Re: [asa] proving god

I think we are in agreement. But I don't buy into the multiverse theory
as anything beyond a mere speculation. I was thinking of the billions
of darts thrown just in this "ordinary" universe we CAN see. I.e.
Presumably there are billions of planets out there orbiting all kinds of
stars at every conceivable distance with every possible kind of
atmosphere. Unless they had favorable conditions, the darts hitting
them came to nothing. And viola! The dart hitting this receptive
world bore fruit. I know this doesn't explain the single set of
physical laws that govern our universe which truly do seem an amazing
coincidence to physicists, but I'm not sure the writer of the article
was thinking only of these "higher" coincidences. I know many others
who wax eloquent in this way are painting bulls eyes after the fact.

I like the way Douglass Adams described it in a speech he gave to
scientists: (to this effect): It's as if a puddle of water
woke up one day and was amazed at how well it fit into the whole where
it was. In fact, so amazing was the fit, that the puddle became
convinced that someone must have designed them for each other." Or put
another way ---- It's a good thing my parents named me 'Merv' or
'Mervin' because that sure is what everybody calls me!!!!!

--Merv

Iain Strachan wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 24, 2007 11:54 PM, Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net
> <mailto:mrb22667@kansas.net>> wrote:
>
>
> While Christians should always give thanks to God for both the amazing
> *and mundane* details of the universe, let the grandiloquent
> celebration
> of anthropic coincidence be here repudiated before Iain develops a
> full-fledged stomach ulcer. I think his description of painting the
> bulls eye around the arrow after the fact continues to apply well to
> many of these amazements.
>
>
> I'm not sure I'm quite with you here. The Anthropic coincidence _is_
> an example of a low-probability event that requires an explanation,
> which is why there is all the fuss about multiverses - as if billions
> of darts were thrown at the wall and one of them landed in the very
> small area that corresponded to "life-sustaining universe". That is
> why the first chapter of "The Blind Watchmaker" is called "explaining
> the very improbable" - Dawkins knows that the complexity of life is
> extremely improbable and that it requires an explanation.
>
> The criticism of painting the bulls eye round the arrow after the fact
> (of anthropic coincidence) is only valid if you believe in the
> multiverse theory. However, the fact of anthropic coincidence doesn't
> prove the multiverse theory any more than it proves an Intelligent
> designer.
>
> However, I guess there are some evidences of circle-drawing after the
> fact that don't require speculation about multiverses in the paper,
> for example:
>
> I. Life forms need an environment of approximately 0-100F to
> survive. We have it. How does it happen??
>
> One is really tempted here to ask the author if he knows how it
> happens that people get to win large prizes in lotteries. There are
> billions of stars in our galaxy and billions of galaxies in the
> universe. That's a lot of darts thrown at the wall.
>
> In general I was not impressed with the article, either in tone or in
> content. To the scientific errors others have noted, I noticed "24
> Chromosomes"? I may be wrong but I had always thought it was 23
> (including the X/Y chromosomes). No doubt someone will correct me if
> I'm wrong.
>
> The other big problem I had was in the tone of the article, and
> especially in the use of multiple exclamation marks and multiple
> question marks (see example above). This seems to me to be very
> patronising, and idicative of bad writing. If one's point is
> sufficiently compelling, then one question mark should suffice. So
> when I see something like:
>
> Was this an accident???
>
> then I'm assuming the author wants me to say "No", and yet looking at
> the claim I'm thinking is it an accident that occasionally one gets a
> Royal Flush in poker, or a Grand Slam in Bridge.
>
> In short, the whole style is along the lines of the vicar whose sermon
> notes contained the instruction "Argument weak - shout louder".
>
> Agreed???!!! :-)
>
> Iain
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 26 08:35:47 2007