Anthropic Principle vs Goddidit

[Coffee Jesus]

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?

[archangle]

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.

[Heywood]

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.

[truthBtold]

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.

A human made ur laptop. We know humans exist.. a laptop is not beyond our thinking..

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

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.

[Heywood]

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.

A human made ur laptop. We know humans exist.. a laptop is not beyond our thinking..

The point is that some events depend on an intellect. Anthropic reasoning cannot explain them.

[Chas]

A human made ur laptop. We know humans exist.. a laptop is not beyond our thinking..

The point is that some events depend on an intellect. Anthropic reasoning cannot explain them.

Name one.

[Heywood]

The point is that some events depend on an intellect. Anthropic reasoning cannot explain them.

Name one.

This discussion

[Coffee Jesus]

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.

...

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.

[ThePinsir]

The point is that some events depend on an intellect. Anthropic reasoning cannot explain them.

Any that point to the existence of gods?