Life in this Universe theorizes that it is in the Goldilocks zone for it to appear. Evidence of Design?

Question

Some scientists have postulated that the life in the Universe is possible because we live in the Goldilocks zone or the a narrow band of right conditions. For instance, if a single one of the zones were altered, stars would never form, the universe may fly apart, DNA would not exist and so on. What do you think, it is evidence for design, or is it just a asymmetry?

Answer 1

Another piece of special pleading for the anthropic principle. If the physical constants were different we simply wouldn't be here to ask that question!

Answer 2

Szyn, I'm afraid your understanding is a little off. The so-called 'Goldilocks Zone' is also known as the habitable zone. This has nothing to do with stars not forming, the universe might fly apart and so on. The 'Goldilocks Zone' is that region around countless stars where life -- at least life as we know it -- could develop. Our Earth is the only planet in our solar system within the 'Goldilocks Zone.' If we were much closer to the sun or much farther away from it, the chances of life ever developing here would be very poor.

I think what you're just a bit confused with is that if even just one of the *four fundamental forces* of our universe -- gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force -- had come out any different when our universe began then stars might never have formed, life might never have developed, etc.,.

Answer 3

A variant of the anthropic principle notes that even small variations in certain physical constants would make carbon-based life as we know it, or even the physical universe as we know it, impossible. This by itself isn't evidence for design. But it suggests design more than it suggests non-design. We have no evidence that there is such a thing as a parallel universe. The Goldilocks Zone is a much narrower concept, and refers only to planetary conditions suitable for human life.

Answer 4

I see a couple of possibilities that don't need a designer:

1. There are many universes with different conditions. Most are lifeless since they don't have the right conditions. We live in the one that happens to be right since only it could support the development of life (anthropic principle).

2. Whose to say that there might not be other forms of a universe that could support life. Maybe even in universes without stars, or even without matter all together, but perhaps with other stable and complex structures not imagined by people?

Answer 5

there are various wierd circumstances...actual, chemical, astronomical...which may be in place to ensure that the Universe to exist. some ingredient to those aspects to indicate that the Universe could have as a result been created, been designed. My strategies on that circulate alongside those strains. First, perchance the Universe exists because of the fact of numerous fairly fortunate circumstances, yet given sufficient time (like, say, eternity) the statistical unlikelihood of those sorts of circumstances coming to bypass does in fact over the long haul grow to be statistically probably. And to that end, here we are, the manufactured from one trillion to a minimum of one long shot. properly, a week somebody wins the lottery.... the 2d theory is that if the Universe grew to become into created via a grasp dressmaker, whoever it grew to become into have been given fairly some diffused yet complicated issues right, it boggles the strategies that in the time of addition they have been given fairly some issues incorrect. It grew to become into like development a astonishing activities motor vehicle, yet then putting sq. wheels on it. nevertheless, nevertheless, i'm going to upload that I take place to have faith in God (even if no longer faith), the time-honored grasp dressmaker in maximum "Universe via layout" circumstances. i'm uncertain of God because of the fact the writer nevertheless, yet it is a question that could under no circumstances be replied.

Answer 6

Sure. If that's what it takes for you, go for it. The only problem is that anthropic principles are not science. In order for them to even pass the first laugh test, they would require the sure KNOWLEDGE that a different universe would even be possible. I repeat: only one universe, no anthropic principle. Observation: only one universe! Number of observable universes: one.. please look up the definition of "universe". Therefor you got yourself an untestable hypothesis. Which makes it NOT science.

And the same argument also makes it pretty poor philosophy. So now its not science, not philosophy, certainly not art... leaves us with not much more than religion.

But then, if you absolutely need to believe in something, how about the thing with the trinity, virgin birth, resurrection and transubstantiation? They call it Catholicism and unlike the Church of the Anthropic Principle it has some pretty colorful glass windows and altar art to offer. And it is much more fun than pseudo-science, too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

:-)