The Anthropic Principle and the Coincidence of Me - Part 1

[raponte1955]

Gnug215 OK. But then, what's your explanation to this statistically improbable universe? Multiverse?

[Gnug215]

@raponte1955 Saying that this universe is "statistically improbable" implies that this universe is a desirable or intended outcome. It implies that the universe, or existence, has "an opinion" on the existence of humans.

We humans look at the universe and think it's good that it is like it is, because it allows for our existence, but the universe doesn't necessarily "care" about that.

My point of the video is exactly that calling it "improbable" is human bias, when the term doesn't apply.

[Gnug215]

Yeah, I know, and I've even seen apologists like William Lane Craig acknowledge the possibility of a multiverse, and still fail to grasp the implications for their "anthropic argument".

It's sort of what I'm trying to point out in this video: If this universe wasn't tuned the way it is, we wouldn't be here to call the tuning "fine". That doesn't necessarily mean this universe is unique.

[acidclarkie]

@Gnug215 it's kinda like God saying to Abraham "you would not exist if it was'nt for me" then Abraham replies "you woundn't be known if it was not for me"

[Gnug215]

@acidclarkie Yeah, I mean, realistically, I accept that God might still exist without having any humans to know or believe in him, but philosophically speaking I'd say you could argue for his existence being void if no one was around. But this concept is even stronger in terms of the universe and us. The universe could probably care less about our existence and us knowing about it, since there could easily be myriads of other universes where no life exists.

[acidclarkie]

@Gnug215 you do know that the mutiverse theory does somewhat counter the Anthropic principle. Reason being, if there are an infinite amount of universes then our universe with all it's fine turning was bound to happen,you can even say that there is also an infinite amount of universe just like ours. but there are different types of Anthropic principle ie strong, weak, etc. I like the idea that only once you" observe" does something then exist.

[acidclarkie]

Gnug215 Sorry i cannot muster a coherent sentence for this short essay!!! and i do not wish to quibble.Only i pointed out that this guy said "up" to much which i dislike....if you cannot ynderstand my first comment you have a problem as i made it as simple as i could.

[Gnug215]

@acidclarkie Ah, I get it now. The quotation marks helped, thanks.

But well, I only mention it 10 times. :)

Which I think isn't too bad when I'm trying to describe the term and apply it to my argument, but ok, point understood this time, and taken.

[acidclarkie]

This guy talks about up to much...dislike

[Gnug215]

@acidclarkie "This guy talks about up to much...dislike"

Well, at least this guy can form coherent sentences. You seem to have failed to form just a single one, so if you could be so kind as to make an attempt to reiterate the point you're trying to make in your comment?

Thanks.

[ali921812]

god says

"We will show them our proofs in the horizons, and within themselves, until they realize that this is the truth.* Is your Lord not sufficient as a witness of all things?"

this is just the beginning not only is science leaning towards design your going to find it and then maybe you will understand

but it will be too late by than

[Gnug215]

@ali921812 Oh, and of course God will say something like: "The evidence for me is evident!"

What else would he say? Nature has a fairly comprehensive natural explanation for most of it's aspects. God has been receding slowly but surely for many years.

God used to be behind fire and lightning, and just about everything. Now all you have left is those few things in nature that aren't fully explained, like what happened before The Big Bang.

[ali921812]

even the devil believes in god so what does that make you?

-boona muhammad

[Gnug215]

@ali921812 No, the Devil (if he exists - same with God) KNOWS God exists. No belief included.

Otherwise I'm quite baffled at what your point with this comment is.

Do you have anything more substantial and productive to say, perhaps?

[ali921812]

@Gnug215 what is to know if not an adamant belief in..

the point being the devil himself did not stoop so low as to deny his existence

yet we can be so arrogant and ignorant as to not only deny that god exists but to deny even the world around us is designed

do you actually believe that evolution is a legitimate theory

evolution is just another belief system but the difference is it is scientific so it can and has been proven false

[Gnug215]

@ali921812 So you've just compared me to something lower than the Devil? I see. I guess I lost all reason to listen to you, then, didn't I?

But as to your false assertions. Evolution is still very much a legitimate scientific theory. Would you care to point me to just one scientific, peer-reviewed paper that tells otherwise? Or did you just lie to try to convince me of something?

The scientific concensus is very much still for evolution. Care to explain why you don't accept that?

[ali921812]

@Gnug215

the scientific consensus is in denial that is how it works with all theorys that are proven wrong whe u spend your whole life trying to prove that we came from rocks or one celled organisms its going to hurt you when you find human or fly or bee fossils from centuries ago that are exactly similar to that of humans/flies/bees TODAY

or when you find that the earth although not centered literally but metaphorically as the center of life

.......contin

[Gnug215]

@ali921812 So let me get this straight: Just about ALL scientists today, the many millions of them, are just in denial, because changing their minds may "hurt" them?

Never mind the fact that those scientists who would disprove or replace the theory of evolution would become rich and famous overnight.

Oh, and those "living fossils" you mention, the bees and such, that poses no problem for the theory, as you would have known had you studied the subject closer.

[ali921812]

@Gnug215 yes it does to say that we are the final and most evolved of the creatures of the past and then to find creatures with similar traits centuries before our time is detrimental and to find that some evolutionist went far enough to lie and fake a discovery of a link between monkeys and humans by combining two different skulls shows how far people will go

if you believed in evolution enough why would you need to lie

i will tell u why because in reality u dont believe but you want to believe

[Gnug215]

@ali921812 Do you know who figured out that someone had faked those skulls?

The scientific community.

Why? Because truth will always prevail. Why? Because lies can always be disproven by testing it again.

And again, you are making statements on behalf of me and my beliefs. Is that the only way to vindicate your own beliefs? By claiming to know what others believe? (And claiming that their beliefs are based on lies.)

I think there is only one of us here who "wants" to believe something.

[ali921812]

@Gnug215 yes the scientific community not the evolutionist community because that would make them look bad and lose their faith in such a ridiculous theory

[Gnug215]

@ali921812 So are you saying the scientific community does not accept the theory of evolution?

[ali921812]

@Gnug215 oho i think it would be true if u said this way before my beliefs were set

but right now i am not trying to vindicate my belief by disproving yours i know my belief has a very strong foundation and can stand without my help (i have my own ways of becoming a better believer and they have nothing to do with arguments with an evolutionist)

the only reason i am doing this is to have you open your eyes

obviously i am not doing it very well

so i guess i know when to call it quits

[Gnug215]

@ali921812 Well, no, I am sorry to say that you're not doing it very well. In fact, I would say you're making things worse, especially when you try to claim that science doesn't support the theory of evolution, because then I'm forced to conclude that you're either lying to vindicate your faith, or just seriously misled and/or misinformed.

Hinging your argument upon lies or misinformation usually backfires badly.

[Gnug215]

@ali921812 Well, no, I am sorry to say that you're not doing it very well. In fact, I would say you're making things worse, especially when you try to claim that science doesn't support the theory of evolution, because then I'm forced to conclude that you're either lying to vindicate your faith, or just seriously misled and/or misinformed.

Hinging your argument upon lies or misinformation usually backfires badly.

[gamesbok]

@ali921812 And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."

– Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.

Piltdown man was immediately attacked in France, Germany and the US exactly because it didn't fit with the evolutionary pattern that had been established. If we're going to start on Theological lies we'll be here some time.

[Gnug215]

@ali921812 Oh, and as for denial, a subject you seem to think you're an expert in, with regards to God's existence, which to you has only been shown indirectly seemingly through the vague notion of the world around you being designed, isn't it, shall we say, the opposite of denial to cling to God's existence when God has never revealed himself directly?

Also, the Devil stooping? Why would he deny God's existence when he personally knew him? Seriously, your line of thought is baffling.

[ali921812]

@Gnug215

"the vague notion of the world around you"

the fact that you and me are talking the fact that the probability of us being alive was so infinitesimal it could have not been without a miracle the fact that this world and everything in it is so complex in such a small amount of time that evolution could not explain it even if the odds were we could reproduce at a rate of 1 generation/day from the beginning of time (or close to those odds idk)

still you deny his existence

oh but worry not

[Gnug215]

@ali921812 My video demonstrates exactly that infintessimal probabilities are possible, and only so as perceived by us. Clearly you didn't get the point of the video.

And no, I don't deny anything. My mind is open for evidence. The fact that you keep talking about me denying things, as if you know what I'm thinking, makes you sound rather out of balance - and, ironically, as if you're in some kind of denial yourself.

[ali921812]

let me break down your video \

1)in the beginning you state the the common argument of creationists is that we happened by random chance NO creationists believe that we were created hence the name

no randomness to it and no chance

2)you later go on to say that we arent in fact at the center of life and this is only the perspective of creationists.."you said that the universe is not dictated by humans" of course not no one claimed to the contrary and you later go on to prove the point of... cont

[Gnug215]

@ali921812 Listening to my video, I can see how number 1 is confusing; I'm not very clear, and I'm sorry about that. What I meant to express is that it's a creationist argument AGAINST non-creationists that the universe and life is supposedly totally random, UNLESS God made it. What I am trying to get at is that it's both a false dichotomy and a strawman - and that this argument (made by creationists against non-creationists) stems from a very different view on existence.

[breaneainn]

COOL! I agree totally with your fundamental standpoint, and I believe this is an inarguable position on logical grounds based on substantiated evidence. wish i had the time to make a vid like this....nice work.

[Gnug215]

@breaneainn Ah, I only just read your comment on the other video. I'm happy you decided to watch the whole thing, and I'm even happier that you liked it! :)

[standinstann]

You're talking about two different things here. The anthropic principle is not an atheistic argument vs a religious argument. It's not really an argument at all; but when its used as such, it's more an argument for Materialism and against non materialism.

To say "Everything is the way it is because if it weren't we wouldn't be here talking about it" is a tautology. It's like me saying that I'm writing this comment right now because if i weren't, words wouldn't be appearing on the screen. 

[Gnug215]

@standinstann I'm basically talking about the weak anthropic principle - which yes, is a tautology, and recognized as such - used by theists as an argument for the existence of God. It's also known as the fine-tuning argument, as I'm sure you know.

I'm not making the vid as an argument for atheism or against God, but I'm making an argument against the argument, as I have seen it used by theists and creationists. I hope that explains things.

[standinstann]

@Gnug215

Oh, okay, I see what you're saying. My impression was that you were stating an argument 'against' theism, but I can see how you were simply correcting a theistic argument; not presenting one your self.

Gochya.

[standinstann]

@standinstann

That being said, I've always found it a little strange that (today more than ever) people who argue for the necessity of a non material posit to explain being, end up trying to infer that non material being's existence by examining the composition of *material* things, when there is no need to do so, and the inference its self is contradictory.

[Gnug215]

@standinstann It's a bit of a problem for me at times, since I mostly just make videos against "bad" arguments, that theists and others who wouldn't make such arguments as the ones I'm rebutting make fair points against my videos. My videos will obviously be problematic, when the arguments I'm going against are problematic (to say the least) themselves.

[ObviousSockPuppet23]

@standinstann

I once heard a person explain how the low probability of her being in the happy relationship she had was so low, it must have been 'meant to be'. She was unable to believe that in a slightly different universe, she might be in a different relationship that might ALSO seem uniquely wonderful, and so the odds that she would be in that relationship OR weren't all that bad. I think this is a good illustration of the problem with the argument from fine-tuning.

[Gnug215]

Hehe, thanks!

[ChangePerTime]

Hi Gnug!

Thanks for your response.

I sent you a pvt msg about your question.

At your page I attempted to go to the web page discussion forum but didn't reach it.

Best wishes. Create on! delta t

[Gnug215]

Hey!

Yes, I got it... I've actually been working on a response, but I've caught myself a nasty cold, so it's been going very slow.

Too bad about the chat/forum thingie, but I guess it's a bit difficult if one isn't familiar with IRC clients.

I could help out if you still want to. Let me know.

I'll try to finish the reply comment now. :)

Take care!

[ChangePerTime]

Hi Gnug!

Thanks for another great essay. Your calm elocution reaches me loud and clear. I was raised a young earth creationist......'but now I'm found....blind but now I see.' I appreciate you. Best wishes. & cool cat!

delta t

[Gnug215]

Hey, thanks a bunch!

I don't really like my own voice, and would gladly have hired the voice talents of, say, James-Earl Jones or AronRa to do these vids for me, but alas.

I'm just glad my voice doesn't scare everyone off. :)

About you being raised a YEC, care to tell me a bit about what it was that turned it around? What kind of arguments/logic caught your attention, if any?

Take care! :)

[muerteverde]

I was also raised as a YEC and I have since seen the light, so to speak. For me, it was a combination of reasons over years. First was a class on logical argumentation in college. Then I just began to look more critically and ask why for everything and to question everything and then I began to explore other religions. Finding that Christianity was no different and had no more proof than any other was a major tipping point for me.

[Gnug215]

That's great to hear. Encourarging.

However, you went to college, had an open mind and investigated things on your own, which I doubt many YECs really do.

I mean, you basically allowed yourself to have an open mind and want to learn. Many religious people almost seem opposed to that very idea.

What led you to do those things in the first place, you think?

[mrowepat]

Wow!!! Great job nug!!! Loved it!!!

[Gnug215]

Thanks a lot. :)

Part two isn't far off now, just don't have a lot of time during the week due to work, but soon. :)

[benatssu]

whoa.... i feel my stomach trying to flip itself the right way round while looking at an upside down map.. there will be a strong market for these maps after 2012 when we have a pole shift :)

but i think this vid should definately get people to think abstractally...... which is what we all need to be doing..

kudos

[Gnug215]

Thanks! :)

Yeah, you know... shake people at their thinking core.

I think stuff like the upside down maps are one good "trick" to do that.

Do you have any other ideas for these kind of consciousness increasing tricks?

Oh, and btw, I may be a while in responding to your lengthy message. Not too much time these days, and as I'm sure you can imagine, the reply is not going to be shorter than your message. ;)

[Gnug215]

Hehe, that's quite alright. I think it will all make much more sense once Part 2 is up.

Stay safe and good luck with those allergies. :)

[aieak22]

GREAT VID!!!

[Gnug215]

Yay! Thanks, man. :)

Good to hear from you again, sorry this took so long, hehe. I have more coming, and it shouldn't take as long this time. :)

[Gnug215]

Hehe, hey there!

Finally got the vid up. :)

Hope it's not too weird.

Oh, btw, Theo is indeed a subscription of mine.