This isn’t an argument for theists.
The creationist argument goes, the Universe appears fine-tuned for life. Take away any cosmological constant and the Universe is radically different, probably amorphous. It must have been God. This explains nothing. It is the exact same argument they use for explaining complexity (and everything else). All this does is push back the explanation one step. That is, creationists try to explain the immense complexity of life by proposing something necessarily more complex. That begs the question. The anthropic principle isn’t any better: we want to explain how life came to be. The idea proposes that God did it. Okay, well, now let’s explain God. It would be like asking for an explanation of how bread gets to the grocery store. Saying the truck driver brought it still leaves the question open.
Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: anthropic principle |
For the Sake of Science 
Explaining all things with one answer does not raise the complexity. It reduces it.
When we explain numerous disparate observations with one guiding principle that is good science. We see water flow, planetary movement, skeletal structures and volcano profiles and explain them all in light of a principle called gravity. We do not reject the idea of gravity because it “push[es] back the explanation one step” or because it tries to “explain … immense complexity … by proposing something necessarily more complex”. And we certainly do not suggest that it “begs the question.”
You are, of course, perfectly free to not accept that gravity exists. :|
When gravity is used to explain how water flows, it isn’t assumed that gravity has no explanation itself.
So?
In other words, no one says gravity explains X and then leaves it at that. If the ability to explain does end there, however, something more complex is only proposed based upon the physical evidence and observations. Until that time comes, the answer is the most reasonable one for the context – “I don’t know”. You’re doing precisely the opposite. It’s typical of the science-hating creationist (who ironically seeks the prestige associated with science). You’re saying God explain everything, leaving him not only unexplained, but unevidenced, too.
Uh .. yes they do.
Now you’re just making things up.
Name me a single scientist who claims that has no explanation.
I think you misunderstood the point – fatally. It isn’t important whether or not there is a current explanation (there is – see the Big Bang), but that no one says gravity is as far as our ability to explain can and/or needs to go. That’s what creationists do with their god, though.
Dude, if you’re going to constantly change your story there’s no way I can keep up.
Almost nobody asks what causes gravity when it’s given as an explanation. That in no way means we stop asking questions about gravity.
None of this has any relevance to my original post.
When we deliver a single explanation for many observations that reduces the complexity. It does not increase it.
Reducing the complexity of explaining an answer doesn’t make the answer itself less complex. Life evolves. That’s simple enough. That doesn’t mean evolution is so simple.
You really need to think things through a bit more before you post.
Are you going to remove the complaint against the cosmological argument from your post…
…?
Or are you going to allow a similar challenge to be levelled against evolution?
Evolution had been proposed in various forms long before Darwin came on the scene. It was roundly rejected by science, in part because religion breeds hate for new information, but largely because there was no mechanism, no good explanation. Once Darwin and Wallace came around, evolution was tenable. Give me your god mechanism that doesn’t involve magic and maybe I’ll grant your frankly weird ideas some more of my time.
I’d be happy if you could just respond to my last post….
You asked if a similar challenge about complexity could be made about evolution. I pointed out that god is a proposition which has no mechanism while evolution is well understood and expained and we know how it mostly works. If you don’t see how that’s a response to your post, you’re out in the woods.
Dude .. you’re all over the place. I asked you about gravity. You brought up evolution. Stick to one subject or you just lose everyone.
I think my first response in this thread was out of kind and is the reason why I’m not in tune with your responses.
Sorry for the confusion.
You said in your original post…
“The idea (the anthropic principle) proposes that God did it. Okay, well, now let’s explain God.”
Actually, the anthropic principle does not propose that “God” did it. It simply shows that design happened. Obviously, theists believe that God is the one who designs, but this argument isn’t meant to show that specifically.
It’s like watching a bus drive by and trying to debate whether or not someone was driving the bus. I may believe that “Sue” was driving, but if there’s a question as to whether or not anyone was driving, it is pointless to argue the identity of the driver. It must frist be demonstrated that there was a driver.
This is a non-point. Something more complicated is being proposed either way.
Begs the question. “Of course there is a driver. It’s a bus.” The very thing being asked is if there is a driver. You’ve assumed the proposition to be proved in your premise.