Talk:Cosmos is fine-tuned to permit human life
From EvoWiki
There are more forceful forms of this argument, ones that aren't vulnerable to the charge of human arrogance. i.e. It's possible to claim that the vast majority of possible universes would be utterly uninteresting, just a sea of particles, etc. It doesn't have to be human life that's claimed as unlikely, but rather life itself, or intelligent life of some form, or just anything other than a boring uniform expanse.
My own view as an atheist is that without a creator, I probably do need to accept some sort of big-world (multiple universes) ontology. The idea that there's only one universe and it happens to be so interesting is too convenient for me to stomach.
By the way, I'm not sure it's a tautology - the conclusion of the argument is that a creator is the best explanation for what we observe. This isn't equivalent to the premises. I think I'll follow Doddy's advice to me and be bold, excising it for now:
- This is a tautology. If it wasn't fit for human life, we wouldn't be here discussing it. This response is called "the weak anthropic principle".
(Also, while it's true that if it wasn't "fine-tuned" we wouldn't be here, so what? The question is whether it's likely that we would be here if there is no creator.)
One final thing - this is the EvoWiki, not the atheism wiki - one could say that this matter doesn't bear on the issue of evolution... Bunnyform 00:03, 26 September 2007 (BST)
- True, but, some Intelligent Design proponents bring up the matter of cosmic fine-tuning as evidence of an Intelligent Designer, which is the main reason why this page is here.--Mr A. 01:34, 26 September 2007 (BST)
Formatting
I'm not sure I like the recent reformatting of this page. It seems hard to follow, and the numbered lists are all broken now. Thoughts, anyone?--Doddy 08:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
