Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Anthropic principle and existence of God...

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-01-2004, 11:50 AM

I've been reading this book Hyperspace by Michio Kaku. In it he discusses the notion of putting God back in the universe. Now this isn't a post of a christian or any other religious nature, its secular, a thought about a higher power.

So basically he points out a few things. To have life in the Universe (here on earth or else where) you need many small minute coincidences. If we changed some of the constants of chemistry and physics, such as nucleosynthesis and the creation of heavy elements, therefore eleminating the possibility of Supernovae, we here on earth wouldn't exist. To expand on that we need heavy elements for the creation of DNA and protein molecules.

Next he talks about the evolution of life from the oceans. He states that probably took somewhere around 1 to 2 billion years. But if for some reason the proton's life span were shortened to that of several million years, life would not be possible because it would take to long to create life out of the collisons of molecules. Taking an argument of time in a different direction. If the big bang/big crunch were timed in a way that it happened to fast, life wouldn't be able to exist because of the evolutionary clock it runs on.

He points out that in reference to the earth directly one could make the arguemet for the anthropic thought. If earth was any closer to the sun it would be too hot to support life, if it were any further away it would be to cold.

I'm not trying to sway people, just point something out. Everything about us, about the universe is extremely complex. And as stated earlier one could construe these as merely coincedinces(sp), but when does it become that perhaps, in light of so many coincedinces(sp), that perhaps there was a bigger plan. The thing to this idea is that it can't be scientifically proven or tested, and I know for many here that is an issue.

Also if someone would be willing to disprove to me the unseen mover idea. Basically if you trace back everything to the big bang and the swirling clouds of space dust. How did that space dust get there. And I'm not trying to be rude but answers like "they were left over from a previous big bang/crunch" or "They just were" doesn't really disprove anything as it really doesn't address the question.

02-01-2004, 11:50 AM	#1 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Anthropic principle and existence of God... I've been reading this book Hyperspace by Michio Kaku. In it he discusses the notion of putting God back in the universe. Now this isn't a post of a christian or any other religious nature, its secular, a thought about a higher power. So basically he points out a few things. To have life in the Universe (here on earth or else where) you need many small minute coincidences. If we changed some of the constants of chemistry and physics, such as nucleosynthesis and the creation of heavy elements, therefore eleminating the possibility of Supernovae, we here on earth wouldn't exist. To expand on that we need heavy elements for the creation of DNA and protein molecules. Next he talks about the evolution of life from the oceans. He states that probably took somewhere around 1 to 2 billion years. But if for some reason the proton's life span were shortened to that of several million years, life would not be possible because it would take to long to create life out of the collisons of molecules. Taking an argument of time in a different direction. If the big bang/big crunch were timed in a way that it happened to fast, life wouldn't be able to exist because of the evolutionary clock it runs on. He points out that in reference to the earth directly one could make the arguemet for the anthropic thought. If earth was any closer to the sun it would be too hot to support life, if it were any further away it would be to cold. I'm not trying to sway people, just point something out. Everything about us, about the universe is extremely complex. And as stated earlier one could construe these as merely coincedinces(sp), but when does it become that perhaps, in light of so many coincedinces(sp), that perhaps there was a bigger plan. The thing to this idea is that it can't be scientifically proven or tested, and I know for many here that is an issue. Also if someone would be willing to disprove to me the unseen mover idea. Basically if you trace back everything to the big bang and the swirling clouds of space dust. How did that space dust get there. And I'm not trying to be rude but answers like "they were left over from a previous big bang/crunch" or "They just were" doesn't really disprove anything as it really doesn't address the question. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.