> > Someone just pointed me to this, which is very apropos: > > > > http://tinyurl.com/alrzj > > > > Bob > > I'm not sure what Mr. Kurzweil is getting at, but I don't > know why people think it's such a huge co-incidence that > everything in this universe works so well WRT life and our > existence here (there's still not a shred of proof that > there's life anywhere else, BTW - the probabilities may be > what they are, but there's not proof). > > And, just because the conditions for life and it's > continuance are so amazing, why is that evidence of > intelligent design? > > We don't know how many other big bangs there have been that > amounted to nothing, that collapsed into themselves in short > order, or rapidly expanded into the continuum before life > could evolve. We don't know how many other universes came > from big bangs that may not have had the right amount of > carbon to sustain life. > > We don't know how many other universes may be in existence at > this time that don't have the right conditions for life as we know it. > > It could be that this is indeed a one in a trillion > phenomenon, and we just happen to be lucky enough to be along > for the ride. > > So what?
The anthropic principle is a variation of the design argument, and can be countered in most of the same ways. The design argument says, basically, 'This stuff is really complicated. I can't figure out how it got here, therefore God did it'. Dawkins (or Dennett, I can't remember which) has also called it the argument from personal ignorance. It's not at all surprising that that we have emerged in a universe that's well suited to us - we could not emerge in any other kind. In addition, as you suggest above, Frank, however statistically unlikely it is that we are here, is there a more plausible explanation than that we arose naturally? If (and it's a big if) the odds are many trillions to one against us arising, how much more unlikely is it that a god, or gods, should arise to start it all off, and how did they get started? Bob
