Talk:Anthropic principle

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
I am not sure that inventing an entity to explain some unknown, which itself has a laundry list of unknowns (which almost by definition can never be known) helps in solving the central issue.  Once again Occam's razor slices away god.
 
I am not sure that inventing an entity to explain some unknown, which itself has a laundry list of unknowns (which almost by definition can never be known) helps in solving the central issue.  Once again Occam's razor slices away god.
 +
 +
:This point is directly (if briefly) covered in the [[Natural-law argument#False premise p2: The law giver|Natural-law argument]]. However, The anthropic principle itself is really just a subset of the [[argument from design]] with a particular emphasis on the importance of human life, perspective or purpose.
 +
:I think the best example of this kind of unnecessary assertion of God is still Richard Dawkins response to fred hoyles [[Tornado argument|747 junkyard argument]] in the god delusion, Which points out that if you try to solve the problem of complexity in nature by asserting an infinitely intelligent, infinitely powerful, infinitely knowing and thus infinitely complex god, really only makes the problem worse not better.--[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 03:21, 16 December 2009 (CST)

Revision as of 03:21, 16 December 2009

I have been approaching this argument from a slightly different direction and thought I might run it past everyone here for comment.

Essentially, the anthropic arguments are an attempt to explain constants, attributes, and qualities the universe seems to adheres to (ignoring for a moment that these mathematical representations are simple models to describe reality). Theists conjure a deity to explain these constants, attributes, and qualities, but they also grant their god with qualities and attributes which also should require explanation. The most often retort to this question I have come across is "we do not have to explain the explanation" to which my response has been "then we do not need to explain the mathematical explanations of reality. Check mate."

I am not sure that inventing an entity to explain some unknown, which itself has a laundry list of unknowns (which almost by definition can never be known) helps in solving the central issue. Once again Occam's razor slices away god.

This point is directly (if briefly) covered in the Natural-law argument. However, The anthropic principle itself is really just a subset of the argument from design with a particular emphasis on the importance of human life, perspective or purpose.
I think the best example of this kind of unnecessary assertion of God is still Richard Dawkins response to fred hoyles 747 junkyard argument in the god delusion, Which points out that if you try to solve the problem of complexity in nature by asserting an infinitely intelligent, infinitely powerful, infinitely knowing and thus infinitely complex god, really only makes the problem worse not better.--Murphy 03:21, 16 December 2009 (CST)
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox