This paper discusses the anthropic principle, which asserts that the laws, constants, and basic structure of the universe are not completely arbitrary, but are constrained by the existence of intelligent observers.
Abstract The paper explains that proponents of the principle believe, if any of the constants of life were any different than the observer knows them to be, then life as he or she knows it would not exist. Basically, the anthropic principle questions the origin of everything in the universe. The author reports that Brandon Carter, who presented his ideas about the anthropic principle in 1974, claims that the principle was meant only to caution astrophysicists and cosmologists of possible errors in the interpretation of astronomical and cosmological data unless the biological constraints of the observer were taken into account. The paper relates that the anthropic principle presents no definitive answers, only the suggestion that everything in the universe is interrelated and interdependent, and perhaps there is some type of intelligent design, a fundamental core that holds all these variable together.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Anthropic Principle
Thought Leaders
From the Paper "The most significant premise of the anthropic principle is that our place in the universe is special. Further, we occupy a unique segment of cosmic history. This of course is the controversy of the principle. Since the early days of scientific thought, it has been believed that there is nothing special about our place in the universe. Believers in the anthropic principle hope to disprove this. Theologically, the anthropic principle has led to a revival of the argument from design, which had lost its intellectual respectability when Darwin came along."
Abstract This paper discusses the origins of the universe using the theory of the inflationary model. It discusses the concept of the fine tuning of the universe and defines and explains the anthropic principle. It discusses how the anthropic principle does provide a useful explanation of the universe, despite the fact that it appears to be a weak concept initially.
From the Paper "So many strong coincidences on the universal level can hardly be explained by random chance. For example, it may be possible for a player to get a royal flush once, but when it happens repeatedly, it becomes clear that there are unaccounted factors, such as cheating. Similarly, to call the perfection of these various quantities coincidence is quite a stretch. It can only be convincingly explained as a tailoring towards life. On the more terrestrial level, it is the exact opposite; there is virtually no evident fine-tuning for life as far as we know. Together, these result in an overall moderate tailoring of the universe towards life. This fine-tuning logically leads to the weak anthropic principle, which offers an explanation for the basic, "first principles" of the universe, providing us with the answer to "why" instead of "how," purpose rather than method."
Abstract This paper explains that, rather than trying to refute the power of science, which is something that might well be impossible to do given the effectiveness of science, Patrick Glynn in "God: The Evidence" attempts to use the trappings of science and even some of the principles of scientific inquiry to argue that there is proof of the Judeo-Christian God's existence. The author points out that Glynn's argument for the existence of God is based on the anthropic principle, which is the idea that the universe appears to have been constructed in such a way that its design is particularly tailored to support intelligent life.
From the Paper "Patrick Glynn in "God: The Evidence" argues that the anthropic principle fails to give us any sense of what we might call, with no inclination toward the blasphemous, as the personhood or particularity of God nor allow us to have any sense of what ..."
Abstract This paper examines how the teleological argument for the existence of God holds that the universe shows signs of order and design; therefore, there must have been a creator. The author puts forward the argument that purpose can only be based on circumstance, and therefore, there is no such thing as presupposed purpose.
From the Paper "William Paley's argument for design is famous for the watchmaker analogy. This analogy doesn't really seem to fit, however. A watch is an intricately designed mechanism with a specific purpose, but there is nothing superfluous about it. Every part of the watch is there for a single purpose, to help one tell time. The Earth is clearly not so single-minded. "Millions of species of living forms have lived and perished and this temporary condition applies to inanimate forms as well as to living forms" (Brill 102). Dinosaurs ruled the Earth for millions of years without seeming to have any specific purpose. (Unless we suppose that their purpose was to one day supply human beings with a source for oil). If it was an asteroid impact 65 million years ago that caused the dinosaurs to go extinct, this event can only be couched in terms of incredibly fortunate chance."
