faustuz

It seems that I need to clarify my position because several of the posters in this thread have obviously not actually read my initial post. I am arguing that the anthropic principle warrants agnosticism with regards to whether or not the universe is purposeful. I am not in anyway saying that it has any implications with regards to the existence of God or Gods. What it might have implications toward is whether or not a pantheistic explanation of the universe is warranted. A pantheistic universe would be a purposeful universe (at least according to one possible definition of pantheism, others might exist), but not necessarily a universe created by a God. Hopefully that will clear things up and we can avoid any more spurious posts about xians. I really don’t feel like talking about xians today.

Biff the unclean

If you aren't talking about gods you can't use the word pantheism

the•ism, n {from Gr. Theos, god; and ism}
1, belief in the existence of a god or gods
2, belief in one God; monotheism: opposed to pantheism, polytheism
3, the ill effect of habitual excess in tea drinking

Tea drinking??!! Ha!, the things I don't know.

If you are talking about a universe that thinks, you are taking on quite a burden of proof

faustuz

Gladly! I found a good definition on the internet, I’m just going to steal it.

“The anthropic cosmological principle asserts that the laws, constants and basic structure of the universe are not completely arbitrary. Instead they are contrained by the requirement that they must allow for the existence of intelligent observers, ourselves.”

--http://www.winternet.com/~gmcdavid/html_dir/anthropic.html

Does that constitute a principle? I certainly think it constitutes a fact, rather difficult to refute (can you?) but I didn’t come up with the term, so I’m not going to try to defend it. The various flavors of the AP all take at least this as a starting point, but that is all that the AP itself says. The flavors each add something to that.
Why is it without warrant? Physicists tell me that if I were to change the fundamental constants of the universe ever so slightly then matter could not aggregate, atoms could not form, etc. Furthermore, its seems from our observations of the universe that the parameters for generating life, not to mention conscious life, are indeed narrow. Am I certain that conscious life couldn’t arise in more than a tiny percentage of conceivable universes? No I don’t. Many cosmologists think so, but I’m not a cosmologist. I can not say that life could not arise in a universe without planets or molecules, but I also can not definitively say it could not. I find the prospect unlikely, but I am not rejecting it. Also remember, I myself gave several alternatives in my post (including the one you seem to be proposing here). Yet again I’ll say, I’m arguing for agnosticism on the subject of purposeful design. We simply don’t know enough. However, if some years from now cosmologists determine that this universe is indeed the only universe (no multiverse) and we indeed confirm what seems to be true based on extant evidence, that life requires very narrow parameters to develop, I would probably tilt my opinion strongly in favor of the purposeful universe.
Ouch! Would you care to justify your claim that I don’t understand probability?

faustuz

I'm not talking about a universe that thinks.

HappyFunBall

no it was not directed specifically at you....i was simply pointing out a flaw in those who argue that god must exist because the universe, as they see it, is "perfect" for us. that's all

Shadowy Man

Well, they might tell me that, but it would still be false.

All I have to do is ask someone who has won the lottery how many times they actually played.

All I have to do is look up at a solar eclipse and ponder the odds that the sun and the moon would have nearly the exact same angular size on the sky.
Events that dont happen, period, are impossible, not improbable. Improbably still implies the possible.

Oxymoron

The anthropic principle also argues against the special nature of our universe: things are they way they are because that's the way they are; if they weren't, they wouldn't be and we wouldn't be here to be wondering why.

Oxymoron

They do, given an astronomically long enough time (13 billion years) and an astronomically large solution space (our universe). In fact, some are almost inevitable.

wordsmyth

I'm not entirely sure I agree with this. Yes, the laws, constants and basic structure of the universe do (obviously) allow for the existence of intelligent observers. However, this does not guarantee that intelligent life will exist.

Physicists tell me that if I were to change the fundamental constants of the universe ever so slightly then matter could not aggregate, atoms could not form, etc. Furthermore, its seems from our observations of the universe that the parameters for generating life, not to mention conscious life, are indeed narrow.


1.) Which fundamental constants? Can any fundamental constants be changed?

2.) How much is "ever so slightly"? That seems a bit arbitrary.

3.) What exactly is meant by "narrow parameters" for generating life? This also seems a bit arbitrary.

faustuz

Exactly correct. In fact, that's been my whole point!