[IronJack]

The problem I have with these kinds of "arguments" is that they are all predicated on the notion that if the universe was even slightly different, human life would not have evolved.

While that is almost certainly true, I think these lines of reasoning have cause and effect inverted. Human life evolved BECAUSE the universe is the way it is. If it were any different, human life would NOT have evolved. But the universe formed humanity, not vice versa. It is specious to argue that the universe formed the idea of Man first, then asked itself "What kind of environment do I need to create to sustain this particular form of life?"

[BibChr]

LOL, in this forum I'm surprised it took four posts to get to that.

So, you find a watch in the desert. Someone says that the arrangement and proper functioning of all the parts point to the idea it could only have been designed. You say, "No, no design, no designer. It only shows that they happened to form that kind of a watch."

And you still feel and insist that it's the facts that drive you, not personal issues?

Just funny.

Dan
Biblical Christianity BLOG

[bvw]

I think that is an interesting assertion: "It is specious to argue that the universe formed the idea of Man first, then asked itself 'What kind of environment do I need to create to sustain this particular form of life?'"

What do you mean by "it is specious"? And whyso?

* * * *

For we all know that ideas do drive invention in the real world.

[RightWhale]

That seems to be a fair explanation of the anthropic principle.

[js1138]

It is specious to argue that the universe formed the idea of Man first, then asked itself "What kind of environment do I need to create to sustain this particular form of life?"

It seem more likely that every possible kind of universe exists simultaneously, for whatever that's worth.