Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mysterious Cosmos [the anthropic principle]
Nature Magazine ^ | 06 August 2004 | Philip Ball

Posted on 08/07/2004 2:28:51 PM PDT by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-268 next last
To: GSHastings
There is no proof what-so-ever, that it is possible for time + chance to create complex structures

And God is proven how?

41 posted on 08/07/2004 6:12:58 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings
What I am saying, is that there is a nearly limitless amount of scientific evidence for intelligent creativity.

OK. So what would an "uncreated" object look like? By what signs would you know it was uncreated?

42 posted on 08/07/2004 6:33:23 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
This idea is as embarrassing as the "Gaia" hypothesis.

Less, because although we have new-agers and environmentalists running around, babbling about how the sacredness of the planet demands that we stop burning gasoline, the loonies have yet to figure out how to convert the whole universe into a left-wing political movement.

43 posted on 08/07/2004 7:12:30 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

This discussion has nothing whatever to do with chemistry or any other physical process. A metaphysical discussion has to do with being as such, not particular types of beings.


44 posted on 08/07/2004 7:41:15 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes

I didn't misunderstand you. You asked for evidence of God's existence. One valid type of argument for the existence of anything is to start with the premise that the thing does not exist, and see where it leads. The proposition that God does not exist ultimately leads to the proposition that nothing exists. And the proposition that nothing exists is contradicted by experience.


45 posted on 08/07/2004 7:44:50 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
One valid type of argument for the existence of anything is to start with the premise that the thing does not exist, and see where it leads. The proposition that God does not exist ultimately leads to the proposition that nothing exists. And the proposition that nothing exists is contradicted by experience.

After hearing such a convincing argument, you'ed think the whole world would believe.

46 posted on 08/07/2004 7:54:40 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Lee's proposal is a fascinating case-study in the attempt to use Darwinism as a club with which to beat religion. (I call him by first name because I know him personally.)

Quite bizarrely on the one hand, Lee objects to the non-falsifiability of the anthropic principle (Indeed a valid objection--as readers of evolution threads know, I am a sort of hyper-Popperian in that I insist that not only should scientific theories in the small sense be falsifable, but that the applicability of the formalisms on which they are based be falsifiable.). On the other hand, he proposes the unfalsifiable theory that black-holes spawn other universes--another universe is by definition impossible to observe, and thus its existence or non-existence is unfalsifiable. (I also object very strongly to the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics both on Popperian grounds and on the basis of Occam's Razor.) Limiting the discussion to the physical universe in which we find ourselves, which for reasons of observability is a necessity if one proposes to pursue emperical science, he replaces the unobservable, unfalsifiable Divine First Cause with an equally unobservable, unfalsifiable First-Cause-as-a-black-hole-in-another-universe.

47 posted on 08/07/2004 8:06:07 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know what this was)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes
And God is proven how?

God is not proven. And that wasn't the point of discussion.

The point of discussion was "show me the scientific evidence for God's existence".

The scientific evidence for the existence of God is all around you.

It can easily proven that intelligent design and creation exists, and is extremely common.

It cannot be proven that evolution occurs, has occured, or will occur. Ever.

Therefore, intelligent design is by far the most plausible explanation, based on the "scientific" evidence.

48 posted on 08/07/2004 8:26:26 PM PDT by GSHastings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

God cannot be proven or disproven by logic. He lives in your heart or He does not.


49 posted on 08/07/2004 8:33:33 PM PDT by FormerACLUmember (Free Republic is 21st Century Samizdat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
OK. So what would an "uncreated" object look like? By what signs would you know it was uncreated?

Sorry, but that burden is entirely yours.

So far as I know, there are no uncreated objects.

50 posted on 08/07/2004 8:45:27 PM PDT by GSHastings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes

Show how science proves all that exists can be known by science.


51 posted on 08/07/2004 8:52:50 PM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

The other day, I was dealt the K, J, 9 and 4 of Spades, the Q, 10, 8 of Hearts, the 7, and 4 of Diamonds, and the A, 7, 5 and 2 of Clubs. The probability of getting such a hand is exactly the same as of getting all Clubs. The Anthropic Principle is equivalent to saying that my outcome was so unlikely that the deck must have been stacked.

Someone (PH, your or VR, maybe) called it the "Fallacy of Retrospective Astonishment." Acceptance of the Anthropic Principle means assuming that the universe is completely deterministic (otherwise, something different may have occured, he said Candidely).


52 posted on 08/07/2004 8:54:29 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e
Thank you so much for your reply and your question!

So, did God have a beginning? If you say "no" then why do you think the universe had to have one?

Actually, I have meditated on this subject rather extensively and wrote the article on this link.

There is a specific heading "Did God have a beginning?" but the information preceding it is important to "building up" to the answer in my musings.

53 posted on 08/07/2004 9:03:29 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thank you for your reply! I also much enjoy the discussions on the anthropic principle!.
54 posted on 08/07/2004 9:05:08 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings
Sorry, but that burden is entirely yours.

Alright. In that case, uncreated things are made of atoms.

(Do you want to re-think leaving the choice up to me?)

55 posted on 08/07/2004 9:06:43 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
The other day, I was dealt the K, J, 9 and 4 of Spades, the Q, 10, 8 of Hearts, the 7, and 4 of Diamonds, and the A, 7, 5 and 2 of Clubs. The probability of getting such a hand is exactly the same as of getting all Clubs.

The difference is when the first hand is only one of a very large number of worthless hands, and all Clubs wins you the jackpot. The odds of getting the jackpot hand are exceedingly small. The odds of getting a worthless hand is quite large.

56 posted on 08/07/2004 9:07:24 PM PDT by GSHastings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
There are some American Indian (inter alia) cosmologies that do not require a beginning. Likewise Newton assumed an infinite-eternal universe (he needed infinite extent to avoid Olber's Paradox) Remember, the Indians clame to have lived here in the Southwest forever. (To deny such may risk the wrath of the Lords of Xibalba.)
57 posted on 08/07/2004 9:12:22 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e
So, did God have a beginning? If you say "no" then why do you think the universe had to have one?

No.

Material things were created by God as He has revealed in the Bible. Science evidently concurs.

58 posted on 08/07/2004 9:12:27 PM PDT by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Alright. In that case, uncreated things are made of atoms.

All created things are made of atoms. So there is nothing to differential uncreated from created objects in that.

(Do you want to re-think leaving the choice up to me?)

Nope.

59 posted on 08/07/2004 9:13:41 PM PDT by GSHastings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

BTTT


60 posted on 08/07/2004 9:17:25 PM PDT by Fiddlstix (This Tagline for sale. (Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-268 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson