For ****'s sake I wish people would stop saying this.
(Original post by bulgy)
like einstein? or newton? how about robert boyle? lord calvin? rutherford? kepler?
Newton, Boyle and Kepler all lived before the atom was even discovered. The amount of scientific ignorance amongst even the most learned men of their age is astounding in comparison to nowadays. Cosmology wasn't a field in their day. There's still a ****load we don't know nowadays, but you're simply taking what Laith said out of context and applying it to an epoch completely different from our own.
Newton was an alchemist. Kepler was an astrologist. Are you about to go around preaching how we can turn lead into gold, and the orbit of Venus in relation to Saturn tells me that I'm going to be hit by a truck and the nurse who takes care of me in A&E is going to fall in love with me?
Einstein believed in Spinoza's God, and also called himself an agnostic. He criticized the idea of a theistic god as being childish.
I can't speak for Rutherford or Kelvin.
Last edited by Hype en Ecosse; 04-04-2012 at 18:54.
Last edited by chickenonsteroids; 05-04-2012 at 22:15.
It's pretty rubbish, any life form that arose by chance would have exactly the same reason to believe that their existence was fine-tuned by a deity when in reality it was just chance.
(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
What do you guys think about the fine tuning argument for the existence of god? Not design, the probability one.
Explain the neg, now.
Last edited by FiniteMr; 07-04-2012 at 23:59.
The anthropic principle is the acknowledgement that the laws of the universe had to be the way they are in order for human life to have evolved. It is a basic, secular observation which has been hijacked by theists like Tenant and Lane-Craig as the 'fine tuning argument' which says that God 'finely tuned' the laws of nature so that human life would arise. So says both my Philosophy and Religious Studies and Theology A-level courses.
(Original post by ElationAndPathways)
No, I don't think so...
"The principle was formulated as a response to a series of observations that the laws of nature and parameters of the Universe take on values that are consistent with conditions for life as we know it rather than a set of values that would not be consistent with life on Earth [the fine-tuning argument
]. The anthropic principle states that this is a necessity, because if life were impossible, no one would know it. That is, it must be possible to observe some universe, and hence, the laws and constants of any such universe must accommodate that possibility."
as a response
to the fine-tuning argument. It's saying the fine-tuning argument is pointless because it's so self-evident that if we're here, there must have been the correct conditions for us to exist. It doesn't mean that a creator has to have created these conditions.
Why the neg? This is correct
Last edited by Diety; 15-04-2012 at 18:17.