The weak and Strong anthropic principle..

[ToxicAvenger]

Has the universe developed for the express purpose of being observed and understood by intelligent beings, or is it just a lucky break for the intelligent beings that they exist at all?



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


http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/essays/impert.html


http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/anthropic_principle_index.html

[w8tlftr]

I'm sure Johnny will claim it lacks real critical thinking. 

[Johnny Apollo]

w8tlftr. Your lack of intelligence shows once again.


The Anthropic principle doesn't support intelligent design. The COSMOLOGICAL Anthropic principle is what intelligent design advocates often use to support their nonsense.

The articles he posted actually REFUTES intelligent design.

From his 2nd link..

While the so-called anthropic coincidences are at least arguably important, the Anthropic Cosmological Principle -- which attempts to answer the anthropic coincidences -- seems a failed enterprise. I will consider four statements of the Anthropic Principle, and reject all of them.

The anthropic princible actually GOES AGAINST intelligent design.

http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html


Although you didn't read any of the links and don't have a clue what we're even talking about...I'm wasting my time.

[w8tlftr]

w8tlftr. Your lack of intelligence shows once again.


The Anthropic principle doesn't support intelligent design. The COSMOLOGICAL Anthropic principle is what intelligent design advocates often use to support their nonsense.

The articles he posted actually REFUTES intelligent design.

From his 2nd link..


The anthropic princible actually GOES AGAINST intelligent design.

http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html


Although you didn't read any of the links and don't have a clue what we're even talking about...I'm wasting my time.

Goober. Where did I say Anthropic Principle justifies Intelligent Design?

[Johnny Apollo]

Goober. Where did I say Anthropic Principle justifies Intelligent Design?

You pontificated that I would suggest the article lacked critical thinking. You were implying that it disagreed with me. If it disagreed with me it must be supporting intelligent design considering the context of this thread.

However here's 2 questions.

In your OWN words..

What is the Anthropic Principle?

What does it mean for the existence of a God?

[w8tlftr]

You pontificated that I would suggest the article lacked critical thinking. You were implying that it disagreed with me. If it disagreed with me it must be supporting intelligent design considering the context of this thread.

However here's 2 questions.

In your OWN words..

What is the Anthropic Principle?

What does it mean for the existence of a God?

I'll have to research and get back to you. I only came across this a couple days ago and the arguments were using AP to justify the existence of God.

It is an interesting read though.

[Johnny Apollo]

I'll have to research and get back to you. I only came across this a couple days ago and the arguments were using AP to justify the existence of God.

It is an interesting read though.

I'll be waiting...

[w8tlftr]

I'll be waiting...

Don't hold your breath. I'll read up on it and answer your questions when I want to dedicate that sort of time.

I still have to go to Good Friday service, annoy my wife and kids, take care of my 'honey do' list, and take care of my City of Heroes/Villains fix. 

 

[w8tlftr]

You pontificated that I would suggest the article lacked critical thinking. You were implying that it disagreed with me. If it disagreed with me it must be supporting intelligent design considering the context of this thread.

However here's 2 questions.

In your OWN words..

What is the Anthropic Principle?

What does it mean for the existence of a God?

The Reader's Digest version from a simple unfrozen caveman software engineer. 

What is the Anthropic Principle?

It's an attempt to explain the creation of the universe based on observation (and our current understanding of chemistry and physics) that conditions had to be perfect for the universe and all life in to exist. In other words, the universe does not seem to be a random event.

What does it mean for the existence of a God?

- Everything has a beginning. Energy/matter can not come into existence from nothing - something has to create it for it to exist. To indicate otherwise is illogical. So the question is who or what made us come into existence? If energy and matter can not come from nothing that would imply that a very powerful and intelligent being had to play a major role in creating an extremely complex environment to create and sustain very complex lifeforms. Since AP suggests that nothing happens by mere chance that you have to strongly consider the possibility of God.

[ToxicAvenger]

The articles he posted actually REFUTES intelligent design.

bingo...i mean i posted some quick links..if ya actually do a comprehensive search ..it refutes intelligent design

[ToxicAvenger]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/5mysteries_universes_020205-1.html


Cosmologists say that a quantum fluctuation gave rise to the Big Bang.

badabing my guess about  quantum uncertanity ws right!

[Johnny Apollo]

The Reader's Digest version from a simple unfrozen caveman software engineer. 

What is the Anthropic Principle?

It's an attempt to explain the creation of the universe based on observation (and our current understanding of chemistry and physics) that conditions had to be perfect for the universe and all life in to exist. In other words, the universe does not seem to be a random event.

What does it mean for the existence of a God?

- Everything has a beginning. Energy/matter can not come into existence from nothing - something has to create it for it to exist. To indicate otherwise is illogical. So the question is who or what made us come into existence? If energy and matter can not come from nothing that would imply that a very powerful and intelligent being had to play a major role in creating an extremely complex environment to create and sustain very complex lifeforms. Since AP suggests that nothing happens by mere chance that you have to strongly consider the possibility of God.

You're jumbling concepts here. There is more than one type of Anthropic Principle first of all. Using one definition for "Anthropic Principle" doesn't make sense.
Explain to me the various types of the Anthropic Principle and what they mean in your own words.

Secondly the claim that "Energy/matter can't come into existence from nothing" is a positive assertion that requires EVIDENCE to support it. Simply stating it's illogical isn't enough. How do you know it can't come into existence from nothing? Using our current physical laws to try to explain the formation of those physical laws is what is illogical.
Secondly you're moving the goal post here. You first imply that we need to figure out "Who/what" made the universe and THEN you imply a "very powerful and intelligent being" had to do it. In an obvious non sequitr you have failed to explain how the fact that energy not forming from nothing means an intelligent being had to form it. Why an intelligent being, Why not complex natural laws?

[w8tlftr]

You're jumbling concepts here. There is more than one type of Anthropic Principle first of all. Using one definition for "Anthropic Principle" doesn't make sense.
Explain to me the various types of the Anthropic Principle and what they mean in your own words.

Secondly the claim that "Energy/matter can't come into existence from nothing" is a positive assertion that requires EVIDENCE to support it. Simply stating it's illogical isn't enough. How do you know it can't come into existence from nothing? Using our current physical laws to try to explain the formation of those physical laws is what is illogical.
Secondly you're moving the goal post here. You first imply that we need to figure out "Who/what" made the universe and THEN you imply a "very powerful and intelligent being" had to do it. In an obvious non sequitr you have failed to explain how the fact that energy not forming from nothing means an intelligent being had to form it. Why an intelligent being, Why not complex natural laws?

Any answers I give you, which doesn't support your non-existence of God, is an exercise in futility for me... and I really don't want to play. 

The basic thrust of AP is the claim that the universe was created by mere chance is invalid.

If it is possible that things happen for a reason to serve a specific purpose (i.e. supporting complex lifeforms) then it is possible that a very powerful and intelligent being had a role in it's creation and, furthermore, it's maintenance. Especially if AP claims that "just because" is not a valid explaination.

Happy Easter, Johnny. 

[ToxicAvenger]

Secondly the claim that "Energy/matter can't come into existence from nothing" is a positive assertion that requires EVIDENCE to support it. Simply stating it's illogical isn't enough.

actually happens every day out side of blackholes...

its called hawkings rariation..google and read about it..

Andrew: Hawking radiation starts out as two virtual particles on the horizon of a black hole, one particle and one antiparticle. Usually, the virtual particles are a pair of photons. A photon is its own antiparticle, so this doesn't contradict the fact that a particle-antiparticle pair are produced. However, one particle falls into the black hole, the other comes out. Once the particles separate due to the black hole's gravitational field, they are no longer virtual particles, but real particles. They can't destroy each other because they are separated by the horizon. The strange thing (and this is possibly what is confusing you) is that the particle that falls in has negative energy. That means that it reduces the mass of the black hole. You may have been confusing the 'anti' in antiparticle as meaning negative energy, it really means negative charge.

It should be emphasized that the virtual particle picture of Hawking radiation is only one way of visualizing how the radiation is created. You can also think about the radiation as being particles which tunnel out of the black hole horizon. In particular, if a photon or any other massless particle tunnels out of the horizon, it can get away from the black hole because it always travels at the speed of light.

Will: Or are you suggesting that the Hawking radiation itself is likely to be evenly divided between particles and antiparticles? This is likely to be true, and you're right, the particles and antiparticles would tend to annihilate one another. But when a particle and antiparticle annihilate, you don't get nothing, you get photons! Most (but not all) of the Hawking radiation is in the form of photons in the first place. And what's the antiparticle of a photon? Another photon! The radiation, even if it is exactly evenly divided between particles and antiparticles, doesn't cancel at all.



in barney terms..when a virtual negative fals into a black hole it takes away from the entopry of the universe..the other particle heads out in the opposite direction and goes from becoming a virtual (a methematical anomoly) particle to a REAL particle...

tadaaa! something outta nothing 

[Johnny Apollo]

Any answers I give you, which doesn't support your non-existence of God, is an exercise in futility for me... and I really don't want to play. 

The basic thrust of AP is the claim that the universe was created by mere chance is invalid.

If it is possible that things happen for a reason to serve a specific purpose (i.e. supporting complex lifeforms) then it is possible that a very powerful and intelligent being had a role in it's creation and, furthermore, it's maintenance. Especially if AP claims that "just because" is not a valid explaination.

Happy Easter, Johnny. 

More jumbling on your part due to lack of research!

There are 3 basic types of the principle.

1.Weak anthropic principle-The idea that if conditions weren't right for intelligence to be here..Intelligence would not be here to say anything about that. As the links initially posted explain, This really has absolutely nothing to do with the likelyhood of how the universe formed or the chances of it's formation naturally without an "intelligence.

2.Strong Anthropic Principle-This is the idea that our and every universe MUST at some point evolve life in it by necessaty. The meaning of the universe is to evolve life in it and if it doesn't it can't exist. Obviously this is supported by absolutely ZERO evidence.

3.Final anthropic principle-This is the statement that once lintelligenct information processing does come into existence in a universe it can't come "out of existence". Again..Not supported by any evidence and there is alot of evidence against it. The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of usable energy in the universe will decrease. Since the amount of usable enrgy/heat decreases that means no energy which means no information processing or life!

In short it really has nothing to do with the existence of a God or "intelligent designer". None of the aspects of the principle support intelligent design or even really deal with it.

[w8tlftr]

More jumbling on your part due to lack of research!

There are 3 basic types of the principle.

1.Weak anthropic principle-The idea that if conditions weren't right for intelligence to be here..Intelligence would not be here to say anything about that. As the links initially posted explain, This really has absolutely nothing to do with the likelyhood of how the universe formed or the chances of it's formation naturally without an "intelligence.

2.Strong Anthropic Principle-This is the idea that our and every universe MUST at some point evolve life in it by necessaty. The meaning of the universe is to evolve life in it and if it doesn't it can't exist. Obviously this is supported by absolutely ZERO evidence.

3.Final anthropic principle-This is the statement that once lintelligenct information processing does come into existence in a universe it can't come "out of existence". Again..Not supported by any evidence and there is alot of evidence against it. The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of usable energy in the universe will decrease. Since the amount of usable enrgy/heat decreases that means no energy which means no information processing or life!

In short it really has nothing to do with the existence of a God or "intelligent designer". None of the aspects of the principle support intelligent design or even really deal with it.

Yay for Johnny! He can read a wikipedia entry.

You asked for what it was I gave a summarized answer.

I have for more important and interesting things to do than play tag with Johnny the Christian hating atheist. 

Happy Easter, Johnny. Jesus loves you!

[Johnny Apollo]

Yay for Johnny! He can read a wikipedia entry.

You asked for what it was I gave a summarized answer.

I have for more important and interesting things to do than play tag with Johnny the Christian hating atheist. 

Happy Easter, Johnny. Jesus loves you!

Ok dumbass...You didn't even read my post did you?

I didn't get my info from wiki, Even tough wiki says what I said basically my info came from my knowledge of the principle.

You didn't "Summarize" the anthropic principle. You MISTATED IT.

As I said in my last post. NO ASPECT of the principle supports the existence of an intelligent designer.

Got it?

[w8tlftr]

Ok dumbass...You didn't even read my post did you?

I didn't get my info from wiki, Even tough wiki says what I said basically my info came from my knowledge of the principle.

You didn't "Summarize" the anthropic principle. You MISTATED IT.

As I said in my last post. NO ASPECT of the principle supports the existence of an intelligent designer.

Got it?

It's funny when the self proclaimed genius has to resort to name calling after he points out when others do it. 

I didn't mistate anything. That's pretty much the thrust of AP whether you like it or not.

You see a glass that's half empty while I see it as half full. We just have different interpretations of life, Johnny. You're a very negative and hateful person. I can see this in you because I was once like you and all it brought me was more anger and alienation.

So I'm done with you, Johnny. You're a very angry and lost 25 year old kid and although you've helped me strengthen my faith in God all this fighting with you truly is an exercise in futility and no longer worth my time. At some point you're going to have to realize that you will not destroy anyones faith in God - especially through angry and childish fits about your issues with God and Christianity.

One last thing. Try to emulate the behavior of other posters on here that don't believe in God (i.e. Toxic). At least they do it with respect and class.

[Johnny Apollo]

It's funny when the self proclaimed genius has to resort to name calling after he points out when others do it. 

I didn't mistate anything. That's pretty much the thrust of AP whether you like it or not.

You see a glass that's half empty while I see it as half full. We just have different interpretations of life, Johnny. You're a very negative and hateful person. I can see this in you because I was once like you and all it brought me was more anger and alienation.

Calling me "negative and hateful" after you totally botched your explanation of the anthropic principle doesn't get you anywhere.

Here...Explain the DIFFERENT variations of the principle and explain which one supports intelligent design and which doesn't and then explain how they support it. Provide credible soources as well.

So I'm done with you, Johnny. You're a very angry and lost 25 year old kid and although you've helped me strengthen my faith in God all this fighting with you truly is an exercise in futility and no longer worth my time. At some point you're going to have to realize that you will not destroy anyones faith in God - especially through angry and childish fits about your issues with God and Christianity.

One last thing. Try to emulate the behavior of other posters on here that don't believe in God (i.e. Toxic). At least they do it with respect and class.

25 and a kid huh? 

You're only running away because you can't argue with me. You know i've refuted you.

I challenge you to explain the variations of the anthropic principle. What are the differences between weak and strong anthropic principle? Final anthropic principle? Ect. Explain in detail in YOUR OWN WORDS how they support intelligent design.

Act like the other members? You mean non-argumentative? Like you like it!
You want me to "act like the other atheists" because they don't have my "put up or shut up" mentality and they take alot of bullshit without making protest. I on the other hand don't accept bullshit and expect evidence for claims. I am onto each and every claim you make and THAT MAKES YOU NERVOUS.

I've made your faith stronger? Keep telling yourself that little man! Too bad YOU don't even believe it! I've shaken your dogma, Your blind belief and now you're so scared you're running from me.

Good job!

[w8tlftr]

Calling me "negative and hateful" after you totally botched your explanation of the anthropic principle doesn't get you anywhere.

Here...Explain the DIFFERENT variations of the principle and explain which one supports intelligent design and which doesn't and then explain how they support it. Provide credible soources as well.

25 and a kid huh? 

You're only running away because you can't argue with me. You know i've refuted you.

I challenge you to explain the variations of the anthropic principle. What are the differences between weak and strong anthropic principle? Final anthropic principle? Ect. Explain in detail in YOUR OWN WORDS how they support intelligent design.

Act like the other members? You mean non-argumentative? Like you like it!
You want me to "act like the other atheists" because they don't have my "put up or shut up" mentality and they take alot of bullshit without making protest. I on the other hand don't accept bullshit and expect evidence for claims. I am onto each and every claim you make and THAT MAKES YOU NERVOUS.

I've made your faith stronger? Keep telling yourself that little man! Too bad YOU don't even believe it! I've shaken your dogma, Your blind belief and now you're so scared you're running from me.

Good job!

So says the atheists who tells me how to interpret my own faith. LMAO!!!

LOL.... I doubt my my OWN faith because of the childish rantings of a 25 year old kid who hasn't even begun to exerpience life... LOL.... what ever helps you sleep at night, dear boy. What ever helps you sleep at night.

Matthew 7:6, Johnny, Matthew 7:6. 

We're done. Good luck with your jihad against Christianity. You'll need it!

[suckmymuscle]

  THE CHILD BOARD! I'M A RETARDED RELIGIOUS KID! NOW DINA OR CHERI LANE HAVE TO PULL THEIR MILKERS OFF AND FEED ME! MAMMA GOT MILK!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Johnny Apollo]

I'm still waiting for you to answer the questions w8lftr.

I challenge you to explain the variations of the anthropic principle. What are the differences between weak and strong anthropic principle? Final anthropic principle? Ect. Explain in detail in YOUR OWN WORDS how they support intelligent design.

[w8tlftr]

I'm still waiting for you to answer the questions w8lftr.

What part of "I'm done with you" wasn't clear?

Happy Easter, Johnny. 

[Johnny Apollo]

What part of "I'm done with you" wasn't clear?

Happy Easter, Johnny. 

AKA "I don't have a clue of what i'm talking about."

[w8tlftr]

AKA "I don't have a clue of what i'm talking about."

LOL... sure that's what it is. 

Happy Easter, Johnny!