Mysterious Cosmos [the anthropic principle]

Nature Magazine ^ | 06 August 2004 | Philip Ball

[AndrewC]

I am merely observing that there are many impossible things that become possible when understood.

That depends on what is being described as impossible. It is possible for heavy elements to be produced. It is "impossible" for uranium 235 to be produced from 235 hydrogen ions.

[Dimensio]

ATHIEST: Yep, we sure are staggeringly, mind-blowingly, down-to-the-most-impossible-and-exquisite-detail...lucky.

In my case it's "human knowledge of the workings of the universe is so limited that it's impossible for me to draw any conclusions about how we came about, including attributing it all to pure luck".

Thing is, I haven't seen evidence for any divine entities, and until I do see such evidence, I see no reason to assume them.

[js1138]

It is "impossible" for uranium 235 to be produced from 235 hydrogen ions.

True. Some would say the creation of uranium requires evolution. Others would not use that word.

[VadeRetro]

Some would say the creation of uranium requires evolution.

And yet so incredibly often we see the "jumping together from small parts" model offered as a refutation of evolution rather than a demonstration of its necessity. Go figure!

[AndrewC]

Some would say the creation of uranium requires evolution.

And some would ask where is the RMNS in this evolution?

[js1138]

It must be interesting living in a mind that does not allow words to have various meanings, depending on context. What does losing one's job have to do with combustion?

[-YYZ-]

Exactly. I have no problem with the anthropic priniciple, but for what it is - a metaphysical argument - not as a scientific theory or even hypothesis. It's a fact that if the universe was not the way it is we would not be here to question why it is the way it is. As to the answer to that question, well I don't know. Maybe one or more of the religions has it right. Maybe science will someday provide an answer, but currently the best it can say about the reason the universe is the way it is and not some other way is "we don't know."

[Mamzelle]

re: Thing is, I haven't seen evidence for any divine entities, and until I do see such evidence, I see no reason to assume them.)))

And here I see them everywhere. New babies radiate light. A factory contained in a single leaf. The utter impossibility of making music.

I suppose you have to believe first, and see later.

[VadeRetro]

Others would not use that word.

Using the word might indeed distract someone who makes a point of being easily distracted. The real point is that insisting upon complex features jumping together all at once from very low-level components generates incorrect predictions. (Bad model, bad answer). In particular, such models predict that complex objects tend to be impossible, notwithstanding that many such will happily self-assemble in the right conditions through the miracle of intermediate stages.

[js1138]

...through the miracle of intermediate stages.

Not to mention "conditions". Some of us on this thread were apparently present on the early earth and are qualified to speak about conditions.

[AndrewC]

Some of us on this thread were apparently present on the early earth and are qualified to speak about conditions.

Talk about strange thinking. The conditions have been fairly well established by scientists. It is those that are used. Physical laws are presumed to be stable and apply throughout the universe and throughout time. You can conceive of any conditions you like for early earth sans life. You still can't make life.

[js1138]

The conditions have been fairly well established by scientists. It is those that are used.

As I say, some of us were there. Nevermind that there is controversy about such basic things as the origin of the moon, and nevermind that we are just beginning to study deep earth life forms: eyewitness testimony trumps science.

And yes, we still can't make life. And fifty-five years ago we couldn't modify the genome. What's your point?

[William Terrell]

A man that takes a side will sometimes be wrong, but a man that sits on the fence will always be wrong.

[tpaine]

The existence or nonexistence of God can't be resolved by scientific rigor and material measurements, so waiting for the deciding test is futile. One has to ultimately come down on either side.

You think so, - I don't.. -- Why not leave me to live in that liberty? Isn't that the American way?

A man that takes a side will sometimes be wrong, but a man that sits on the fence will always be wrong.

I'm not 'sitting on a fence', I'm defending my rights to life, liberty, & property, -- from the overzealous extremists of both sides.

[Arthur McGowan]

Your paraphrase of my argument is not accurate. You inserted the word "God" in your "premise 2."

All I attempted to show was that there is some uncaused being. (Note, an uncaused being, not a being which causes itself, which IS a contradiction.)

Whether this uncaused being is personal, infinite, good, loving, etc., is not part of this argument. What is certain is that any uncaused being would have to be radically unlike anything that ever enters our human experience, precisely because it could not be a material thing.

Denials of the existence of God are actually assertions that there is no being which has some kind of authority over man. An uncaused being, which has caused man to exist, poses a threat to the desire of the atheist to deny such an authority.

[AndrewC]

And yes, we still can't make life. And fifty-five years ago we couldn't modify the genome. What's your point?

My point is that your just so stories are just so. And fifty-five years ago we didn't have cell phones, but cell phones were not made by throwing chemicals in an ocean and waiting for a result.

[tpaine]

Arthur McGowan wrote:

Denials of the existence of God are actually assertions that there is no being which has some kind of authority over man.

Exactly true. -- "There is no being which has some kind of authority over man", in a Constitutional sense.
Feel free to preach that God exists, but do not insist that your peers obey Him.

[Arthur McGowan]

There is nothing in the Constitution which asserts or implies that men are not obliged to obey God's law.

[js1138]

but cell phones were not made by throwing chemicals in an ocean and waiting for a result.

But genetic engineering was developed by people who mad just-so stories and tested them and made new and better stories. It was developed by people who rejected vitalism and accepted naturalism.

[whattajoke]

And here I see[evidences of a deity] everywhere. New babies radiate light. A factory contained in a single leaf. The utter impossibility of making music.

Your poetic musings, though lovely, certainly don't point to a deity of any sort. Not to be too picky, but if your baby is radiating light, you may want to get thee to a doctor. Please elaborate on this "factory contained in a single leaf." I can make music and I have no musical talent... it's decidedly not impossible.

I suppose you have to believe first, and see later.

Exactly. You will get no argument here, nor from any so-called atheist. I (and others who err on the side of science and rational thought) don't "believe" until we "see." That's how it works, whereas supernatural faith is more in line with your statement... which I have NO problem with, and I thank you for pointing it out.