Junk DNA: goodbye!: Review article (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, March 17, 2015, 06:50 (3540 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: It is nothing more than a theory to explain why we exist, and it has no more substance than the multiverse, string theory or any other hypothesis offered to solve the great mystery. Your answer is that “one has to take Pascal's leap”. No, one doesn't... Tony has come up with another admirable list of designer arguments, which he summarizes: “It isn't just that the universe is fine tuned for life, it is fine tuned for the universe as we know it to even exist.” This is none other than the nebulous anthropic principle, with which both theists and atheists try to justify their beliefs: if the universe (and life) was not as it is, it would either not exist or it would not be as it is. The atheist says it has to be like this because it IS, and the theist says it has to be like this, God made it this way, and God IS. Since we have absolutely nothing with which to compare our universe (or our life), the argument is a dead end.-
First, my argument was not the anthropic principle, as that is based on the existence of the humans that observe it (from Greek anthropos, meaning "human"). My argument had nothing to do with life, and I intentionally went through and tried to remove all references to life from the points listed. If I missed one, my apologies. However, "if the universe (and life) was not as it is, it would either not exist or it would not be as it is" is not the argument at all. It would be better stated as "If the parameters of physics were not as they are, the universe could not exist. Period." Not that it could not exist in it's current state, it simply could not exist. -
>DHW: I have accepted first cause. I do not accept (or reject) first cause consciousness. Reasonableness and the most sense are totally subjective concepts, and while I accept your criticisms of atheistic faith in chance, I do not accept the reasonableness of faith in the nebulous being described in my earlier post. Tony says the only thing Creationists trivialize is “How God Exists”. That is the equivalent of saying the only thing atheists trivialize is “How We Exist”, but I'll accept your summary if you'll accept mine. However, belief in God is not the default position. If there is no evidence for something, why should we believe in it? As David says of the infinite universe and the multiverse: "Two unprovable conjectures are just that, nothings." I'm afraid the same applies to the God conjecture.
> -I've never denied that believing in God was a leap of faith, but a person of reason is lead to the edge of that chasm by reason and careful consideration of the facts. I would love for someone to show me the proof of dark matter or dark energy outside of what is needed to balance an equation on paper, or even the proof of evolution outside of speculative fairy tales with minimal substance (that need constant revision, I might add, when the data does not fit the theory).

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.