Anthropic Principle

[lucaspa]

I'm glad it was God Who created this universe and not man.

Why?

Thalidomide was supposed to be anthropically friendly, but wasn't.

As Cabal noted, the Tree of Knowledge was not exactly anthropically friendly. Why didn't God put it where the humans could not get at it? Humans know enough to child-proof houses and put covers on the electrical sockets. Why isn't God that smart?

 

[matthewgar]

The problem with the Strong Anthropic Principle (what you call "lesser") is that it say the universe must be fine tuned the way it is. But there is no requirement for the universe to be find-tuned. If it is not, then we simply don't exist to wonder about it.

Multiverse is indeed a set of theories to get around the problem of the improbability of the universe having the physical parameters it does. Scientists don't like improbable events. But if there are a large number of universes each with independent parameters, then the odds that one of the universes will have the parameters in this one become virtual certainty. Just like with enough lottery tickets sold it becomes a certainty that one of them will have the winning numbers.

We, of course, happen to be in the universe with these parameters.



What do you mean by "us"? If you mean "modified ape", then no. The existence of the particular species H. sapiens is indeed contingent and unlikely. If you mean "sapient species", then yes. As evolution explores the Library of All Possible Genomes, it is eventually going to hit upon some set of genomes for sapience.

There was a Scientific American article several months back that showed that it was possible to get carbon-based life with a small set of alternative physical parameters. It's not "many different setting" but some different settings.



One of two questions in science where it is still possible to hypothesize direct action by deity is the question:
Why does the universe have the particular order it does (anthropic principle)? A possible answer is: Deity created it this way.

BUT, even if it turns out that we have a single universe and the parameters are unlikely, that still isn't going to "prove" the existence of deity, because of the logical mistake I noted in my previous post.



LOL! You think this is about convincing people? I thought it was about searching for the truth.

One thing, when I refered to the lesser, I was refering to the anthropic principle regarding the earth's position and such. The greater is refering to the universe as a whole. I juts mentioned lesser because to a great extent it's more of a presumption then what you call the strong anthropic, there are billions of galaxies, with billions of stars, with billions of planets, to say it's a miracle that our planet is in the right place at the right time and so on fails because there are many canidates, and probably millions or billions of planets that would work in our universe. Sorry I didn't make the distinction.

 

[lucaspa]

One thing, when I refered to the lesser, I was refering to the anthropic principle regarding the earth's position and such. The greater is refering to the universe as a whole. I juts mentioned lesser because to a great extent it's more of a presumption then what you call the strong anthropic, there are billions of galaxies, with billions of stars, with billions of planets, to say it's a miracle that our planet is in the right place at the right time and so on fails because there are many canidates, and probably millions or billions of planets that would work in our universe. Sorry I didn't make the distinction.

Thank you for the clarification. It appears that some creationists have been misusing the term "Anthropic Principle" and you have picked that up. I'm not sure what the exact term is for the idea that the earth is so "perfectly" suited to life, but it is obviously wrong that the parameters are so tight.

There is actually a wide range of values for distance from the star (the liquid water zone is a huge donut), size, density of atmosphere, distance from the galactic core, etc. such that life like we see on earth could arise on a planet.

Even IF the parameters were tight (and they are not), with 100 billion stars in our galaxy and billions of galaxies, the odds that a planet would be like earth is virtual certainty. But it is a virtual certainty that life could arise on lots of planets.

For those people who think that life can only arise on earth because God set it up that way, I always ask the question: "Then why all the other stars, planets, etc.? It's such a waste." (and these people also complain about the "waste" of evolution!)

 

[AV1611VET]

As Cabal noted, the Tree of Knowledge was not exactly anthropically friendly.

The Tree of Knowledge was not advertised as a wonder drug, either.

Why didn't God put it where the humans could not get at it?

Then I'm sure the Serpent would have brought it to them.

Placing it out of sight would only have made it easier to give in to eating it.

Humans know enough to child-proof houses and put covers on the electrical sockets.

And that's what God basically did, when He told Adam not to eat of it.

Why isn't God that smart?

He's infinitely smarter than you and I will ever be.

 

[Cabal]

The Tree of Knowledge was not advertised as a wonder drug, either.

No, it was advertised as a choice.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it was advertised as a choice.

As my wife tells me when she asks me if I will do something, and I come back with, "Do I have a choice?"

Her reply is always, "Yes, and I'm sure you'll make the right one."

 

[Cabal]

As my wife tells me when she asks me if I will do something, and I come back with, "Do I have a choice?"

Her reply is always, "Yes, and I'm sure you'll make the right one."

Never a truer word spoken

 

[Nathan Poe]

As my wife tells me when she asks me if I will do something, and I come back with, "Do I have a choice?"

Her reply is always, "Yes, and I'm sure you'll make the right one."

But God wanted -- some would argue needed -- humanity to make the wrong choice. Otherwise they'd have no need of Him or His pyramid salvation scheme.

So when you think of it literally, every incidence of suffering in this world that ever was, is, or will be is a testament to God's codependency.

 

[AV1611VET]

But God wanted -- some would argue needed -- humanity to make the wrong choice. Otherwise they'd have no need of Him or His pyramid salvation scheme.

So when you think of it literally, every incidence of suffering in this world that ever was, is, or will be is a testament to God's codependency.

My Mormon light is flashing right now -- but I could be way wrong.

 

[Belk]

My Mormon light is flashing right now -- but I could be way wrong.

Is that like the bat signal or something?

 

[Cabal]

Is that like the bat signal or something?

It's a cameo of Joseph Smith projected onto the sky.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that like the bat signal or something?

My spidey sense is tingling -- (I was bitten by a radioactive geek when I was a teenager).

 

[FredVB]

Scientists are coming to the point of understanding the complexity of the universe that with independent fundamental physical constants at their exact values allows it to exist as it does with us in it to observe it, if the universe developed as their theories have described it, such that they on that basis say this is one of many universes in a "multiverse" and it is the single one that worked out, with no other basis for that conclusion. Science has not disproved God, but rather, because science as it is practiced cannot take God into account in any theory or observation, and so anything else for an explanation for things like this are grasped.

 

[lucaspa]

The Tree of Knowledge was not advertised as a wonder drug, either.

At the time thalidomide was used, all the information said it was harmless. The tests for teratogenicity were negative.

However, why didn't God place this harmful tree someplace where humans (or the serpent) could not get to it. In fact, why did God create a Tree of Knowledge in the first place!

Then I'm sure the Serpent would have brought it to them.

Placing it out of sight would only have made it easier to give in to eating it.

I did not say "out of sight". I said "could not get to". That would apply to the serpent, too. Or are you implying this was impossible for God to do.

And that's what God basically did, when He told Adam not to eat of it.

LOL! Wow. So I suppose you just tell your kids not to stick their fingers in an electrical socket and think this is "child proofing"? Child proofing would have been not having the Tree in the Garden, or placed behind a barrier the humans (or serpent) could not have penetrated, or, even better, not creating the Tree at all!

He's infinitely smarter than you and I will ever be.

Not according to your literal reading of Genesis 2, He's not. He's not smart enough to know 1) the serpent would tempt Eve, 2) Eve's curiosity would cause her to give in, and 3) Adam would give in to Eve.

So, you claim God is infinitely smarter than you or I, but your literal reading of Genesis 2 has God a lot dumber than we are. Shouldn't that tell you that your intepretation is wrong?

OTOH, as a closet atheist this may be your intent: this is a great way to discredit God.

 

[AV1611VET]

At the time thalidomide was used, all the information said it was harmless. The tests for teratogenicity were negative.

No kidding?

However, why didn't God place this harmful tree someplace where humans (or the serpent) could not get to it. In fact, why did God create a Tree of Knowledge in the first place!

Because it contained food for the angels, not man -- (in my opinion, of course).

I did not say "out of sight". I said "could not get to". That would apply to the serpent, too. Or are you implying this was impossible for God to do.

Once again, the fruit of this tree (manna?) was for angels, and therefore off-limits to Adam & Eve.

LOL! Wow. So I suppose you just tell your kids not to stick their fingers in an electrical socket and think this is "child proofing"?

They weren't 'kids'.

They were fully-matured adults.

Adam was married, had a job, and would soon be a father.

To compare this to children is misleading.

 

[lucaspa]

Scientists are coming to the point of understanding the complexity of the universe that with independent fundamental physical constants at their exact values allows it to exist as it does with us in it to observe it, if the universe developed as their theories have described it, such that they on that basis say this is one of many universes in a "multiverse" and it is the single one that worked out, with no other basis for that conclusion. Science has not disproved God, but rather, because science as it is practiced cannot take God into account in any theory or observation, and so anything else for an explanation for things like this are grasped.

1. Yes, science cannot disprove God. But "science" is neutral on whether God exists. Remember, over half of living scientists believe in God. So there isn't an universal motive for disproving God.

2. That science "cannot take God into account" is a limitation of how we do experiments. If you are not sure how this happens, then ask me and I'll go into detail. But this "cannot take God into account" simply means that science is neutral in regard to God's existence.

3. Yes, many of the fundamental physical constants appear to be independent and arbitrary. They need to have the values they do in order for us to be here. However, those values are not mandatory; if they were different we simply would not be here to wonder about it.

One of the attractions of String Theory is that many of those apparently arbitrary constants are dictated by the underlying reality of strings and 'branes.

Now, things that are very improbable beg an explanation. The job of scientists is to consider all explanations we can think of. One possible explanation for the improbability of the constants in our universe is that there are an infinite number of universes (multiverse) in which the constants are due to chance. If that were the case, then the odds that one of those universes would have the constants we observe is virtual certainty. We, of course, happen to be in that one.

The next step after coming up with the hypothesis to explain the physical constants, whether God created and chose them or String Theory or multiverse, is to test the hypothesis in an attempt to eliminate it. So far String Theory is failing testing and it is not possible to test God created or multiverse. So science is agnostic.

But you are wrong that "things like this [multiverse] are grasped". They may be "grasped" by some atheists (altho most atheists I have encountered tend to go for Aristotle's "the universe has always existed"), but science is not doing that. Instead, science is doing what it is supposed to do: advance hypotheses.

 

[AV1611VET]

Remember, over half of living scientists believe in God.

And the other half is a mission field.

 

[lucaspa]

No kidding?

Because it contained food for the angels, not man -- (in my opinion, of course).

Were there angels in the Garden? For someone who doesn't like "disrespecting scripture" you seem to do it very easily.

Once again, the fruit of this tree (manna?) was for angels, and therefore off-limits to Adam & Eve.

If it were manna then the Israelites got food for angels in the desert, with no Tree around. Wonderful how you can just blithely contradict scripture, AV.

They weren't 'kids'.

They were fully-matured adults.

No, they weren't. They were physically adults, but not in maturity. Maturity requires life experiences, and Adam and Eve had not had any.

Adam was married, had a job, and would soon be a father.

Adam was not married. He was playing doctor with the neighbor girl. There's no marriage ceremony anywhere in Genesis 2-3. He had a chore (just like a kid) of tending the garden, but it's clear that God was not having him punch a time clock or holding Adam responsible for anything. Shoot, God even made clothes for Adam and Eve! Nor was Eve pregnant at the time. She didn't get pregnant until after they were kicked out of the Garden.

To compare this to children is misleading.

Not at all. God had given them no upbringing, and minimal parenting. Yes, God gave Adam a chore, but that was pretty much the extent of parenting mentioned in Genesis 2-3. Mentally, they were at the level of children.

 

[AV1611VET]

Looks like you have me tried and convicted before I even answer; but I'll do it anyway.

Were there angels in the Garden? For someone who doesn't like "disrespecting scripture" you seem to do it very easily.

Yes -- Lucifer, for one, was there.

Ezekiel 28:13a Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;

If it were manna then the Israelites got food for angels in the desert, with no Tree around. Wonderful how you can just blithely contradict scripture, AV.

Again, you convict me before I even respond; but I'll respond anyway.

Psalm 78:25 Man did eat angels' food: he sent them meat to the full.

God fed them manna [just] in the wilderness, probably as a reminder of what transpired in the Garden.

The manna ceased after that generation was gone.

Joshua 5:12 And the manna ceased on the morrow after they had eaten of the old corn of the land; neither had the children of Israel manna any more; but they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year.

No, they weren't.

Yes, they were.

Embedded age is: maturity without history; and if you could set aside, just for a moment, your mental block that I'm omphalos and not embedded age, you would [hopefully] see that.

They were physically adults, but not in maturity.

Then please stop comparing them to children.

By comparison, that makes it look like they are brother and sister -- not husband and wife, which only clouds the issue.

Maturity requires life experiences, and Adam and Eve had not had any.

That's because they were the only two on earth that had embedded age in them.

And if God deems otherwise, then requirements can take a hike.

Adam was not married.

Bologna -- God built him a chapel and led him down the aisle, Himself, in a truly divine and elaborate wedding ceremony.

Too bad you can't see and appreciate it, since you're so doped up on science.

He was playing doctor with the neighbor girl.

This is despicable -- I hope this isn't your true colors showing.

 

[AV1611VET]

OTOH, as a closet atheist this may be your intent: this is a great way to discredit God.

By the way -- brother -- let me remind you of the admonition about calling a brother an atheist:

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

I'm not your judge, but calling a brother-in-Christ what is akin to being a lost person isn't cool -- [literally].