Quote from stu:
The anthropic principle is a contentious collection of some general, some specific, some philosophical, some scientific and some non-scientific ideas discussed and argued for years in and out of science and physics. But in the main it boils down to truism. Anthropic principle afterall is to do with how human beings in geneal can observe the universe. As a principle it contains various points of view. The expression of one scientist's viewpoint does not speak for all scientists nor science on the subject.
That's possibly how you've gotten so mixed up with this. What's so useful about the scientific method is that unlike the Catholic church, one person does not decide for everyone else what is and what is not.
You don't need to be Einstein to realize that without a scientific explanation , of what within the anthropic principle is euphemistically and controversially called nature's 'fine tuning' , you are actually left without a scientific explanation. That doesn't give explanation. It gives no explanation. No explanation is not an explanation that goddidit.
The Scientific method doesn't permit scientists to make up explanations and then call it science. ID'ers make it their job to do that and there has never been any reason for scientists to be hard pressed to answer ID critics any more than to answer other superficial claims.
Check out the Irony here. A faith based atheist criticising scientific arguments by trying to associate them with religion and throwing in a little Catholici bashing. When religion was not even mentioned. This is very ironic. Atheists can't handle the truth.
STU deal with reality.
I can get all sorts of quotes from physcists - but the one I got you is pretty good. it came from the inventor of String Theory. I gave you the whole interview with the chair of the physics dept at Stanford. Leonard Susskind. Read it digest the science understand it.
Now here is a info about the origin the the anthropic principle.
The first to employ the phrase "anthropic principle" appears to have been the theoretical astrophysicist Brandon Carter, in his contribution to a 1973 symposium titled Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data honouring Copernicus's 500th birthday. Carter articulated the Anthropic Principle as an ecological correction, so called, of what is now called the Cosmological Principle. This Principle extends the principle of relativity so as to require that all observers experience the same laws of physics uniformly throughout the universe. Hence at any given time, the universe will be both homogeneous and isotropic, (in 3-D space). This defines a non-applicable principle of mediocrity, one precluding the existence of a mechanism favoring any particular time and location for the appearance of carbon-based life as we know it...
here are alternatives to the anthropic principle, the most optimistic being that a Theory of everything will ultimately be discovered, uniting all forces in the universe and deriving from scratch all properties of all particles. Candidate "theories of everything" include M-Theory and various theories of quantum gravity, although all theories of this nature are currently deemed speculative. Another possibility is Lee Smolin's model of cosmological natural selection, also known as fecund universes, which proposes that universes have "offspring" which are more plentiful if they happen to have features common to our universe. Also see Gardner (2005) and his "selfish biocosm hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
But again STU you are not arguing the relevent point. Did you catch that last paragraph. There are alternative theories.... but they are considered too specluative.
The point is that many of the best minds in physics are postulating that if you do not accept that there are multiverses then you have to accept that our one univese is so incredibly fine tuned to life that randomness can not be a satisfactory explanation.
STU argue against that statement instead of trying to bash religion. Relgions has nothing to do with the points I have made.
Stick to the science you might learn something. This is not about your religions biases - Argue the science and you might be worth debating.
