• Embarking on a digital quest through the vast citadels of Google and beyond, an ancient relic was unearthed: the revered "export" scroll dated September 5, 2014. Rejoice, for the chronicles thought lost have been found. Welcome back to the complete tapestry of TTI.

    Read More

Anthropic Principle: Cosmology and Theology

Interesting reading but to me it has the one continuing flaw that most papers or postulations have when presented by religious people. That being that religion (in too many cases) seeks to "prove" what it already believes first, and engages in genuine discovery second.

Glynn's comment "...thesis is that the scientific discoveries of the past 25 years, especially in the physical sciences, have refuted the idea of a `random universe'--the modern idea that human life was a chance event--in favor of the `anthromorphic <sic> principle': the idea that there is an intelligent guiding hand at work." is patently untrue. The Physical Sciences of the past 25 years do not show that at all. In fact, they tend to show exactly what Glynn is trying to refute here.

The original postulate by the Hawaii Professor Stengle shows that and it seems that Glynn offers a "straw man" argument against it. Of course various religious leaders get on board because Glynn supports their beliefs.

It's ok with me if religion says science supports its beliefs, as long as one does not fabricate the evidence, alter it, or try to expand it into a vehicle for perpetuating what is already believed in in the first place.

Evidence has to be examined on its own merits with NO END TARGET OR GOAL as the unshakable truth. In GOOD science, NOTHING is really proven, only accepted as the current explanation until something better replaces it. The scientific search for evidence is based on the ideology of discovery, not the re-inforcement of current dogma.

Many religious people see this as an attempt to "disprove" God. Nothing could be further from the truth. If God is in the evidence, so be it. But if He is not, we cannot be duped into believing that we have to keep God in the evidence just to maintain the status quo or or "save" our eternal souls.

If we have eternal souls and there is a God, what becomes of us was already determined at the instant of creation itself. Determined by the very laws of physics that He laid down at that time.

If we do not and there is no God, all the belief in the world cannot make it so.

In the overall sense, the best we can do is explore with an open mind and learn from what we see, not just from what we are told.

Thanx.
 
Re:Re:Anthropic Principle: Cosmology and Theology

Am I right in that you are criticizing one of the authors written about and not the author of the article? The author seems to have taken a more "agnostic" point of view. I appreciated this article very much as it looked a little deeper than the average pop-science book or review thereof.

The two areas where he could have gone a little deeper were:
a) He didn't make a clear distinction between multiverses as a result of measurable events such as the collapse of a black hole, and the weird multiverse theories of those who believe a new universe is created every time a photon changes state.
b) He didn't describe how it is that a black hole collapsing under the laws of Universe #A could generate a Universe #B with completely different laws. If it can be shown that a universe with such-and-such laws will only spawn universes with the same laws then that kind of destroys that one scientist's cosmic evolution theories.

I ran this article by a Geologist friend of mine, and he liked Sagan's lithopic universe idea!

As far as religious folk dabbling in science: it used to be that Creationists at least tried to come up with theories that would allow the laws of physics to generate the universe we see in the time alloted (usually about 6000 years.) Now they seem to have given up on this and say that God created the universe 6000 years ago in such a way that it looks like it is billions of years old.

I once heard a similar theory about fossils: God allowed the Devil to create fossils in order to confound scientists. In this sense, science is an inherently evil or at least worthless pursuit, and God is trying to tell us to stop making scientific discoveries, or risk going to Hell.

This is patently stupid. For example, some Fundamentalists will point to a particular form of music and say that it is the music of the Devil, then they will go back to listening to their Big Band records of the 40's and 50's. Only problem is that their grand parents (or great grandparents) were listening to Classical music while complaining of that Devilish Big Band music that all the kids are listening to.

Similarly, religious folk complain about some of the latest, greatest advances in technology (e.g. bar coding, retinal scanning) while using other latest, greatest technologies to complain about them (e.g. PC, internet.)

So they really are trying to defend and indefensible position. If they were to adopt lifestyles similar to the Amish, then they might be a little more consistent, but the advances in technology that the Amish take advantage of would make the average Amazonian tribesman blanch in amazement!
 
Re:Re:Re:Anthropic Principle: Cosmology and Theology

I find myself on virtually total agreement with you on points.

The article came across to me as Glynn critizing Stengle, who i thought had the initial point in the first place. I DID read it quickly and may have gotten lost in context and forget who was saying what.

I gather that you have however correctly gleaned my inmlications from the words I used to address the salene point and I'm sorry if i mis-read the details of WHO was making what point, it was the points I delved into. It was late in my office this afternoon when I found the time to do this.

I see that you are quite up on the "Creationist" scene and I am familiar with the bogus theories of theirs you mention, and a few more. The 6000 year issue is being "hypothesized" in several manners including the ones you mention. I'm a very staunch opponent of theirs and have been known to resort to writing to congressmen and local state officials when the issue comes up in the public education system.

Science needs to be kept free of religious interference for the simple reason that government cannot make ANY descision favoring one religious belief over any other, in deference to ALL religions. Allowing any ONE religious belief to become part of state controlled education is as disasterous to society as a whole as it is to public education and good science itself.

i.e. - Keep religion in the Heart, the Home and the House of Worship where it belongs, and OUT of the public education system where it does not.
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • Cosmo Cosmo:
    Does it do that one?
  • Cosmo Cosmo:
    I think it does that one
  • Cosmo Cosmo:
    Welcome back
  • Num7 Num7:
    👽 Oh, welcome!
  • Num7 Num7:
    Titor is one and Titor is all.
  • Cosmo Cosmo:
    Titor is the one true graviton which binds us all.
  • Mylar Mylar:
    Hi anyone saw this one with Tyson
    ?
  • L LeoTCK:
    Interesting theories, some of them. The rest is just fantasy or plain wrong. Also the thing about black hole because that assumes that black holes (as originally described) really exist. Rather than what I heard myself that the infinite mass thing is simply based on a mathematical error nobody seemed to challenge.
  • Mylar Mylar:
    Uhm ok I see
  • Num7 Num7:
    Titor bless you.
  • Mylar Mylar:
    I read this on a french YT channel about UFOs, that: Magnetic field + gamma rays can be used to create a circulating light beam that distorts or loops time, which can lead to a twisting of space and time. Looks like what R.Mallet working on it. What's your thoughts on this?
    Mylar Mylar: I read this on a french YT channel about UFOs, that: Magnetic field + gamma rays can be used to...
    Back
    Top