Michael Egnor argues that, compared to the Strong Anthropic Principle — the universe is objectively fine-tuned for life — the Weak Anthropic Principle aims to avoid evidence and subvert discussion:
The Weak Anthropic Principle, which is widely held by atheists, is meaningless: Only in a universe that permits the existence of intelligent beings can intelligent beings exist — i.e., only a universe with intelligent beings can be a universe with intelligent beings. The Weak Anthropic Principle is a tautology. And a tautology is not an explanation. It’s merely a sentence in which the predicate is the same as the subject. It’s meaningless.
The Weak Anthropic Principle isn’t a scientific explanation for the fine-tuning in the universe. It isn’t science and it isn’t an explanation of anything — no tautology is.
To get a better sense of the tautological nature of the Weak Anthropic Principle, consider two anthropologists discussing the remarkable emergence of language in man. One anthropologist says, “There is nothing at all remarkable about the emergence of language in man, because if language had not emerged in man, we wouldn’t be able to ask the question.” The other anthropologist, if he were a sensible man and a good scientist, would dismiss his colleague’s nonsensical theory because it’s tautological. It explains nothing. The remarkable emergence of language in man still requires explanation.
To sum up, tautologies like the Weak Anthropic Principle or the “Weak Language Emergence Principle” are literally meaningless. They are certainly not scientific explanations or explanations of any sort.
By contrast, the Strong Anthropic Principle — the theory that the universe is designed for life — is a scientific explanation. Its implications are revolutionary and are consistent with an enormous range of data in cosmology, physics, and biology that point unmistakably to the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
Michael Egnor, “Weak Anthropic Principle? Not an explanation but a tautology!” at Mind Matters News
Takehome: “If the universe were not fine-tuned, we wouldn’t be here to know it” is a tautology because the subject and the predicate mean the same thing.
You may also wish to read:
Our universe survived a firing squad and it’s just an accident? According to the Weak Anthropic Principle, if things weren’t the way they are, we wouldn’t be here and that’s all there is to it. Given the odds, a philosopher likens the Weak Anthropic Principle to surviving a firing squad and concluding, incuriously, well… that’s just the way things are.
Dr. Egnor is certainly one ex-atheist, turned Catholic, that Darwinists should not have messed with when he said that he found the arguments for ID persuasive. Year in, year out, Dr. Egnor has simply been devastating in his ‘straight to the point’ critiques of the Atheists’s arguments.
Sounds to me like the Weak Anthropic Principle should be known as the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle.
Egnor:
Meyer:
#1: Bornagain77
Perhaps Egnor should bone up on his cosmology:
Compare the above quote with the following from astrophysicist, Ethan Seigel:
ChuckDarwin, perhaps you should read deeper into the articles that you yourself cite rather than just reading the headline and the first few paragraphs.
https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/michael-egnor-science-can-and-does-point-to-gods-existence/#comment-738101
Of related note is this recently uploaded video:
Stephen Meyer Discusses the Big Bang, Einstein, Hawking, and More
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_AeA4fMHhI
Well that was interesting to learn, Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s proof for a beginning for the universe, (being based on special relativity, not General Relativity), is considered a more robust proof for the beginning of the universe than Hawking, Penrose, and Ellis’s proof was for a beginning of the universe
Stephen Meyer Discusses the Big Bang, Einstein, Hawking, and More – video – 36:42 minute mark
https://youtu.be/m_AeA4fMHhI?t=2202
That Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin would, ingenuously, use special relativity, to provide a more robust proof that the universe had an absolute beginning,,,,
,,, instead of using general relativity like Hawking, Penrose and Ellis did in their proof for a beginning of the universe, makes a lot of sense,
The reason that it makes a lot of sense that special relativity would provide a more robust proof for an absolute beginning for the universe is that special relativity, via ‘brushing infinity under the rug’, has already been ‘unified’ with quantum mechanics, whereas general relativity, notoriously and infamously, refuses to ‘play nicely’ with the other forces and particles.
So that special relativity would provide a more robust proof for an absolute beginning of the universe than general relativity would simply makes a lot of sense since special relativity has already been ‘unified’ with the other forces and particles of the universe and thus can offer us a more accurate description of what the other particle and forces are doing at various points in space-time.
It is also interesting to note, prior to Einstein’s elucidation of General Relativity circa 1915, that “In 1908, Hermann Minkowski—once one of the math professors of a young Einstein in Zurich—presented a geometric interpretation of special relativity that fused time and the three spatial dimensions of space into a single four-dimensional continuum now known as Minkowski space.” In fact, in 1916, Einstein fully acknowledged his indebtedness to Minkowski, whose (geometric) interpretation (of special relativity) greatly facilitated the transition to general relativity.
It is also interesting to note that, via special relativity, (prior to Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s proof that the space-time of this universe must have had an absolute beginning), we already knew that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light.
So that time, as we understand it, would be shown to have an absolute beginning by Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, is not really all that surprising. i.e. We already knew, via thousands of tests on special relativity, that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light.
To grasp the whole ‘time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light’ concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into special relativity.
It is also interesting to note what happens when we ‘turn around 180 degrees’ the hypothetical observer in Einstein’s thought experiment and, instead of visualizing the clock face as Einstein did in his thought experiment, we instead visualize what will happen to space-time itself as we approach the speed of light.
At the 3:22 mark of the following video, which is entitled “Optical Effects of Special Relativity”, we find that the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical observer’ approaches the speed of light,
All of this makes perfect sense. Namely, since time, as we understand it, does not pass for light, and yet light obviously moves from point A to point B in our universe, and therefore light is obviously not ‘frozen within time’, then it logically follows that light must be of a ‘higher dimension’ of time. If light did not have this ‘higher dimensional’ quality to it, light would simply be ‘frozen within time’ since time, as we understand it, does not pass for it.
Moreover, while it is very difficult to see how the higher dimensional 4-D space-time of special relativity would make any sense whatsoever for the Atheistic Naturalist, on the other hand, for the Christian Theist, it is ‘expected’ that this universe would be described by higher dimensional mathematics.
Namely, Christian Theism ‘predicted’ that this universe was created by God from the ‘highest heavens’ which ‘belong’ to Him.
In short, Christian Theism ‘predicted’ the universe to be created from a ‘higher dimension’ thousands of years before the higher dimensional mathematics that describe our universe were even elucidated.
Moreover, stunning confirmation for special relativity, namely confirmation for the time-dilation and 4-D space-time curvature of special relativity, comes from a very surprising place.
Namely, Near Death Experiences, of all things, offer stunning confirmation for what special relativity predicts.
In the following video clip, Mickey Robinson gives his Near Death testimony of what it felt like for him to experience a ‘timeless eternity’.
And here are a few more quotes from people who have experienced Near Death, that speak of how their perception of time was radically altered as they were outside of their material body.
As well, Near Death Experiencers also frequently mention going through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension:
In the following video, Barbara Springer gives her testimony as to what it felt like for her to go through the tunnel to the ‘higher dimension’ of heaven:
And in the following audio clip, Vicki Noratuk, who has been blind from birth, besides being able to see for the first time during in her life during her Near Death Experience, also gives testimony of going through a tunnel:
And the following people who had a NDE both testify that they firmly believed that they were in a higher dimension that is above this three-dimensional world and that the primary reason that they have a very difficult time explaining what their Near Death Experiences felt like is because we simply don’t currently have the words to properly describe that higher dimension:
That what we now know to be true from special relativity, (namely that it outlines a ‘timeless’, i.e. eternal, dimension that exists in a higher dimension above this temporal dimension), would fit hand and glove with the personal testimonies of people who have had deep heavenly NDEs is, needless to say, (very) powerful evidence that their testimonies are, in fact, true and that they are accurately describing the ‘reality’ of a higher heavenly dimension that exists above this temporal dimension.
I would even go so far as to say that such corroboration from ‘non-physicists’, who, in all likelihood, know nothing about the intricacies of special relativity, is a complete verification of the overall validity of their personal NDE testimonies.
Verse: