Anthropic Principle vs Goddidit

[Rampant.A.I.]

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).

My laptop came into existence. The coming into existence of my laptop would not occur unless there was an intellect.

No it did not. Your laptop was built from components of previously existing matter. This is not at all similar to "coming into being." Even wishing your laptop into existence from nothing within the existing would not be the same as "coming into being."

The beginning of the universe and of all matter, time and space is in no way comparable to assembling a laptop from existing material parts.

In this forum there are numerous examples of discussions between intellects. These discussion are events that could not exist without intellects. Some events are dependent on intellects and cannot be explained otherwise.

False dichotomy. There is no reason to explain events in the absence of intellect to perceive events.

[Coffee Jesus]

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).

My laptop came into existence. The coming into existence of my laptop would not occur unless there was an intellect.

In this forum there are numerous examples of discussions between intellects. These discussion are events that could not exist without intellects. Some events are dependent on intellects and cannot be explained otherwise.

It's not like we have psychic powers that can defy the laws of physics.
Given enough universes with indeterminate outcomes, something like your laptop would eventually show up somewhere.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Moreover the design argument rests on the statistical improbably of a random origin. Calculating the exact odds is impossible but nearly everyone agrees, skeptics included, that the chance is orders of magnitude above astronomical. The most common way around this is to propose a multi verse. The problem with that is that that solution is highly unparsimonious. It posit a infinite number of universes when a single god works just fine.

...

Parsimony is about the number of assumptions, not the number of things. All the universes follow from one single assumption, and there's evidence that the assumption may be correct.

Multiverse theories seem like a blank check that throws our specific universe into an anything goes mix of bizzare possibilities. In a Multiverse you can justify any assumption.

[Heywood]

...

Parsimony is about the number of assumptions, not the number of things. All the universes follow from one single assumption, and there's evidence that the assumption may be correct.

Multiverse theories seem like a blank check that throws our specific universe into an anything goes mix of bizzare possibilities. In a Multiverse you can justify any assumption.

A theory that explains anything explains nothing.

---

Given enough universes with indeterminate outcomes, something like your laptop would eventually show up somewhere.

How do you know this to be true? How do you know in the subset of universes sans intellect....my laptop would eventually show up?

[Coffee Jesus]

...

Parsimony is about the number of assumptions, not the number of things. All the universes follow from one single assumption, and there's evidence that the assumption may be correct.

Multiverse theories seem like a blank check that throws our specific universe into an anything goes mix of bizzare possibilities. In a Multiverse you can justify any assumption.

You obviously didn't look at the Scientific American article. I'm not obliged to explain this to you, but I will.

You can still determine the averages among the universes, with some features being more frequent than others. It's sort of like the Bell curve.
If the anthropic principle is true, the features of our universe should tend toward the averages, and outliers should only be as frequent as we would expect by chance. We can work out the calculation as a Bonferroni correction, a mathematical technique for defining the null hypothesis when there are "multiple comparisons" being made.
This is how they calculated the expected magnitue of dark energy. When astrophysicists checked it out, they found that the magnitude of dark energy fell within the average.

---

Given enough universes with indeterminate outcomes, something like your laptop would eventually show up somewhere.

How do you know this to be true? How do you know in the subset of universes sans intellect....my laptop would eventually show up?

The formation of laptops is permitted under the law of physics, otherwise no intelligent or unintelligent being would ever make them.

[Heywood]

The formation of laptops is permitted under the law of physics, otherwise no intelligent or unintelligent being would ever make them.

I agree that the formation of laptops is permitted under the laws of physics....but how do you know they can come into existence in worlds that are devoid of intelligent beings?

[Rampant.A.I.]

The formation of laptops is permitted under the law of physics, otherwise no intelligent or unintelligent being would ever make them.

I agree that the formation of laptops is permitted under the laws of physics....but how do you know they can come into existence in worlds that are devoid of intelligent beings?

What would make the existence of laptops "necessary" in worlds devoid of intelligent beings?

[Ryantology]

My laptop came into existence. The coming into existence of my laptop would not occur unless there was an intellect.

In this forum there are numerous examples of discussions between intellects. These discussion are events that could not exist without intellects. Some events are dependent on intellects and cannot be explained otherwise.

Moreover the design argument rests on the statistical improbably of a random origin. Calculating the exact odds is impossible but nearly everyone agrees, skeptics included, that the chance is orders of magnitude above astronomical. The most common way around this is to propose a multi verse. The problem with that is that that solution is highly unparsimonious. It posit a infinite number of universes when a single god works just fine.

An infinite number of universes is less parsimonious than a single creator god because we can demonstrate, objectively, the existence of exactly one universe and zero creator gods.

[Heywood]

An infinite number of universes is less parsimonious than a single creator god because we can demonstrate, objectively, the existence of exactly one universe and zero creator gods.

An infinite number of universes requires a mechanism for generating those universes. How is this universe generating mechanism less parsimonious than God?

[Rampant.A.I.]

Do they? How do we know? Why is this conclusion always presupposed to support it as a conclusion?