Why do so many people have a problem understanding the Anthropic Principle?

Question

Look creationists, it's not that hard: We see things the way they are because we are here to see them. Sounds like a simple statement, but it is actually much deeper and you need to reflect on this. You use the Anthropic Principle every time you invoke the word 'God'. Your problem is the ABUSE of this concept. It should not be used every time you can't explain something. Your inability to explain something should compel you to try and understand it in a more detailed way or learn its mechanisms, not cop out and invoke some ambiguous concept. Bottom line: CREATIONISTS HAVE LAZY BRAINS...

Answer 1

You may be right. Instead of looking for proximate causes
which takes a bit of energy some people just cash out
of reality. I've heard people blame God for all sorts of things
just because it suits their agenda to do so.

Answer 2

So let me get this straight... your argument is "creationists are lazy". Well I'll be damned if that isn't the laziest thought out argument I've ever heard. When presenting an argument, try to do it from a logical point of view rather than a psychological-emotional point of view. What I mean is, you don't like what we believe therefore your argument is based on angry emotions rather than logic. Now you're probably angry with my opening statement but you can either be a lazy, angry atheist and ignore the rest of this answer or, you can be an intellectual atheist and read it over and see if there's any validity to what I have to say...

Also, try applying your anthropic principle argument to your own answers that "fill in the gaps". The only thing that science can't explain, where we insert God, is the origin of the universe. Atheists do the same thing. You don't know how it began so you insert the theory of the multiverse (or that's at least the most common theory currently). There is just as much proof of the multiverse theory as there is for God, scientifically speaking - none. Even if you have some brilliant other theory as to how the universe began the fact still remains, it's a theory with no proof just as much as the god theory is. The first bottom line is: THEY ARE ALL THEORIES WITH NO PROOF.
Now we can all agree, something started the universe, unless you want to say the universe had no beginning but that makes no differece to what I'm about to say (and that has been pretty much disproven scientifically as well as mathematically). This something (or the universe) has had to exist for all eternity. Or maybe whatever created the universe, whether it be God or some sort of mother universe, was also created. In that case you still would have to say, "whatever created the something that created the universe must have had no beginning". You can continue to question infinitely about what created what - "well what created the unverse?... and then what created that?... and then what created that?..." so on and son, etc etc... But at some point you've just got to stop and say "something has always existed". So the second bottom line (logically thinking about it) is: WHETHER IT IS INTELLIGENT (i.e. God or gods) OR NON-INTELLIGENT (i.e. multiverse theory), SOMETHING HAS HAD NO BEGINNING AND HAS EXISTED FOR ALL ETERNITY.

So then the underlying question is: IS THIS "SOMETHING" INTELLIGENT OR NON-INTELLIGENT?

Well because we are conscious, moral, intelligent beings, it seems to me the most rational explanation is that we were created by an intelligent being.

And as for the complexity of science, we are not ignoring any aspect of the amazing world of science. We love to discover along with the rest of the world the awestriking complexity science brings forth, it only shows that God is that much more complex to be able to design such a thing.

Answer 3

I'm not a creationist, but I don't get the Weak and Strong Anthropic Principles either. Well, maybe the weak one - if I can remember how it goes.

It sounds like a circular argument to me, not an explanation.

Like creation. If it's impossible for the world to exist without a creator, why doesn't the same law apply to the creator - who, by definition, has to be far more complex than the created?

BTW, the argument about the banana always makes me laugh. How do they explain fishbones and brazil nuts?

Answer 4

in spite of if or no longer the "constants" of the universe are finely tuned is an open question, via fact at present not one of the theories of physics actual predicts them. this suggests that we don't actual recognize if diverse values for those constants are in certainty achieveable. The anthropic theory deals with the possibility that they could be diverse. as quickly as returned, that's no longer theorically useful to calculate how in all probability they're to be diverse except you have a thank you to foretell how different values could desire to upward push up, as a fashion to assert they're finely tuned in a probabilistic experience is nonsense. What the antrhopic theory does is throw in a elementary remark regarding the universe into the canon of clinical remark that has introduced approximately the present awareness that incorporates those standard constants - particularly that the universe helps smart existence. provided that the wonderful tuning argument is unquestionably "in case you alter the classic constants there won't be in a position of be smart existence", the anthropic theory counters with "yet there is sensible existence, as a result the constants could desire to be those". in this feeling it may look a assertion of the blindingly glaring, despite the fact that it relatively is specious to argue for "divine forces" on the theory that "the regulations of physics could have been diverse" and that as a result "somebody could desire to have made a decision". relatively each and all the antrhopic theory says is that if smart existence is observed - because it relatively is - then the perception that the regulations of physics could desire to be diverse is scientifically improper.

Answer 5

First and Foremost,...When I dont know the answer to something or when I can give no explaination to something,...I say "I dont know...."(Yes I do!)
Now to answer your question,...Try The principle of "Cause and Effect"
(NOTHING Happens all by itself! NOTHING has EVER 'Just Happened' all by itself!)
In other words,...for in order for something(s to happen,...Someone or Something has to:Cause it!
which brings us to the Next Principle which is called "Common sense"

Answer 6

Perhaps it has less to do with understanding than with agreement/disagreement.

S.W.

Thank the Universe for our greatest freedom..."Choice"