Anthropic Principle?

Question

OK, Anthropic prinicple states that life developed here because it could, otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe that we are in fact alive and evolved into the wonderful, sentient beings that we are. A degree either way could have had and would have had serious effects on life and our existence today.

How is that more logical and believable that God put us here (through creation, evolution, etc) for a reason and purpose? That conditions were put in place for humanity and other forms of life to thrive here on earth?

I wrote this question because I read some things here at YA using Anthropic Principle as a reason God didn't exist or as evidence God didn't create. I guess my core point could have more succinctly been made by asking if (relative to the origin of life) creationism/intelligent design was any more or less logical than mere happenstance that remains largely undefined and undiscovered?

Answer 1

Mike... read up on it.

Yes, OUR kind of life evolved here, because it could, millions of OTHER life-forms couldn't develop, so in their view this is a pretty hostile environment.

How is that not logical? If the earth was different, let's say a whole lot wetter, you would not exist, another type of being would be waving his tentacles wondering how the great sky-octopus managed to create such a perfect planet for him/her/it to exist.

Ok? You are what you are, because of the planet. The planet is not what it is to accomodate you. No matter how logical it is to imagine yourself as the center of the universe.

It might be that the average temperature of a planet, in order to support carbon based life forms need to be at a level where water is liquid. That still leaves a whole lotta options,and that doesn't take into account possible other bases for life.

Answer 2

To be exact, in physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle states that humans should take into account the constraints that human existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that could be observed. Originally proposed as a rule of reasoning, the term has since been extended to cover supposed "superlaws" that in various ways require the universe to support intelligent life, usually assumed to be carbon-based, and occasionally to be specifically human beings. Anthropic reasoning involves assessing these constraints by analyzing the properties of universes with different fundamental parameters or laws of physics from the current one, and has frequently concluded that essential structures, from atomic nuclei to the whole universe, depend, for stability, on delicate balances between different fundamental forces; balances which occur only in a small minority of possible universes — so that ours seems to be fine-tuned for life. Anthropic reasoning also attempts to explain and quantify this fine tuning. Within the scientific community the usual approach is to invoke selection effects from a real ensemble of alternate universes, which cause an anthropic bias in what can be observed; competing strategies, occasionally also called anthropic, include intelligent design.

The anthropic principle has led to more than a little confusion and controversy, partly because several distinct ideas carry this label. All versions of the principle have been accused of providing simplistic explanations which undermine the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. The invocation of either multiple universes or an intelligent designer are highly controversial, and both ideas have been criticized by some as being presently untestable, and therefore not within the purview of contemporary science.

Answer 3

The anthropic principle doesn't "state" anything. It's an answer to the belief that a god DID create us here for a reason. It was our good luck that conditions favourable to life existed on Earth. It was the bad luck of the life forms that could never possibly exist on Venus that those conditions didn't exist there. But then, there is no being to know that, so who cares?

Answer 4

It is not at all clear that the laws of physics could be other than as they are. So the anthropic principle is pure speculation, but is an empirical response to the existence of life rather than a blind stab in the dark like faith.

What it says is that if the laws of physics could be different in different universes, then the observation of life in this universe means that they must be such as to support life in this universe. In other words the anthropic principle is a well marketed statement of the blindingly obvious.

The notion that there is a god adds unneccesary complication without justification and is plain blind.

Answer 5

So you're asking how the anthropic principle is more logical/believable than a god?

The anthropic principle simply states - life could have evolved, and clearly it did because we are here. Because we are here, and we have certain constraints for our existence, we can use some of those assumptions as we explore the universe & physics.

It says nothing of "how" or "why". Believability does not seem relevant, your question doesn't make sense to me.

Answer 6

There’s no evidence that points one way or another for the existance of God, the most you can say is that it’s unproveable. However, there is the argument that there must have been pre-existing laws of some kind, because if you’re going to invoke a quantum fluctuation as the basis of the universe then you have to ask, why do quantum fluctuations happen? Because there are quantum laws. Well, where do they come from?

Answer 7

Genesis ch. 1 states that God created the heavens and the earth and then mankind in that order,ergo-He created the perfect climate for us,period. How much more rubbish must we believers tolerate on this evolution theory!

Answer 8

Assume you have no car. Which is more logical--you went grocery shopping at your local grocery store--and brought the grocerys home--or that you went to Lou's grocery on planet mars and had them transported onto your kitchen table. Obviously--the condition was that your local grocery store was placed in such a location that you were able to use it. You used it, if it would have been out of walking distance you would not have used it. There is no miracle in that you used the store that you could walk to--you wouldn't have used it if you couldn't have gotten there on foot. Same principal

Answer 9

It's not a substitute.
It's a first principle to set a foundation for subsequent principles.
It's essentially saying that life and everything else is opportunistic. This is reasonably provable by observing how microorganisms consistently colonise accessible areas whenever they can.
It's just opportunism on a super-massive scale.

Answer 10

You need to research things a little further. There's more than one anthropic principle, and they aren't all as weak as that one.