The Anthropic Principal - Cosmology

Two main explanations have been offered for our planet’s peculiar friendliness to life ... the anthropic approach ... and God as designer.http://thinker.blog.co.uk/...cal_thinking_the_truism~1902061I don't think the "anthropic approach" explains anything, it's just a factual statement of observation.What do people think?

YOU:"If you read Dawkins statement it's really quite clear. It's an explanation in that it gives a reason why it should be the case that we happen to live on a habitable planet"No it isn't. And frankly I can't believe you have just said that.It's clear to any reasonbly intelligent person that what he said is no explanation at all. It's just an observation.RD:"The great majority of planets in the universe are not in the Goldilocks zone of their prospective stars, and not suitable for life. None of that majority has life. However small the minority of planets with just the right conditions for life may be, we necessarily have to be on one of that minority, because here we are thinking about it."I could paraphrase to this: "We must be on a life sustaining planet, because we are here, on a life sustaining planet thinking about it"well, duhhhh.And this guy is supposed to be some kind of genius.You people are credulous, this is the emperors new cloths, except this time he's charging you 9.99 for them.

”Whatever the conditions (within a reasonable wide range) the life on it would find it “friendly”’ - I’m going to read that as; ”it would have developed”k, at least this vaguely makes sense re: what’s under discussion.I think it’s clear to anyone with an ounce of brains that the AP is not an explanation of anything - it’s an observation.Slight tangent - I believe that the whole “goldilocks” thing, is what experts think the reasonable range is that you mentioned. So are you saying life would pretty much develop anywhere?If so where is it all?

His original statement is also a tautology. But it doesn't explain anything.

Yes. Because it isn't a reason, the way RD states it anyway it is a merely an observation.It just plain amazes me that he can write that in a published book.It's basically "We know it's possible for a life sustaining planet to exist with life because we are here on a life sustaining planet and we are alive"I wouldn't expect anyone in the universe to argue with that.The point is - it doesn't *explain* why we are here on this life sustaining planet.And I think that's really my whole point.RD says it explains something - and I say it's just an observation.

"Positing the existence of a God doesn't actually help the matter one bit. Now you have to explain why the creator happened to choose to make a universe for this kind of life over any other feasible life (or other feasible state of the universe, life or not, that would please God)."Yes - to be concise it would raise more questions that it would answer.But at LEAST it would be an *explanation*. Where as this AP thing just plain isn't.

I think you've got a good point there. God-did-it is often used just a place holder for "don't know now but might know later"But it isn't always a kind of gap-filler, you might postulate that the whole she-bang was intentionally created with a purpose and it is exactly as it was designed to be.

spot on.

Why the why?Nothing NEEDS an explanation.Close the universities, burn the books.

"Finally: are you going to answer this post or pretend you didn't see it???"you asked for it.I'm gonna pretend I didn't see it.

well we'd have the "what" You are right but it does sit as a possible explanation, a very empty one perhaps but still. We could proceed to investiage on that basis, attempt to falsify etc.. (whereas the AP thing isn't in the class, it's not an explanation of anything -- but i think most people get that by now so i won't twitter on)

Indeed. All 4 are would be valid.

The "what" would be the universe. You guys always bring God into it. Next you'll be telling me to repent bla bla.I picked the "created with a purpose" thing to illustrate what a valid explanation would look like (vs. the AP thing)Look at what Tusko posted - also valid explanations.I'd hope in time we would gain more certainty about which is the case. (I say hope because not all problems are solvable)

You are objecting to his use of the word "consequence" - yea, he should have skipped that.

Well, you start with some theories (potential explanation) then look at the evidence and see if it supports it or goes against it.These scenarios DO fill that criteria. -- ie. they are potentially falsifiable. Edited by bebotx1, : No reason given.