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

CSflim · 02-02-2004, 03:39 AM

The earth is the perfect temperature for life. It has the right mixture of atmospheric gasses. It has liquid water.

What an amazing coincidence! What is the probability of all of these factors being just as they are!? Pretty small I'll bet. Imagine, that all of these things are set just right on the same planet that we just so happen to have evolved on. If these factors had been different, earth would be a lifeless rock.

Surely this has to mean something? Surely we can deduce from this that earth was chosen consciously by someone/something? (God? Aliens?). Of course not! We simply have to realise that had the conditions on the earth been any different, then we wouldn't be here on earth to notice! When you realise the vastness of space, you realise that it is in fact quite probable that at least one planet would have met the necessary conditions for life.

We can apply the same argument to the claim that the constants of nature suggest an intelligent "fine-tuning".
First of all, we have to ask if these "constants" really are constant. There is at least some tentative evidence to suggest that these values actually vary from place to place and from time to time. (See The Constants of Nature by John D. Barrow). Armed we this hypothesis, we realise something important:

We observe the constants of nature to have the values that they do, because we are doing so at a time and place that they are such as to allow life to exist.

Now it is entirely possible that these constants truly are constant, there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other. So what then? Well, the way I see it, is that there is no reason to believe that the universe that we can experience is all that there is. Perhaps our "big bang" was nothing more than a mere twinkle in an ultimate meta-universal explosion? Just as there are billions of stars in our galaxy, and billions of galaxies in our universe, why not billions of universes in our [Multiverse? Bulk?].

This idea is not absurd as it may seem. The idea of other universes has cropped up in theoretical physics numerous times, most importantly in String Theory/M-theory. Now I don't mean a "parallel world" in the sense of there being another world where another CSflim is sitting at his computer, in the knowledge that Hitler won WWII, a la Sliders. I mean quite simply that as there are other countries/planets/suns/galaxies, there are other universes.

Again, we can apply the idea that we are living in a universe with the constants of nature with the values that they are for the sole reason that this is the particular universe/part of the universe/time period of the universe/all of the above, that allows life to exist.

In essence the "Argument From Design" is false.

In your last paragraph, you then refer to something different, not the argument from design, but the argument from first cause.

The argument from first cause is probably the most popular argument for the existence of god, but ultimately it is inherently flawed beyond belief. I posted a thread here some time ago with an explanation why the argument from first cause is fallacious, and received no counter-argument.

I'll reprint some of that post here:
<HR>
The most extensive example of a rational "proof" for the existence of God is the question: Where did we come from?

Science has so far traced this back to The Big Bang. Most rational people accept that this is what happened, and that after billions of years life evolved on earth to produce us. But that begs the question...
"where did this Big Bang come from? Science claims that all energy and matter must come from other energy and matter. This minute, incredibly dense particle, how did it come into existence?"
Well, to be honest we don't know.
"Ah-ha! You don't know! Therefore God exists! That settles it! End of Story"
Now wait a minute! Just because we don't know where it comes from, doesn't mean that a reasonable explanation doesn't exist! It is very difficult to make any observations, or calculations given the immense time and distance. It is conceivable that a theory could be formulated about what caused it.
"Ah! You said what caused it! Well ultimately something else must have caused that something to happen. Something external of our reality/universe"
That's fair enough, I can accept that line of reasoning.
"Gotcha! An intangible wholly-other force external of our existence. i.e. God"
Now wait a minute... I will admit to the existence of something outside of our own sphere of existence. something which would be completely unintelligible to us, due to the nature of our being, but why do you say that it is God?
"Well, that is what we are DEFINING as God"
Fair enough, you can call it a God, I will call it an unintelligible force.
"So we are in agreement then?
Not quite. I have a number of questions.

How do you know that this force is a creative force.?
We have seen how chaos can arise from simplicity, and how complexity can arise from chaos. A singularity could not be considered "complex" why the need for it to be specifically created

How do you even know that this force is a conscious force, never mind even creativity, why would it even be conscious?

How do you know this force is omnipotent?
Apart from the very beginning, there is no evidence that this omnipotent being has intervened in the workings of the universe in the slightest. what makes you so sure that he could, even if he wanted to?

How is this force all knowing?

How do you know this force loves you? Why would this omnipotent being care for an insignificant arrangement of fundamental particles?

How does the existence of this force, imply that you have been bestowed with a spirit/soul or anything else?

How the hell does the existence of this external force guarantee you to eternal life? How does the existence of an external "physical" force imply an afterlife?

How does this force provide ethical guidance?
<HR>

Ultimately you must see that all the argument from first cause does is perform reducto ad absurdum on its own postulates:

1. All things must have a cause
2. The universe exists, therefore it must have had a cause
3. Whatever caused the universe also most have had a cause, and so on
4. This chain will continue until we find something that had no cause (or was "self-caused")
5. Therefore God exists.

Point 4 contradicts point 1, so the entire argument collapses. And also, even if we manage to deduce 4 (which I believe we can, though not with this particular argument) as I have shown above, point 5 does not follow as a conclusion.

02-02-2004, 03:39 AM	#11 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	The earth is the perfect temperature for life. It has the right mixture of atmospheric gasses. It has liquid water. What an amazing coincidence! What is the probability of all of these factors being just as they are!? Pretty small I'll bet. Imagine, that all of these things are set just right on the same planet that we just so happen to have evolved on. If these factors had been different, earth would be a lifeless rock. Surely this has to mean something? Surely we can deduce from this that earth was chosen consciously by someone/something? (God? Aliens?). Of course not! We simply have to realise that had the conditions on the earth been any different, then we wouldn't be here on earth to notice! When you realise the vastness of space, you realise that it is in fact quite probable that at least one planet would have met the necessary conditions for life. We can apply the same argument to the claim that the constants of nature suggest an intelligent "fine-tuning". First of all, we have to ask if these "constants" really are constant. There is at least some tentative evidence to suggest that these values actually vary from place to place and from time to time. (See The Constants of Nature by John D. Barrow). Armed we this hypothesis, we realise something important: We observe the constants of nature to have the values that they do, because we are doing so at a time and place that they are such as to allow life to exist. Now it is entirely possible that these constants truly are constant, there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other. So what then? Well, the way I see it, is that there is no reason to believe that the universe that we can experience is all that there is. Perhaps our "big bang" was nothing more than a mere twinkle in an ultimate meta-universal explosion? Just as there are billions of stars in our galaxy, and billions of galaxies in our universe, why not billions of universes in our [Multiverse? Bulk?]. This idea is not absurd as it may seem. The idea of other universes has cropped up in theoretical physics numerous times, most importantly in String Theory/M-theory. Now I don't mean a "parallel world" in the sense of there being another world where another CSflim is sitting at his computer, in the knowledge that Hitler won WWII, a la Sliders. I mean quite simply that as there are other countries/planets/suns/galaxies, there are other universes. Again, we can apply the idea that we are living in a universe with the constants of nature with the values that they are for the sole reason that this is the particular universe/part of the universe/time period of the universe/all of the above, that allows life to exist. In essence the "Argument From Design" is false. In your last paragraph, you then refer to something different, not the argument from design, but the argument from first cause. The argument from first cause is probably the most popular argument for the existence of god, but ultimately it is inherently flawed beyond belief. I posted a thread here some time ago with an explanation why the argument from first cause is fallacious, and received no counter-argument. I'll reprint some of that post here: <HR> The most extensive example of a rational "proof" for the existence of God is the question: Where did we come from? Science has so far traced this back to The Big Bang. Most rational people accept that this is what happened, and that after billions of years life evolved on earth to produce us. But that begs the question... "where did this Big Bang come from? Science claims that all energy and matter must come from other energy and matter. This minute, incredibly dense particle, how did it come into existence?" Well, to be honest we don't know. "Ah-ha! You don't know! Therefore God exists! That settles it! End of Story" Now wait a minute! Just because we don't know where it comes from, doesn't mean that a reasonable explanation doesn't exist! It is very difficult to make any observations, or calculations given the immense time and distance. It is conceivable that a theory could be formulated about what caused it. "Ah! You said what caused it! Well ultimately something else must have caused that something to happen. Something external of our reality/universe" That's fair enough, I can accept that line of reasoning. "Gotcha! An intangible wholly-other force external of our existence. i.e. God" Now wait a minute... I will admit to the existence of something outside of our own sphere of existence. something which would be completely unintelligible to us, due to the nature of our being, but why do you say that it is God? "Well, that is what we are DEFINING as God" Fair enough, you can call it a God, I will call it an unintelligible force. "So we are in agreement then? Not quite. I have a number of questions. How do you know that this force is a creative force.? We have seen how chaos can arise from simplicity, and how complexity can arise from chaos. A singularity could not be considered "complex" why the need for it to be specifically created How do you even know that this force is a conscious force, never mind even creativity, why would it even be conscious? How do you know this force is omnipotent? Apart from the very beginning, there is no evidence that this omnipotent being has intervened in the workings of the universe in the slightest. what makes you so sure that he could, even if he wanted to? How is this force all knowing? How do you know this force loves you? Why would this omnipotent being care for an insignificant arrangement of fundamental particles? How does the existence of this force, imply that you have been bestowed with a spirit/soul or anything else? How the hell does the existence of this external force guarantee you to eternal life? How does the existence of an external "physical" force imply an afterlife? How does this force provide ethical guidance? <HR> Ultimately you must see that all the argument from first cause does is perform reducto ad absurdum on its own postulates: 1. All things must have a cause 2. The universe exists, therefore it must have had a cause 3. Whatever caused the universe also most have had a cause, and so on 4. This chain will continue until we find something that had no cause (or was "self-caused") 5. Therefore God exists. Point 4 contradicts point 1, so the entire argument collapses. And also, even if we manage to deduce 4 (which I believe we can, though not with this particular argument) as I have shown above, point 5 does not follow as a conclusion. __________________ Last edited by CSflim; 02-02-2004 at 03:43 AM..