XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
   From: David@block.net   
      
   On 6/7/2015 1:20 PM, R. Dean wrote:   
   > On 6/7/2015 1:43 AM, David Johnston wrote:   
   >> On 6/6/2015 9:11 PM, R. Dean wrote:   
   >>> On 6/6/2015 9:07 PM, David Johnston wrote:   
   >>>> On 6/6/2015 5:18 PM, R. Dean wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> The universe seems to be fine tuned for life,   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No it doesn't.  After all the expanses of the universe that are very   
   >>>> much unsuitable for life are overwhelmingly huge.  In actuality,   
   >>>> life is   
   >>>> fine-tuned for the universe.   
   >>>>   
   >>> The anthropic principle says that the universe had to be as large as   
   >>> it is in order to balance the force of the Big Bang and strength of   
   >>> gravity.   
   >>   
   >> No it doesn't.  It says that if life wasn't possible then we wouldn't be   
   >> around to know about it.   
   >  >   
   > But, we _are_ here. So, we can dispense with the negative argument. It's   
   > a variation on the firing line scenario. Of course after hearing the   
   > shots fired the man walks away saying, if I were dead I would not be   
   > asking why? So, it kills curiosity.   
      
   And yet people do survive having lots of people shoot at them for no   
   other than that the people shooting at them shot badly just as you post   
   a youtube link that leads nowhere and that isn't an indication that   
   Satan doesn't want me to hear your truth.  In words of one of our   
   greatest sages "Sometimes shit just happens".   
      
   >  >   
   >>  That says nothing about about what it takes to   
   >> prevent a Big Crunch.   
   >  >   
   > It does, if the ratio of forces between gravity and the big bang were   
   > not perfectly balanced the universe would fail.   
      
   Perfectly balanced?  So if I were to go back in time and add a single   
   erg of energy to the Big Bang there would be no stars or planets?  Not   
   buying it.  In any case, the Anthropic Principle has absolutely nothing   
   to say about whether cosmic constants or the size of the big bang could   
   have been different enough to preclude life   
      
      
   >   The idea that the universe is   
   >> all about us is appealing to our vanity but it's dangerous to base one's   
   >> conclusions on the warm and fuzzy feeling you get from them.   
   >  >   
   > But it isn't about that.   
      
   You're right.  It isn't about that.  The Anthropic Principle as   
   originally set forth was not about the universe existing to produce life.   
      
      
   The anthropic principle was first advanced by   
   > the physicist Brandon Carter at a scientific symposium in Krakow,   
   > Poland in 1973 celebrating the 500th birthday of Copernicus. It was   
   > strictly a scientific proposal by Dr Carter.   
      
   Who proposed the existence of more than one universe, with the ones   
   unsuitable for the development of life being of course vacant.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)