mozzaok wrote on Jan 31
st, 2009 at 1:17pm:
P1ss poor muso, creationism is garbage, and you know it, so have the guts to say so without back pedalling to placate the sensibilities of those who choose to follow a religious belief.
It is not up to us to make their decisions seem more valid, by all this tripe about every opinion is as valid as the next, clearly some are not.
It depends. I find very little to complain about the belief of the 'God of the Gaps' or the most basic form of Deism.
Let's take the evidence - we have a universe with every single physical constant absolutely perfect for the existence of complex human life.
Then we have on one side
1.
The concept of a large number of parallel universes, and the only ones that will have complex sentient lifeforms that debate on internet forums, are those few that are 'just right' - The Goldilocks universes.
...then
2.
Just one universe that was set in motion with all the physical constants and laws perfectly in place to allow complex sentient beings to evolve by a higher intelligent power.
Looking at theories 1 and 2, I don't have too much problem with either. Theory 2 begs the question of who 'created' the higher intelligent power. If we postulate the higher intelligent power as a kind of property of the universe (Gaia versus God) then that addresses that issue at least. Theory 1 has a lot of redundancies about it. Theory 2 may possibly rival theory 1 in terms of Ockham's razor, scary as it might seem to a hard nosed atheist like yourself.
Quote:Strong anthropic principle (SAP) (Barrow and Tipler): "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."[12]
This looks very similar to Carter's SAP, but unlike the case with Carter's SAP, the "must" is an imperative, as shown by the following three possible elaborations of the SAP, each proposed by Barrow and Tipler:[13]
* "There exists one possible Universe 'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining 'observers.'"
This can be seen as simply the classic design argument restated in the garb of contemporary cosmology. It implies that the purpose of the universe is to give rise to intelligent life, with the laws of nature and their fundamental physical constants set to ensure that life as we know it will emerge and evolve.
* "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being."
Barrow and Tipler believe that this is a valid conclusion from quantum mechanics, as John Archibald Wheeler has suggested, especially via his participatory universe and Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP).
* "An ensemble of other different universes is necessary for the existence of our Universe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principleThis is all very cool stuff, but it's based on ideas, and there is absolutely no proof of it. In fact it's not a great deal different from some supernaturalist beliefs.
Personally I don't know how the universe came into being. The most important thing for me is to maintain my naturalistic world view, because it's a mode of thinking that has worked for me in the past.
Maybe we'll never know. Maybe we're not meant to contemplate the terrible visage of God. (sounds like he's ugly as a hat full of arseholes, but I say 'terrible' in the most cosmic sense)
However when people start talking Intelligent Design, my bullshit meter kicks in very quickly. Fo one thing, it's an insult to the grandeur and elegance of the Universe itself, and possibly even an insult to 'God'
Forum
Pages: 
