Replies

The Anthropic Principle is probably anathema to such scientists for the same reason the Big Bang is.....

I"m inclined to think that scientists who purposefully set out to exclude even the potential for God are actually quite few in number, albeit rather loud and vociferous in their pronouncements. I should point out, in addition, that suggesting that the universe may not require a God is not the same as suggesting that the universe doesn't have a God.

The Anthropic Principle was adopted enthusiastically by Soviet Cosmologists. I don't really understand why, but it seems that they didn't want too large a natural universe. This is discussed in some preprints (xxx archive) about history of physics. I don't know which one.

"albeit rather loud and vociferous in their pronouncements."

The characters on this thread have convinced me more than ever that rabid evolutionists

are AT HEART pure and simple rebels. They are terrified that at some point, their license to rebel with official sanction will be revoked and that they will then be forced to consider more seriously that they are NOT their own god; ends unto themselves alone and totally.

What ignorance!

NOTHING in life nor in any culture supports such a nonsensical construction on reality. Yet they are fiercely and rabidly addicted to it.

Amazing. Truly God said it right when He said that a fool has said in his heart that there is no God.

Thank you so much for your reply!

I'm inclined to think that scientists who purposefully set out to exclude even the potential for God are actually quite few in number, albeit rather loud and vociferous in their pronouncements.

Indeed, and sadly they hold rather powerful positions - e.g. Pinker, Singer, Lewontin.

I should point out, in addition, that suggesting that the universe may not require a God is not the same as suggesting that the universe doesn't have a God.

Indeed, the statements are not mutually exclusive.

However - a very big however - those few (but powerful) scientists look rather like emperors with no clothes (IMHO) declaring that God doesn't exist in the face of (a) the fact of a beginning, (b) the unreasonable effectiveness of math, and (c) information in biological systems. (I'm certain that betty boop could add to my list.)

Supporters of evolution are quick to decry Young Earth Creationists as casting conservatives in a poor intellectual light. Of a truth, these few (but powerful) scientists cast their own community in a bad intellectual light to a great many voters.

I should point out, in addition, that suggesting that the universe may not require a God is not the same as suggesting that the universe doesn't have a God.

But how do you expect science to show that the universe either does or does not require a God? That's a pretty tall order, general_re. Frankly, I don't think this is a scientific question at all. One must run on over to the other side of the great epistemic divide (e.g., to philosphy, cosmology, theology) just to ask it.

My best wishes to you and yours for a Happy New Year!