How can anyone say that this universe was designed for Humanity?

Are you sure they aren't better than us? They can survive on less food, in harsher conditions, with greater exposure to carcinogens, toxins, and radiation. In fact if humans manage to poison almost all life into extinction, it'll be the cockroaches that are left.More seriously, why do you think "purpose" exists outside of your own mind? Most people can't agree on the "purpose" of life beyond either personal satisfaction or distant, generalized moral platitudes. If purpose is some kind of absolute quality of the universe then everyone should be able to agree on what it is. In that sense, if a universal purpose genuinely exists, it should in fact be able to be emprically verified.------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

quote:

---

All animals, mamals, paracites, etc. are operating on instinct. Humans are the only once above this. Why? Out of hundreds of thousands(millions?) of different animals (paracites, mamals....) we are the only ones? We are unique. No matter what you belive, I think you'll agree with that.

---

I think you will find that a human is an animal, as well as a mammal.Explain to me why only humans think, and not animals. Do you have any proof? Evidence? Anything?As a side note, you should work on your spelling. "mammals" "parasites" "believe", and thats only in this quote too.

All the laws that govern the universe were formed at random and with all the variables it is highly unlikely that this universe and chemistry for that matter would have formed.
Scientific American in their May issue had a chart of all the possible universes and universes with Atoms being stable or even existing was pretty small. That is how people can say the universe was fine tuned.

But we don't know the qualities of "all possible universes". Since we only have one universe we don't know what kind of universes can exist. For all we know there's some kind of deeper restrictions on what universes can exist. Maybe the only universe that can exist is ours, or ones just like it. Who knows? Any speculation is fruitless.

Properties of the New Inflationary Scenario of the Big Bang could explain the common observation that this universe is "ideally" suited for us.As the NIS envisions creation of almost infinite (if not absolutely infinite) universes, there can easily be many "failed" models or versions which don't support our kind of life--in fact if there are an infinite number of them, by definition there are an infinite number of them that are unsuited--and an equally infinite (i'm not making this up!) version that could be perfect for human life.If there are not an infinite number, but merely a very, very, very large number of alternate universes, there will still be a subset [of some number] that support human life due to the very, very, very large number of total possibilities.The fact that ours happens to be "the one" or "one of the few" is merely an extension of the anthropic principle, to wit: if this universe was unfit to support human life, we wouldn't be here to ask the question.I would further argue that I'm not sure this one is so "perfectly" suited for us. I, for one, would prefer one that didn't inherently cause cancer.wr/Geno

quote:

---

It goes back to the issue of free will. We are the only KNOWN species with this quality. All animals, mamals, paracites, etc. are operating on instinct. Humans are the only once above this.

---

I don't agree this is true. I'm a theist, and I believe in free will, but I do not think free will can be proven. It can be debated by philosophers, but for all we know scientifically, all our behavior is based on our genes and our experiences, just like any other mammal.On the other hand, if there's a "soul" or a mind beyond the brain, then maybe my dog has a "soul" or a mind beyond the brain, too. Whether my dog has free will is just as much a debate for philosophers as whether I have free will. I know of no scientific evidence for or against free will in humans, dogs, horses, or whatever.Maybe you know of some, but I imagine there are very few people on this forum who would agree with you that humans are the only species known to have free will.

actually we can know some as we have string theory.

I may have to be corrected but as I understand it string theory is not there yet. It may well end up telling us that this is the only possible universe, maybe not. As I understand it is a work in progress at the moment. I may have to wait a decade or two for any answers it can supply.

Hrm, perhaps you'd like to tell us what aspect of string theory posits what universes can and can't exist?

Universe was seemingly formed at random. According to string theory there are 10 space dimensions. 3 dimensions expanded when they met with their anti string partners so we have 3 dimensions. technically more dimensions could expand but the probabilty of this happening is greatly reduced as the remaining string antistring pairs has all of space to hide from each other so they probably won't meet. but that is one aspect of this theory that says "what universes can and can't exist".

Yes it is a work in progress yet technically all of science is too, However we still can receive benefits of knowledge from these works in progress.

Sure. The fine-tuning requirements are significantly more specific, however - they include such metrics as the rate of initial expansion (niether too fast nor too slow) and the ratio of matter to anti-matter formed from that intial burst.As far as I know, string theory doesn't really speak to these inital contraints, but I could be wrong. That was the point of my question - how specific does string theory get when telling us what kind of universes could exist or couldn't? Not very, it seems to be.

quote:

---

Yes it is a work in progress yet technically all of science is too, However we still can receive benefits of knowledge from these works in progress.

---

Anybody else amused to hear this coming from "that" side of the table?

what side of the table

This is news to me. Do you have a reference to "anti strings"? My understanding is that the theory postulates the other dimensions wrap around in a very small distance (about planck length) so they don't show up. Not that there are "anti string partners".You're talking as if you know something about this. What you're saying suggests less than the magazine article knowledge that I have.