On 2/20/06, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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? >
Back in my undergrad days we learned it as the Teleological Argument for the existence of God. It's been around since (at least) Thomas Aquinas. The refutations of the argument have likely been around for just as long. I suppose the primary argument is: "Design? What design?" cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
