filthy
well, not so much observe and critique, as i'm sure that wouldn't play out well at all. but i find the use of this
universal constants evidence to be somewhat...interesting. I'm reading through the scientific literature now as to what I can find on this type of interpretation of the so-called anthropic principle; but I'm getting the feeling its a long way from a settled interpretation that the anthropic principle implies a necessary creator. Regardless, it appears to be an attempt to back God out of the scientific complexity of the Universe. I'd really like to be able to download the following article from
Nature,
The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world 605 B. J. Carr & M. J. Rees , but I'm blocked access. This is essentially the proof from complexity argument, and so would seem to be in direct contradiction that you can't prove the spiritual with the physical and vice versa; or at least a different perspective. I think its very interesting, but in the end doesn't prove "God" at all.
The bit on the Easter Bunny business just seemed interesting to me as everyone was talking about the same points, using some inverted language, and everyone thought they were redudantly making "points" for their side of the argument.