(April 22, 2014 at 11:03 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: Theists often argue against naturalistic explanations for the appearance of life, attempting to maintain the mystery behind phenomena such as fine-tuning and abiogenesis, but this isn't enough. The anthropic principle works as well as theism, and it is difficult to rule out.
If the event in question couldn't possibly have occurred, then no being could have caused it to occur no matter its intelligence. If the event was possible—which must be the case if the event did occur—then you can apply the anthropic principle. The theistic explanation cannot be held in higher esteem unless they provide another argument for theism or provide arguments against all multiverse types (see Brian Greene's 9 types).
What's more is that the anthropic principle seems to be on higher ground at the moment. We know that there are plenty of other Earth-like planets that might support life, and there is some evidence for inflationary expansion. As this Scientific American article explains, astronomers detected roughly the magnitude of dark energy that was predicted by the inflation model.
What do you think? Is the king of kings in check?
I kind of agree with you. this God would have been created with this universe. Kind if like being born. Maybe he has siblings. But since we would be a "cell" in this thing we see only it. Like a colon cell never "sees" your family.
They have the traits wrong. But since they made it up 2000 years ago, it aint bad. Too bad people hold onto that so tight.
