Why is it VERSUS?

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I am not sure I’m willing to concede the point he seems to be trying to make. While we might be wrong I’m not sure that means we must in all cases be wrong. Certainly our reasoning seems to be valid on many occasions. If I am correct in that, then isn’t his quote then implying, therefore the ToE can’t be correct and there must be Goddoneit?

In any Universe where 'stuff happens', then properties would have to be either consistent enough for said stuff to happen or if completely inconsistent, nothing could evolve to the point to recognize that stuff was happening. Seem like this touching a bit like the puddle being made just right for the pot-hole analogy.

I understand him to be saying that the ToE may very well be correct, but in order to have confidence in that conclusion our intelligence must have come from something more than a fortunate, unplanned, coming together of atoms.

Let's assume that you are correct. You still have something instead of nothing. You talk about a plethora of unplanned universes. Why should we accept that it is more logical to accept the idea that a multitude of universes are either planned or unplanned any more than if there is just one? Sure that is a sensible argument to make, but it is still just a statement of belief as is mine.

I have to agree. From the little I know of QM nothing is as it seems. Just the same, to the naked eye it seems rational, and it does work for us.

I don't have a problem with that.

That's the anthropic principle in a nutshell. From my point of view however it still requires us to believe, that at least one universe, had to exist as opposed to not existing, (something instead of nothing), and in that universe energy had to form atoms, which had to come together to form molecules, which had combine in such a way as to form incredibly complex living cells, which had to combine over time to evolve into higher life forms, which had to evolve into creatures that are sentient and eventually able to discern a moral code and make moral decisions.We have to form our own beliefs about this. I have come to the conclusion that I believe that there is an intelligent plan that is at the root of all this, and that an intelligent plan requires an intelligent planner. Many others have come to the other conclusions.It is all a matter of belief as there is no proof either way.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Why must an intelligence be the product of a plan?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Why does it require belief when we have evidence that this is exactly what happened? Belief for me indicates an idea that is not backed by evidence. Once you have evidence you no longer need belief.Do we have to believe that germs cause disease? No, we have evidence which negates the need for belief. But there is evidence.

We only need to consider that there is a potential source for confirmation bias. This allows us to understand the tentativity of our conclusions.When I design new experiments in my line of work I have to constantly be aware of the assumptions I am making and how to determine if my assumptions are incorrect. I try to include different controls and conditions that would prove my hypothesis or assumptions wrong if certain results are observed in these control samples. However, no perfect experiment can ever be made because there are thousands of different sources of bias, no matter how remote, that could be giving you false positives. You just try to cover the most obvious ones.With the origin of the universe we have an experiment that is difficult to design controls for. All we can do is determine what these controls should be. The first and most obvious one is "are there other universes". If there are (a big if, but necessary to consider as part of the "experiment"), then any statements we make about the probability of the our universe having such and such characteristic is pure crap. Confirmation bias is very possible (or not) which makes the anthropic principle a leap of faith.

Of course you're right. I didn't finish the sentence. The point I meant to make was that we have to come to our own conclusions about whether that sequence of events happened as the result an intelligent plan by an intelligent planner, or whether it was just a series of unguided naturalistic events. And what would that be?

That sounds sensible to me. All beliefs about our origins, the meaning or lack of meaning of life, right or wrong, etc require a leap of faith. I think that essentially it largely boils down to what makes sense to us as individuals.

"I don't know" does not require a leap of faith. It is a frank acceptance of our ignorance on the subject.Working our way back to the OP . . . I often find that theists take an "I don't know" and assert that this "I don't know" is actually "God did it" with zero evidence to back them. When this is pointed out the theist jumps back and accuses the one claiming "I don't know" of taking a leap of faith.As to the existence of other universes, we simply don't know. We also don't know if rational and consistent universes can come about without an intelligence. We simply have to acknowledge that these things could be true or false. Furthermore, perhaps at some point we can even design experiments to test these things. Some claim that predictions made by String Theory could be tested at the LHC, for example.There is also a track record for scientific and theistic explanations. At one time in history we explained almost everything in nature through the actions of this deity or that. Fermentation was caused by the god Baccus, for example. Through time so many of these theistic explanations have fallen away as science finds the real natural causes for these phenomena. We have now worked our way to the very creation of the universe itself, but we are told once again that the theistic explanation is right. Should we just ignore the track record of theistic and scientific explanations over the last 2,000 years?Even more, "God did it" is a reason to not look for the answer. If Zeus really does produce lightning then let's just close down all of those experiments that are looking for a natural cause, right? There is no reason to find out how Zeus does it because that is unknowable, right? This is the another source of friction between the camps. When scientists hear "God did it" they hear calls for their resignation. Scientists don't want to give up looking for answers. They see no reason to close down their labs, throw the dustcovers over their telescopes, or sell of the LHC for parts. They have this crazy idea that by applying our puny little brains we can find out how nature works, even how universes come about. It's kind of why they became scientists to begin with.In the end, when scientists here "God did it" they hear someone who is afraid that science will find the answer and want to stop them before they do.