News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

Anthropic principle

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

Previous topic - Next topic

lifeatlast

just wondering some thoughts on this from someone who thinks we came about by chance.

assuming you know what it is.....

Smallville

Quote from: "lifeatlast"just wondering some thoughts on this from someone who thinks we came about by chance.

assuming you know what it is.....


Is something you wish to discuss? Or, perhaps, a question you would like answered?
Could you be a little more specific with your request?
Two wrongs don't make a right but three left turns will.

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." â€" Nietzsche
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt." - Clarence Darrow

McQ

lifeatlast, here are a couple of good ideas...

Perhaps you start out with an introductory message to the forum. Even better, before that, you read the forum rules. Then you post a clearer message so people don't have to guess at your purpose or your stance.

Thanks.

Maybe after that, the members of the forum would be happy to address whatever it is you want addressed.

A last suggestion would be to not come in with your first post and attempt to insult the members here with a sarcastic comment. That puts you in a losing position immediately.

Clear enough? Any questions, feel free to ask.
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

lifeatlast

ok. no worries. i posted in into.

also, by no means did i mean to come off sarcastic. (stupid internet typing) basically, i really meant what i said. it just, for me at least, is hard not to believe in God when i look at the universe. and with a brief amiture sstudy of the anthropic prinicple it convicts me even more.

the odds f everything, being 'made' from nothing, with no God is staggering. so small.....so so small. like, impossible small.

so yeah. just seeing how this might affect your stance. or if you don't know about it look it up! cuz it's awsome! ok. word up.

Smallville

Okay, I think I see what you are asking.

Mankind has been obsessed about this since time began. Early man, primitive man, had neither the ability nor the knowledge to explain things. Supernatural explanations, the earliest forms of religion, the spirit world, early gods and demons, explained things he could not or did not understand.

As time passed, explanations became more complex and organized religions grew. These grew on “mysteries”, religious truths that are incomprehensible to reason and knowable only through divine revelation.

No one believes the old mythologies (Egyptian, Norse, Greco-Roman, etc.) today yet these were once viable religions that explained the things those peoples did not, could not understand. Their religions, based on natural, observable phenomena, gave supernatural explanations instead of scientific reasons, through rites and rituals performed by a privileged priest-class that controlled the religion.

Now, the religions based on Abraham’s covenant with God, a single god rather than numerous ones, have all but subverted the polytheistic field of gods and attribute creation (and everything else) to one with each successive revealed religion claiming to be the “true” way and that all those before it are false or no longer viable due to each subsequent revelation of God’s word.

Science, the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena (that is, the learning of things, their properties, and their processes) came to replace much of the supernatural by explaining cosmology, biology, psychology, and so on with verifiable underlying scientific principles and without the need for the mystical. Certainly, there are things science has yet to explain, (things science may never be able to explain fully) but just because science cannot do so yet is no reason to give credence to a god beyond the comprehension of mortal man. There just is not any proof. There is nothing but faith in the lack of knowledge.

Your “anthropic” principle is nothing more than an evolving technique where one religion supplants another and then another as “revelations” come by mysterious means. They offer nothing really new; just vague, unsubstantiated promises as being the latest and final (always the final) word from God.

By attributing everything to God, you deny the scientific principles involved.
Two wrongs don't make a right but three left turns will.

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." â€" Nietzsche
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt." - Clarence Darrow

lifeatlast

Quote from: "Smallville"Science, the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena (that is, the learning of things, their properties, and their processes) came to replace much of the supernatural by explaining cosmology, biology, psychology, and so on with verifiable underlying scientific principles and without the need for the mystical. Certainly, there are things science has yet to explain, (things science may never be able to explain fully) but just because science cannot do so yet is no reason to give credence to a god beyond the comprehension of mortal man. There just is not any proof. There is nothing but faith in the lack of knowledge.

totally fair enough. but then another thing that comes up is where 'science' came from. and by science i mean, is seems curious that there would be 'rules' that things fallow, no matter what. i'm no pro by any means, but i know a bit about stuff and things :lol:

wordup.

Whitney

The anthropic principle simply states that the universe could not support life if various fundamental aspects of its makeup were different.  Through this conclusion, which is baseless (I'll get to that later), it is trying to make the claim that this fine tuning is evidence of a creator.  Basically, it's playing on the same field as intelligent design; x is too complicated to come about naturally, therefore god did it.

Why they conclusion is wrong:

First of all, even if we could know that this arrangement is the only arrangement that could allow life to form, that would not mean we should have to consider it fine tuned.  The error is in assuming that the whole point of the universe is to produce life.  As you may have often been told as a child, the universe does not revolve around you (life).

Similar to the above, we cannot make the assumption of fine tuning without being able to compare to other universes.  There could be any number of combinations of elements which would result in a universe that can produce life.  Since life exits, obviously the universe is set up very well for life.  However, considering that we have yet to find a planet which is known to contain even a trace of organic life, quite a bit of this universe is not life friendly.  Only one planet out of thousands being able to support life is hardly what I would call fine tuning.....adequate would be a better term.

Smallville

Quote from: "lifeatlast"
Quote from: "Smallville"Science, the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena (that is, the learning of things, their properties, and their processes) came to replace much of the supernatural by explaining cosmology, biology, psychology, and so on with verifiable underlying scientific principles and without the need for the mystical. Certainly, there are things science has yet to explain, (things science may never be able to explain fully) but just because science cannot do so yet is no reason to give credence to a god beyond the comprehension of mortal man. There just is not any proof. There is nothing but faith in the lack of knowledge.

totally fair enough. but then another thing that comes up is where 'science' came from. and by science i mean, is seems curious that there would be 'rules' that things fallow, no matter what. i'm no pro by any means, but i know a bit about stuff and things :lol:

wordup.

Mystic Mathematicians find god in numbers.
Creationist Cosmologists find god in the Big Bang.
Religious Zealots find god in toast, gnarled trees, and rain stains on walls.
In other words, people always find what they want to believe in the most.

You're now playing the guessing game of "Chicken and the Egg".
Which came first?
There's no definitive answer.

Accept what you will for yourself. It's what we all do.

Just don't try to convince someone else without proof.
Two wrongs don't make a right but three left turns will.

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." â€" Nietzsche
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt." - Clarence Darrow

tornado

Quote from: "lifeatlast"totally fair enough. but then another thing that comes up is where 'science' came from. and by science i mean, is seems curious that there would be 'rules' that things fallow, no matter what. i'm no pro by any means, but i know a bit about stuff and things :D  basically what your studying is what God made. (i know you don't see it that way).

Science didn't "come from" anywhere. Science was the result of people observing the world around them and drawing conclusions based on solid evidence. Religion is the result of people observing the world around them and making wild assumptions as to what it all "means." The two really have nothing to do with each other.

Also, I'd like it if you would explain exactly how the anthropic principle proves we did not come about by chance. I think you'll find that it doesn't actually prove anything, it's just a load of conjecture.

lifeatlast

Quote from: "tornado"
Quote from: "lifeatlast"totally fair enough. but then another thing that comes up is where 'science' came from. and by science i mean, is seems curious that there would be 'rules' that things fallow, no matter what. i'm no pro by any means, but i know a bit about stuff and things :D  basically what your studying is what God made. (i know you don't see it that way).

QuoteScience didn't "come from" anywhere. Science was the result of people observing the world around them and drawing conclusions based on solid evidence.

yeah...i think my point got missed. (i am bad at explaining too) Science is the study of.....i mean, WHAT you studying. that's the part that exists, by it's self. the rules that things fallow. their constant. universal. why?



QuoteReligion is the result of people observing the world around them and making wild assumptions as to what it all "means." The two really have nothing to do with each other.

i agree. science only takes you so far. that when we leave it aside, for the time being and use our rationality to see what we think about what that evidence says reagrding us. anyways. there's no point in tryibng to make ther other see each others point of view. no offence. i'm sure you feel the same way. we must search our hearts. something i cannot do for you.


QuoteAlso, I'd like it if you would explain exactly how the anthropic principle proves we did not come about by chance. I think you'll find that it doesn't actually prove anything, it's just a load of conjecture.

heh. i proves what you want it to i guess. but 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!!!:)  

word up!!
thanks for the replies!

jcm

Quote from: "lifeatlast"heh. i proves what you want it to i guess. but 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!!!:)  

word up!!
thanks for the replies!

wtf  :hmm:

you are going to have to explain this one.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -cs

Whitney

Quote from: "lifeatlast"heh. i proves what you want it to i guess. but 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!!!:)  

Did you not read my post?

Please explain why you think the anthropic principle leads to the valid conclusion of a god.  Why do you find it to be 'clear evidence?'

lifeatlast

Quote from: "laetusatheos"The anthropic principle simply states that the universe could not support life if various fundamental aspects of its makeup were different.  Through this conclusion, which is baseless (I'll get to that later), it is trying to make the claim that this fine tuning is evidence of a creator.  Basically, it's playing on the same field as intelligent design; x is too complicated to come about naturally, therefore god did it.

Why they conclusion is wrong:

First of all, even if we could know that this arrangement is the only arrangement that could allow life to form, that would not mean we should have to consider it fine tuned.  The error is in assuming that the whole point of the universe is to produce life.  As you may have often been told as a child, the universe does not revolve around you (life).

Similar to the above, we cannot make the assumption of fine tuning without being able to compare to other universes.  There could be any number of combinations of elements which would result in a universe that can produce life.  Since life exits, obviously the universe is set up very well for life.  However, considering that we have yet to find a planet which is known to contain even a trace of organic life, quite a bit of this universe is not life friendly.  Only one planet out of thousands being able to support life is hardly what I would call fine tuning.....adequate would be a better term.

1-i don't assume the universe exist to produce life. rather it exist to facilitate life.
2-other universes? where did this come from. have you seen how big our's is? why would there be other universes?
3-"Only one planet out of thousands being able to support life is hardly what I would call fine tuning"-----also quite irrelivant.
4-at any rate, we won't see eye to eye no matter what the other says. i do however appreciate the replies. it still confuses me how one can toss this 'coinsidence' aside.... just a link i found. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... anthro.htm

wordup.

Whitney

life,

Either I did a bad job explaining or you didn't understand what I said.  If we can't communicate, of course we will never see eye to eye.

Fine tuning is especially relevant since that is what the anthropic principle his hinged on!  Without the assumption of the universe being fine tuned for life the the principle would be nothing more than the statement "the universe exists therefore god/creator did it".

Again, can you please explain why you think this principle leads you to draw the conclusion of a creator?  So far you have just claimed coincidence.

lifeatlast

Quote from: "laetusatheos"life,

Either I did a bad job explaining or you didn't understand what I said.  If we can't communicate, of course we will never see eye to eye.

Fine tuning is especially relevant since that is what the anthropic principle his hinged on!  Without the assumption of the universe being fine tuned for life the the principle would be nothing more than the statement "the universe exists therefore god/creator did it".

Again, can you please explain why you think this principle leads you to draw the conclusion of a creator?  So far you have just claimed coincidence.

heh no worries. yeah basically then, it would be nothing more than a stament, but that's silly to say; the same could be said for any thought.

but basically, i'm probly thinking what you think i'm thinking....

i draw the conclusion because of the usual argument everyone ever gives....

anyways. i do appreciate the replies. i just can't get over how someone can't see it my way...but then you'd say the same!!! :lol:

wordup