James Le Fanu: Why Us? (The limitations of science)

by John Clinch , Monday, July 06, 2009, 17:15 (5617 days ago) @ David Turell

Responses to David:- - " "Privileged Planet" (I've not read it) makes much of this because it allows us to study the universe through a 'thin' portion of the galaxy, and then infers 'God did it". I find that a weak argument." - "Godunnit" is never a good explanation. - "That is why I don't consider the anthropic principal worth much". - Um, why not? The anthropic principle is, as I'm sure you know, the statement that what we can expect to observe depends on the conditions necessary for our existence as observers. It is a profound statement that we must live in an observable Universe. I accept that some people do not consider it much of an insight but I do. - "If the Universe is teeming with life, how come SETI hasn't had a result?" - Ah, the "why aren't they here?" problem. Many reasons, distance and time being two. Give it a reasonable chance. - "if life is common through the universe that would be evidence for atheism" - I disagree. I understand your point about chance and probability but a discovery that life is teeming would simply confirm that this is a life-producing Universe. We know that already. On the contrary, it could just as easily be an argument for theism: why would the Universe be (reatively) full of life-forms if there was no point to it all? - "I follow John Leslie's reasoning (Universes), as there can be no other conclusion: "that God is real and/or there exist a vastly many, very varied universes"" - I read Leslie some years ago and was impressed but I don't see how the Multiverse theory is any more ridiculous that the God theory. Actually I disgree with your other comments: the credibility of Multiverse theory doesn't depend on the success or otherwise of string theory or M-theory. I am aware that string theory encounters some serious objectors.