Happy Atheist Forum

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

assuming you know what it is.....

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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  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.

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  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!

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  

you are going to have to explain this one.

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?'

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 (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm)

wordup.

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.

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!!!

wordup

Life,

I was trying to discuss the issue with you like I would with any other person who is interested in philosophy (which I assumed  you were since you brought up the anthropic principle).  But, so far it has been like pulling teeth to get you to explain the logic behind your conclusions.  It's not always about agreeing... sometimes it's just about being able to discuss so we can at least see how the other person reached their conclusion.  Does that make sense?  

Quote from: "laetusatheos"Life,

I was trying to discuss the issue with you like I would with any other person who is interested in philosophy (which I assumed  you were since you brought up the anthropic principle).  But, so far it has been like pulling teeth to get you to explain the logic behind your conclusions.  It's not always about agreeing... sometimes it's just about being able to discuss so we can at least see how the other person reached their conclusion.  Does that make sense?   :))))))

Let me get this straight...you think god exists because apparent fine tuning leads you to assume a creator and because things are pretty?

Quote from: "lifeatlast"why would clouds of atoms feel love, feel anything?

why not? why could that never happen?

how does a cloud of atoms create gold, computers, sound, ants, spider monkeys, mountains or apple pies?

a cloud of atoms can also creates molecules, organelles, cells, tissues, organs, organ systems, and organisms
an organism's brain (including human brains) have the ability to acquire, store, and process information. without your brain you would not feel anything and you (on a conscious level) would not exist. why is it more than that?

Quote from: "laetusatheos"Let me get this straight...you think god exists because apparent fine tuning leads you to assume a creator and because things are pretty?

well, in so many words, yes.

but i still think your missing my point  check it. why should we appreciate a sun set?

Quote from: "jcm"

Quote from: "lifeatlast"why would clouds of atoms feel love, feel anything?

why not? why could that never happen?
[/qoute]

no.

Quotehow does a cloud of atoms create gold, computers, sound, ants, spider monkeys, mountains or apple pies?

your asking me? i'm asking you!!! hahah. i say becasue of God eh....

Quotewithout your brain you would not feel anything and you (on a conscious level) would not exist. why is it more than that?

and your concious level wouldn't exist of not for God. hmm, this should be in another thread now i think... :lol:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/)

Read.

Quote from: "lifeatlast"any books you think i'd be into i'm open as well. no lie man.

go to itunes and download the audiobook of a brief history of time and listen to it several times. this is a good summary of the last 300 years in physics. find out for yourself how the universe really works based on testing it, not based on the trust of anicent human superstitions.

Quote from: "jcm"

Quote from: "lifeatlast"any books you think i'd be into i'm open as well. no lie man.

go to itunes and download the audiobook of a brief history of time and listen to it several times. this is a good summary of the last 300 years in physics. find out for yourself how the universe really works based on testing it, not based on the trust of anicent human superstitions.

I would have to disagree with starting out with this book for someone new to what lifeatlast is talking about. First, his issues seems to keep coming back to the field of neurobiology ("why do we appreciate a sunset?", for example), not cosmology or astronomy. Second, Hawking's book is a popular one for people to throw around as a reference, but it's not an easy read, and it's not as comprehensive as more recent books.

Don't get me wrong, I still have a copy of it and from time to time I look at it, but I would go more with basic books on critical thinking first. I think lifeatlast would tire quickly of Hawking.  

I recommend Demon Haunted World, by Carl Sagan, and some basic popular books on physics and biology first.

the term "fine tuned" confuses me. If the universe was any different and we were to still exist, would it still be "fine tuned"? There is no other existence or universe to compare to, to say this one is "fine tuned". If we were made out of different elements and breathed something other than oxygen, would it still be said that our universe is fine tuned? We know this existence works because we are here to discuss it, that doesn't make it perfect or necessarily unique.

If the universe is so exact that it must have a creator, who created the creator? To point at creation is to give all of nature a human quality. The only things that are created are things humans create. Rocks, earth, etc are formed over time and when you point and say "that was created" you are just putting a human trait on nature.

Is it more plausible that Noah, on his ark, brought over 2000 species of beetles (with mates), or that these beetles evolved from a smaller pool of beetles in the past? Non-Christians just made up, and continue to make up fossils? The only thing that can be pointed at to discredit evolution/natural selection/reproductive selection is an old book? There's certainly a lot more red flags that come up when you get into the nitty-gritty of "creation".

Quote from: "mrwynd"who created the creator?

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

Quote from: "Atheist Mother"http://www.stephenjaygould.org/

Read.

i will.

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "jcm"I recommend Demon Haunted World, by Carl Sagan, and some basic popular books on physics and biology first.

i will see. i like philosophical more than science though...

Quote from: "lifeatlast"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.

Evidence of a creator? The universe exists to support life? If God created the universe to support life, he sure did a crappy job. Every day this planet hangs on the balance of ultimate destruction in a universe extremely hostile to the elements critical for life. It's only been in the very recent past that the human lifespan has been long enough to contemplate anything else but reproduction. And that's only thanks to human effort.

Quote from: "myleviathan"

Quote from: "lifeatlast"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.

Evidence of a creator? The universe exists to support life? If God created the universe to support life, he sure did a crappy job. Every day this planet hangs on the balance of ultimate destruction in a universe extremely hostile to the elements critical for life. It's only been in the very recent past that the human lifespan has been long enough to contemplate anything else but reproduction. And that's only thanks to human effort.

human lifespan? did we used to die younger? like 18?

crappy job? heh. oh yeah. what was i thinking.

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.

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.

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.  

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

</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>

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?

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 (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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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 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!
 

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!

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

-laetus

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.

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.....

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...

I read the posts, but I return to the initial question.

You clearly don't realize what "chance", aka Random, means. Don't feel bad - few do. For instance - the Laws of Chance are actually quite precise.

"Random" merely means - if there is a pattern here, I can't see it - yet.

On the other hand - if God created the Universe according to some plan, and I don't know why He/She/It did it just when they did, then by golly - looks Random to me, as does every other part of the plan I don't know about. If I assume the plan in toto is consistent and coherent, I am forced to admit that failure to know every single detail of it makes what I DO know of it appear - Random. There's no way out, Dude.

As an experienced cryptologist, I can encode data such that it is not only difficult to decode, it is a demonstrable mathematical impossibility; thus it is quite impossible for anyone to show the data is less than random - unless they have my crypto key; THEN she pops right open, no sweat. To find the key randomly (a brute force attack) could be done - unfortunately, the very protons in the storage media will decay long, long before you have a snowball's chance in hell of doing so. One may assume the data loses any relevance first.

You say you cannot conceive of a Universe created from nothing, without a God to do it; but this of course implies that this God who predates the Universe is a nothing - and here we agree.

I would assume he is Eternal for sake of argument - but I truly don't know what Eternal means, neither do you, and neither does anyone else.

Eternal "means" an Infinity of Time - but again we are stuck. What are these?

Time is not what we think at all, and this was definitively demonstrated in 1919, during a solar eclipse observed from Africa.

Infinity is quite the deal; it turns out that Infinity = Zero, a very trivial mathematical conclusion of Cantorian Set Theory.

Nothing cannot be known, because - it is an idea written upon a physical medium - the mind is quite physical, my friend. The model of NoThing in the mind is, itself, a Thing - the antithesis of NoThing - and cannot be expected to behave as NoThing when manipulated - after all, how does one manipulate NoThing? If there is a Thing to manipulate NoThing, then have we not lost NoThingness by having it?

I note also that when Zero was introduced in the western world, widespread rioting erupted - from Christians, who thought it Satanic.

Bear that in mind next time you balance your checkbook - if any.