Anthropic Principle

[otseng]

This topic is an offshoot from Does God exist or not? Since this topic is a huge area of debate, I'm making this have it's own thread.

So, the question of debate is...
Does the Anthropic Principle point to the existence of God?

First, let's give some definitions of the Anthropic Principle (AP).

Wikipedia:
"Any valid theory of the universe must be consistent with our existence as carbon-based human beings at this particular time and place in the universe."

Philosophy Pages:
"Belief that the existence of human life entails certain features of the physical world. In a minimal form, this view merely points out that we would not be here to observe natural phenomena were they not compatible with our existence. Stronger versions of the anthropic principle, however, seem to rely upon the idealistic notion that the universe could not exist without intelligent observers."

Augustine Fellowship:
"The observation that the universe has all the necessary and narrowly-defined characteristics to make man and his sustained existence possible. The view that the universe is conspicuously 'fine-tuned' for human existence. "

[otseng]

The entirety of your post still suffers from a selection effect.

How so? The conditions I described for light is not dependent on whether any life exists. But, for life to exist, the properties I described must exist.

What I do not agree is that these conditions are so rare as to negate the possibility of them happening from a natural (read: biological, chemical or physical) cause.

Conditions might not be "rare". But that is conjecture. Like you say, we have no idea how many planets fit just the few scenarios I posed already.

The supposed rarity of the existence of these conditions is faulty - we have no way to know how rare or how abundant the conditions. You can't say "statistically speaking, the possibility is slim" because statistics require numbers and we are no where near having a full set of numbers to work with.

The statistics I'm talking about is not how many planets fit the criteria, but just purely from the characteristics of matter that I've already mentioned.

You can't possibly conclude that life can only evolve one certain way from our (humankind's) observation of the universe.

Let me clarify. When I mean life, I mean it in a generic sense, as in life that we see on earth. If life were to exist on other planets, it'd be hard to imagine how it can be much different than life on earth.

I don't say this because of a lack of imagination. But, the properties of the universe limit it.

This topic is huge and I'll slowly give more examples of how properties constrain what type of life can exist.

We can't begin to see the detail and the depth of the universe, and we know this.

My statements are not based on the fact that I know what exists (or not exists) on other planets. But it's on the properties of what we know. I took one example earlier, light. I'll be presenting more later.

[otseng]

Let's talk about water.

Water is one of the most essential components to life. It's characteristics is so uniquely special to life that it's impossible to visualize life without water. Living things often contain more than 50% water by weight.

Generally, the solid state of matter has a higher density it's liquid state. But, there is one exception, water. Without this fact, all bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up, making marine life impossible. Polar ice caps also cannot exist.

Water has also one of the highest latent heat of evaporation of any liquid. This is necessary for animals to be able to rid of heat. The evaporation of one liter of sweat from a 100 kg man lowers the body by 6 degrees C. If it was alcohol it'd only be 2.2 degrees. If it was ammonia, it'd be 3.6 degrees.

The thermal conductivity of water is much higher than most other liquids. This allows convection to occur quickly. Thus aiding in ridding the body of heat. Also, it permits cells to have heat uniformly distributed.

The thermal conductivity of ice is low. The allows ice and snow to act as barriers to temperature differences. Animals depends on this when in lakes or on top of mountains. Small bodies of water would also freeze without this property.

Water has a high surface tension, more than most all other liquids. This allows plants and trees to grow. It also allows rocks to be broken up into soil.

Water's solvency power exceeds all other liquids. Water can dissolve a large number of chemical substances. This allows water to transport chemicals that are necessary for life. It also catalyzes almost all known reactions.

Water has one of the lowest viscosities of any liquid. The is necessary for blood to flow through the capillaries. This allows marine animals to go through water.

The special viscosity of ice allows glaciers to flow. If it was higher, there'd be no snow on top of mountains. If it was lower, ice would be stuck on top of mountains.

Diffusion rate in water is fast over short distances. This allows cells to retrieve nutrients and dispose of waste.

The density of water matches most organic compounds. If it was higher, all marine animals would float. If it was lower, all marine animals would sink.

Water is the only substance with all of these characteristics. All of them which is necessary for life. Life would have to be water based. And one change of the characteristics of water would render life difficult, if not impossible.

[perspective]

Let's talk about water.

Water is one of the most essential components to life.

Let me correct you. Water is one of the most essential components to life on this planet.

It's characteristics is so uniquely special to life that it's impossible to visualize life without water. Living things often contain more than 50% water by weight.

Again, I'll help you clarify.
It's characteristics are so uniquely special to life on this planet that it's impossible to visualize life on this planet without water. Living things on this planet contain more than 50% water by weight.

Generally, the solid state of matter has a higher density it's liquid state. But, there is one exception, water. Without this fact, all bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up, making marine life impossible. Polar ice caps also cannot exist.

Generally, the solid state of matter that has been observed by humans has a higher density than it's liquid state.

Water has also one of the highest latent heat of evaporation of any liquid. This is necessary for animals to be able to rid of heat. The evaporation of one liter of sweat from a 100 kg man lowers the body by 6 degrees C. If it was alcohol it'd only be 2.2 degrees. If it was ammonia, it'd be 3.6 degrees.

This is necessary for animals on this planet to be able to rid themselves of heat.

The thermal conductivity of water is much higher than most other liquids. This allows convection to occur quickly. Thus aiding in ridding the body of heat. Also, it permits cells to have heat uniformly distributed.

This allows convection to occur quickly in the biological beings that evolved on this planet. Also, it permits cells that have evolved in this environment to have heat uniformly distributed.

The thermal conductivity of ice is low. The allows ice and snow to act as barriers to temperature differences. Animals depends on this when in lakes or on top of mountains. Small bodies of water would also freeze without this property.

Animals on this planet depend on this when in lakes or on top of mountains.

Water has a high surface tension, more than most all other liquids. This allows plants and trees to grow. It also allows rocks to be broken up into soil.

This allows plants and trees that evolved in this environment to grow.

Water's solvency power exceeds all other liquids. Water can dissolve a large number of chemical substances. This allows water to transport chemicals that are necessary for life. It also catalyzes almost all known reactions.

Water's solvency power exceeds all other known liquids. Water can dissolve a large number of the known chemical substances. This allows water to transport chemicals that are necessary for the life that evolved in the environment where the chemicals exist.

Water has one of the lowest viscosities of any liquid. The is necessary for blood to flow through the capillaries. This allows marine animals to go through water.

This is necessary for blood to flow through the capillaries if the beings that evolved in this environment evolved into biological beings that contain blood and capillaries. This allows marine animals to go through water, if the environment supported the evolution of marine animals.

Diffusion rate in water is fast over short distances. This allows cells to retrieve nutrients and dispose of waste.

Diffusion rate in water is fast over short distances. This allows cells that evolved to take advantage of this property to retrieve nutrients and dispose of waste.

The density of water matches most organic compounds. If it was higher, all marine animals would float. If it was lower, all marine animals would sink.

The density of water matches most organic compounds of the biological beings that evolved on this planet.

Water is the only substance with all of these characteristics. All of them which is necessary for life. Life would have to be water based. And one change of the characteristics of water would render life difficult, if not impossible.

Water cannot be decided to be the only substance with all of these characteristics. All of the stated characteristics are specific to this planet, and are necessary for life on this planet. Life on other planets would not necessarily have to be water based.

[perspective]

Addressing your light logic:

It would be hard to imagine life evolving from any range outside of the visible light/infrared.

So, life has to exist within this small range.

So, apparently, since something is hard to imagine, means that the opposite must exist.

Well, it's hard to imagine a supernatural being, so no such being must exist.

According to your logic.

Just because our human minds can't imagine or prove a circumstance where life could evolve from some different set of circumstances then the ones that occur on this planet, that doesn't mean that life could ONLY occur in these circumstances.

So, a star like our sun is needed for life. Moreover, it will need to maintain that for the full duration of the existence of life on it's orbiting planet. It cannot be any hotter or cooler or else damaging radiation will be emitted.

Though the sun emits energy useful to life, it does also emit some energy harmful to life. Fortunately for us, our atmosphere is full of water particles. Water has an interesting quality in that it lets visible light through, but absorbs all other radiation. So, our atmosphere acts as a filter of harmful radiation. Without this characteristic of water, life cannot exist. Ozone also has a characteristic of absorbing UV light below .3 microns, further reducing harmful radiation.

Let's agree that a star like our sun is needed. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't - but it's probably likely that the small band of light that you mentioned is the small band that is required for life to sustain itself. Water is not the only particle that reduces UV light. Atmospheres containing high concentrations of any liquid with a similar structure to water would also filter UV radiation. The significance of how water interacts with our bodies is only significant for the biological beings that evolved in that environment. We cannot stipulate that water is the only reason that this planet's climate is a basis of evolution. The distance from the sun, the diameter of the planet, the amount of sunlight distributed throughout the seasons - all these things could be altered on another planet that would require a liquid less or more dense (or other important characteristic) than water to keep it's favorable climate. We have no way of knowing, and no way of ruling out all other possibilities.

[otseng]

Let me correct you. Water is one of the most essential components to life on this planet.

Are you implying that there are other liquids that life on other planets can be based on? If so, what liquid?

[otseng]

Addressing your light logic:

It would be hard to imagine life evolving from any range outside of the visible light/infrared.

So, life has to exist within this small range.

So, apparently, since something is hard to imagine, means that the opposite must exist.

Well, it's hard to imagine a supernatural being, so no such being must exist.

According to your logic.

I use the word imagine not in the "imagination" sense, but "consider", "think", "understand", "contemplate".

I've outlined that electromagnetic radiation outside of visible light/infrared is either damaging to molecular structures or doesn't intereact enough to cause much reaction.

This is what I mean by hard to imagine any type of (complex) life existing outside of this spectrum. If it did not depend on electromagnetic radiation as a source of energy, then it'd have to find something else. Unless you can model a biosphere using another energy source that is suitable for life, then life would have to operate in this EMS range.

[Corvus]

Addressing your light logic:

It would be hard to imagine life evolving from any range outside of the visible light/infrared.

So, life has to exist within this small range.

So, apparently, since something is hard to imagine, means that the opposite must exist.

Well, it's hard to imagine a supernatural being, so no such being must exist.

According to your logic.

I use the word imagine not in the "imagination" sense, but "consider", "think", "understand", "contemplate".

I've outlined that electromagnetic radiation outside of visible light/infrared is either damaging to molecular structures or doesn't intereact enough to cause much reaction.

This is what I mean by hard to imagine any type of (complex) life existing outside of this spectrum. If it did not depend on electromagnetic radiation as a source of energy, then it'd have to find something else. Unless you can model a biosphere using another energy source that is suitable for life, then life would have to operate in this EMS range.

I actually agree with you somewhat, otseng. Life is likely(this being the key word) to operate under the conditions we've observed on this particular planrt. However, since all we have observed of our universe is this dismal little solar system, we have no idea firstly of the likelihood of the frequency these conditions can occur in other solar systems, and secondly no idea of what other forms of life, and other forms of conditions, could possibly exist. This is the anthropic principle, which I think we all understand. It doesn't point to the existence of a creator, it simply points to our own ignorance of the universe, and that isthe reason I have, up to this point, abstained from breaking into this topic.

[otseng]

I actually agree with you somewhat, otseng. Life is likely(this being the key word) to operate under the conditions we've observed on this particular planrt. However, since all we have observed of our universe is this dismal little solar system, we have no idea firstly of the likelihood of the frequency these conditions can occur in other solar systems, and secondly no idea of what other forms of life, and other forms of conditions, could possibly exist. This is the anthropic principle, which I think we all understand. It doesn't point to the existence of a creator, it simply points to our own ignorance of the universe, and that isthe reason I have, up to this point, abstained from breaking into this topic.

So, how does the Anthropic Principle point to the existence of God? That is the key question.

Our life here on this planet is dependent on the very fundamental nature of how the universe operates (chemistry, physics, etc). All these properties work together to allow life to exist. If you change any of the properties itself, life would not exist. Just the fact that ice floats on water (which is contrary to other matter) allows life to exist. Even if all the other factors remained the same, if this one property was not true, no life at all could exist. And this is just one example.

Here's an example of the "fine-tuning" necessary for life on earth just from the perspective of astonomy/earth sciences. Listed are what is necessary for life on earth and it's odds of being the right value for life to occur on Earth.

Galaxy type - .1
Star location - .2
Number of stars - .2
Star birth date - .2
Star age - .4
Star mass - .001
Star luminosity - .0001
Star color - .4
Supernova rates - .01
White dwarf rates - .05
Distance from star - .001
Inclination of orbit - .8
Axis tilt - .3
Rotation period - .1
Orbit eccentricity - .3
Surface gravity - .001
Tidal force - .1
Magnetic field - .01
Albedo - .1
Density - .1
Thickness of crust - .01
Oceans-to-continent ratio - .2
Asteroidal collision rate - .1
Atmospheric transparency - .01
Atmospheric pressure - .1
Atmospheric discharge rate - .1
Atmospheric temperature gradient - .01
Carbon dioxide level - .01
Oxygen quantity - .01
Ozone quantity - .01
Oxygen to nitrogen ratio - .1
Quantity of greenhouse gases - .01
Seismic activity - .1

Total probability: 10E-42

(Source: The Creator and the Cosmos, Hugh Ross, pg 134)

Given a guess of 10E22 planets in the universe, the odds of a single planet having all these odds are 10E-20. This number is quite small. The number of seconds the universe has existed is no more than 10E18.

Suppose you are a bookie that sells bets of a race horse. The odds you put are 1 in 100,000 for one horse to win. Someone bets on that horse to win 4 times straight. And the horse wins all four times. You as the bookie will be a bit suspicious. Either the guy got real lucky or the race was fixed.

Same with our universe. Either we got real lucky or the universe was fixed by some guy behind the scenese that set the whole thing up.

[perspective]

Here's an example of the "fine-tuning" necessary for life on earth just from the perspective of astonomy/earth sciences. Listed are what is necessary for life on earth and it's odds of being the right value for life to occur on Earth.

Galaxy type - .1
Star location - .2
Number of stars - .2
Star birth date - .2
Star age - .4
Star mass - .001
Star luminosity - .0001
Star color - .4
Supernova rates - .01
White dwarf rates - .05
Distance from star - .001
Inclination of orbit - .8
Axis tilt - .3
Rotation period - .1
Orbit eccentricity - .3
Surface gravity - .001
Tidal force - .1
Magnetic field - .01
Albedo - .1
Density - .1
Thickness of crust - .01
Oceans-to-continent ratio - .2
Asteroidal collision rate - .1
Atmospheric transparency - .01
Atmospheric pressure - .1
Atmospheric discharge rate - .1
Atmospheric temperature gradient - .01
Carbon dioxide level - .01
Oxygen quantity - .01
Ozone quantity - .01
Oxygen to nitrogen ratio - .1
Quantity of greenhouse gases - .01
Seismic activity - .1

Total probability: 10E-42

(Source: The Creator and the Cosmos, Hugh Ross, pg 134)

Given a guess of 10E22 planets in the universe, the odds of a single planet having all these odds are 10E-20. This number is quite small. The number of seconds the universe has existed is no more than 10E18.

Since I don't have that book, I'll have to say that I don't believe these numbers are free from the selection effect that is defined by the Anthropic Principle. What set of numbers was used to compute these probabilities? Where did those set of numbers come from?

[otseng]

I'll have to say that I don't believe these numbers are free from the selection effect that is defined by the Anthropic Principle.

Even if only limit the odds to just the earth and don't even consider the odds of it happening elsewhere, the odds are the same. If even one of these factors were not "fine-tuned", then life on earth could not exist.

What set of numbers was used to compute these probabilities? Where did those set of numbers come from?

He does not give how the numbers were computed. But, looking at the numbers, they are all quite conservative estimates, ranging from .0001 to .8.