of the term "Anthropic Principle." To clarify:

The Anthropic Principle is NOT the belief we came about by chance.
The Anthropic Principle is NOT the observation that the conditions of the universe are extremely perfect for us and extremely unlikely.
The Anthropic Principle is NOT the suggestion that God must have created this unlikely world. In fact it's the opposite.


The Anthropic Principle is actually the principle that humanity's universe could not be any other way, because if it were we would not be here to observe it. Or maybe it would be different, but we would then be different as a result. I saw someone express this, but it seemed to be presented as a response to the Anthropic Principle, when in fact that idea IS the Anthropic Principle.

The Anthropic Principle has nothing to do with God and in fact is an alternative to believing in God. If you don't think of human life as the purpose of the universe, and don't think we're special (which I don't), then the "unlikely" conditions of the universe are not that impressive. The random number 534,324,432,345,067,056.2345432 is unlikely too, but there's nothing special about it.

An even better analogy is the unlikelihood your ancestors would produce you. The odds of your exact sperm-egg combination is extremely low. Add the exact combination of all your ancestors, and you exist on a razor's edge. You are already extremely unlikely. And yet here you are. Our own arrogance perceives this as miraculous when thinking about ourselves, but somehow it loses its luster when we think instead about our next-door neighbor's miraculous existence.

McQ

I stayed out of this thread because it is one of those that will become so convoluted that it's just not worth trying to discuss. Loffler has concisely pointed out this problem. thank you!

An added difficulty in going anywhere near this topic is because over time, people have redefined and added onto anthropic principle, cosmologic and otherwise. Barrow and Tipler are the prime examples I can think of or have read who have really dug in and gone long with it, although I split off from Tipler though when it comes to the Final Anthropic Principle (FAP). Their book, he Anthropic Cosmological Principle, is required reading on the subject. It's a bitch to read, though!

Anyway, I'm still staying out of the fray on this one. Strong, Weak, Final, whatever. I'd rather be out taking pictures!

Thanks again, Loffler!

You guys play nice, now!
 :pop:
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

mrwynd

Quote from: "Loffler"EVERYONE--

Skimming this thread I can't get over the apparent absence of correct usage of the term "Anthropic Principle." To clarify:

The Anthropic Principle is NOT the belief we came about by chance.
The Anthropic Principle is NOT the observation that the conditions of the universe are extremely perfect for us and extremely unlikely.
The Anthropic Principle is NOT the suggestion that God must have created this unlikely world. In fact it's the opposite.


The Anthropic Principle is actually the principle that humanity's universe could not be any other way, because if it were we would not be here to observe it. Or maybe it would be different, but we would then be different as a result. I saw someone express this, but it seemed to be presented as a response to the Anthropic Principle, when in fact that idea IS the Anthropic Principle.

The Anthropic Principle has nothing to do with God and in fact is an alternative to believing in God. If you don't think of human life as the purpose of the universe, and don't think we're special (which I don't), then the "unlikely" conditions of the universe are not that impressive. The random number 534,324,432,345,067,056.2345432 is unlikely too, but there's nothing special about it.

An even better analogy is the unlikelihood your ancestors would produce you. The odds of your exact sperm-egg combination is extremely low. Add the exact combination of all your ancestors, and you exist on a razor's edge. You are already extremely unlikely. And yet here you are. Our own arrogance perceives this as miraculous when thinking about ourselves, but somehow it loses its luster when we think instead about our next-door neighbor's miraculous existence.


I was confused as to the meaning of the Anthropic principle, thank you for clearing it up - it's exactly what I believe!

Whitney

Topic moved because it is a lot more about creationism than science.

-laetus

Whitney

Quote from: "mrwynd"I was confused as to the meaning of the Anthropic principle, thank you for clearing it up - it's exactly what I believe!

Yes, thanks.  I initially was thinking it was more of an atheist view of the universe.  However when I googled it to brush up, I got results that made me think it was more about fine tuning.  That's what I get for only skimming wiki to brush up on a topic.

Perillux

Quoteis seems curious that there would be 'rules' that things fallow, no matter what.
Why would it be wierd that there are 'rules'?  Think about it, first step is to stop thinking about it as actual 'rules'.  They are simply things that happen and we observe them.

It seems FAR wierder to me that a god would make oddly specific rules about human affairs (morals ect...), instead of telling us about how the universe works.

Quotethis is kinda what i mean. where did the 'principles' come from. since we haven't even touched on much, think of how complicated is some things....it's crazy to think about! awe inspiring almost..... :lol:
Science can explain how all these 'awe inspiring' things came to be from nothing.  But can you explain how god came to be?  God himself seems pretty "intelligently designed" to me, so how come you theists always overlook this?  A magical being that can do anything seems extremely improbable and highly ordered, compare that to the big bang which is just a mish mash of random particles.
Also, I totally aggree with you about how amazing and awe inspiring life is, but as 'infidel guy' put it:
when you over simplify things by saying "god did it" it seems to cheapen the miracle of life.

Quotebut even a bfief study of it ought to make one think, wow, thoses odds are small. i'm not talking like maybe it happened...every single element has to be how it is for what we have. each odd, stacked upon the other is clear evidence to me of a creator. sorry!!!:)
It's common for people who don't understand it to think like this.  The elements (chemicals ect..) form on their own.  Galaxies and solar systems and planets form on their own.

Quote3-"Only one planet out of thousands being able to support life is hardly what I would call fine tuning"-----also quite irrelivant.
don't make me laugh.  You can't possible know this.  All we know is that we are the only intelligent life in our own Solar system.  You want to know what our best technology is for finding life outside of our solar system?  It's simply a telescope that measures the size of planets which can only be done when the planet is eclipsing its nearby star.  This allows us to know if it's a gas giant or a solid planet like ours.  That's it!!  can you say for certain we are the only intelligent life in the universe from data like that?  I think not...
"The boldness of asking deep questions may require unforeseen flexibility if we are to accept the answers."
--The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene