Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache  Random coincidence isn't an explanation either. |
For sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache However, if the foundation of those laws are the result of random volatile energy then why is the universe so consistent and fine-tuned? |
We'd probably need an intuitive understanding of quantum physics to grasp that idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache The anthropic principle however could very well be verifiable. |
All reasonable values of all fundamental parameters of all the laws which govern reality modeled extensively and accurately? That's a huge task, but yeah, not an impossible one. Maybe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache Reality could just as easily be created by our perception than the other way around. Because we can only know with certainty that we "know" than why should we assume there is an objective reality at all? In which case God could be called the grand total of awareness. Isn't that simpler than assuming we are the product of cosmic accident occurring "out there" in "reality"? |
Simpler, yes, because it builds explanation into the assumptions. The conclusion (God = awareness/consciousness/perception = reality) is the same as the assumption (awareness/consciousness/perception = reality = God). But as I've said, that's no explanation at all. (just in case it wasn't clear, I also don't believe "random coincidence" or "cosmic accident" is a valid summary of the Big Bang theory, the theory of evolution, or all the other established theories which those phrases may be referring to)
At this point I think we can safely conclude we're going to keep going 'round in circles so it's probably best to leave it
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache |
Hmmm ok. I might start a new thread when I've had time to read and think.