The
Anthropic Principle's definition:
Is merely the acknowledgement that indeed the universe is as if build for the purpose of sustaining us. Philosophically speaking, The anthrophic principle does not disprove or prove God. All it does is explain that this universe is in a way that it can sustain life. However, many theists argue that since this is the only universe which does sustain life - more specifically our planet, and any other universes are just hypotheses (i.e. we aren't sure whether any exist or not) - then this universe was created in a way by God for life.
If atheists argue that life was formed by many coincidences, then this is not really a scientific argument until it is tested and proven.
Atheist;
Forget perfection - the universe doesn't even work well since it has certain flaws.
answer: whether or not our universe is "
perfect" is
a philosophical and subjective question which depends on your view of perfection, and the purpose of the universe.
If it's purpose is to sustain and contain us, then it does it's job perfectly doesn't it?
Atheist; How much of this planet is habitable? How many billions of years did it take before even basic life was possible?
answer: How do these uninhabitable parts of earth, defeat the purpose of creation? Do not even the uninhabitable parts have a function? Indeed the sea is uninhabitable, but without the seas, we wouldn't have climates. Indeed some mountains are uninhabitable, but they to have a purpose on earth, to buffer [and keep the earth firm during] earthquakes. The point is, our planet is uninhabitable, and the characteristics fit surprisingly well with our needs.
Atheist; This universe does astound our small minds, petty by-products of chance life; but is there any part of that we can actually say "that is
so amazing only a creator could have caused it?"
Answer:
Yes most definitly, some examples:
1)
rate of expansion after big bang“If the rate of expansion one second after the 'Big Bang' had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million (0,000000000000001%), the universe would have recollapsed. The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous”. (Stephen Hawking, 'A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes', Page 128).
2)
gravity :
“If gravity (released by the Big Bang) had been stronger or weaker by even one part in ten thousand million million million million million million (0,00000000000000000000000000000000000001%) then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible.” (Brandon Carter, ‘New Physics’ Page 187).
3) Or how about the physical constants (like speed of light, planck constant). In physics we see these seemingly arbitrary numbers appear, that cannot be accounted for, but are adhered to strictly. Many scientists have expressed their awe for the way these constants caused a form of "fine-tuning". We do not understand where these values come from, yet we do see that if they would have been any different, life in this universe would have become very challenging. (
Constants of Physics and Mathematics) 4) But even in our day to day life, if we look at our own bodies and surrounding, there's a sense of awe in all of them. Take for example the fine-tuning by which proteins in the cytoplasma self-regulate:
Protein and Protein Interactions
in general yes, there is always a portion of faith. In the end of the day it is still a religion. However there is clearly a difference between Islam and the other religions. Islam doesn't require "blind" faith. Islam doesn't go in against logic and science. And there are many miracles which show Islam is genuine. So even though I acknowledge there's a portion fo faith required, I wouldn't say that it's "merely" faith-based.
the multiverse argument just shifts the question as to how it [the multiverse] all originated in the first place;
Whether or not it is scientificly plausible, is rather irrelevant. The multiverse explenation only shifts the question from how was our universe created to how was our multiverse created. Again note that there's a diffrence between believeing in an infinite multiverse, and an infinite Deity. Because an infinite (in time) multiverse would face the same technical
problems with entropy as an infinite universe (i.e. the amount of useful energy of eternal big bangs, - expansion after contraction - continuously, would be reduced to 0, so needing a starting point once again at some time). That is because the multiverse theory sees the multiverse as the same closed system with the same universal forces.
Atheist: you believe in God due to
science of the gaps argument;
answer: Again a straw men argument as reply. I did not say:
"Science uses science of the gaps."
Instead I said:
"You use science of the gaps. "
Since
you choose to believe, that things which we haven't got a scientific explenation of, do have a natural explenation. In other words, the point I'm making is not that "science" is guilty of anything
. I see science as completely neutral between us in this discussing. But rather my point was that you (ab)use science, or at least your faith in future-possible-scientific-discoveries to fill these gaps. So
if I were indeed guilty of this proces of filling gaps, you would be equally guilty of filling these gaps with something else that is also faith-based.
You're using your science of the gaps again, where you assume that the gaps will eventually be filled with a naturalistic explenation based on your blind faith in (future) science.
So the all-possible-alternatives-exist-multiverse theory is not ridiculously complex? Is not untestable? Surely you are mistaken. The reason that we are uncertain regarding this is because all current theories are untestable. So far, none of the suggested explenations from any corner has been testable. As for complexity, again, I consider your explenation more complex [since your claim of God being complex is also subjective, then this is subjective too in complexity and is untestable].
Besides,
you cannot explain 'why' the universe does what it does. you will only say it happens by chance or coincidence today, due to our lack of knowledge of science today, so you have faith in scientific theories which may come in the future which may or may not explain why the universe did what it did to achieve what it has achieved uptill today. But, due to the knowledge of probability, and alot of these factors occurring to allow life to survive, reproduce etc. then Ockhams razor theory goes for the most simplest of the two explanations (this only applies if both theories are equally plausible), and in this case - it supports my belief in an Intelligent Designer.
Atheist
; "the reason we find the world exists for us to be able to observe it is because if it didn't we wouldn't be able to observe it."
So what you're saying is? The reason that we observe that the world exists in the way that it does, is because
if it wouldn't exist in that way, we wouldn't observe it? That is what you could call the "contra-anthropic-principle". But that seems like a fancy way for saying,
"It is like that because if it weren't like that then it wouldn't be like that". Well yeah,
obviously, but that still doesn't make it any less miraculously that it is like that, and not any other of the million less favourable ways.
Atheist; "He's an infinitely intelligent, infinitely powerful, omnipresent being which can manipulate anything in the world according to his will from anywhere.
A being like that is pretty much the most complex being you can think of." (hence he's more complicated than the idea of an eternal universe).
answer:
I grant that God is quite possibly the most complex among the beings. That
however does not mean that the idea of God as creator is the most complex of all ideas. In fact I consider the multiverse, or at least, the way you suggest it accounts for existence a theory that is far more (needlessly) complex.
I realize that if I claim "
God is the solution to the question of existence", then you could reply: but
who created God? My reply in term would be, God is not created, he is timeless. This however logically fits. A universe going back infinitly in time, defies logic especially when considering entropy. A god which is time-less on the other hand (meaning not inside of the dimension of time) does not defy logic. Therefore to some extent I find it persuasive.
[
Meaning: since Intelligent Design 'idea' is the most plausible explanation (to me) based on my understanding of science and probabilities of nature doing all these acts in a synchronised way), then the multiverse hypothesis 'idea' is even more complex in comparison since it defies logic.]
Atheist: This does not explain why God cannot reveal himself.
answer; It doesn't explain it directly. God created the universe and our lives in it in order to test us. For God to show himself, would be like a teacher writing the answers on the blackboard during an exam. What the verse does explain, is how even if more testable evidence were submitted, (like the suggested example of an angel who functioned as messenger to the people) then there would still be people who disbelief. People do not believe or disbelieve because of their rational evidences.
People belief or disbelief due to their emotional inclinations. Islam is perfectly rational, if people would judge on evidence and logic alone, all people would become muslims. But there's obviously more to it then that (i.e. due to someone not wanting to follow the guidance willingly due to channeling desires in a way which may be displeasing to God etc).
Undisputable Miracles in Qur'an;
1. The mountains are shaped like pegs:
Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, And the mountains as pegs? (78:6-7)
Early tefsir made prior to scientific discoveries:
Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir
Scientific article that confirms the shape of mountains:
Beneath the mountains
Article explaining how research confirms the function of mountains as insulators for earthquakes:
Effects of Large-Scale Surface Topography on Ground Motions, as Demonstrated by a Study of the San Gabriel Mountains, Los Angeles, California -- Ma et al. 97 (6): 2066 -- Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
"The mountains are shaped like pegs" is not vague, it gives a clear view of their shape, and this has been confirmed by science, and there was no way to discover these things without our current scientific advancement.
A similar argument can be said about the other verses. If you read them at face value, their have an obvious direct meaning. They are clearly not meant in a metaphorical way, and give a direct message. Of course people
can interpret that differently, but that's not my point. My point is:
1. The direct literal meaning of these verses is confirmed by science
2. The early scholars, who lived before we had these scientific knowledge, believed that these meant the same as we now believe.
3. This knowledge could not have been discovered without our current technological equipment.
4. The only logical explanations are that it is truly a divine revelation or that it was a lucky guess. However to claim that all of these different miracles were all lucky guesses defy the logic of chance-calculation and luck, and is therefore no longer a logical explanation
2. The deepness of the sea:
Or as darkness on a vast, abysmal sea. There covereth him a wave, above which is a wave, above which is a cloud. Layer upon layer of darkness. When he holdeth out his hand he scarce can see it. And he for whom Allah hath not appointed light, for him there is no light. (24:40)
Claims that:
1. Deep inside the sea there is darkness, this has now been tested with diving equipment and validated.
2. There are different waves above each other. This has now been tested with hightech equipment, measuring density and temperature, you can find "layers" of sea.
3. The darkness is caused by the layers. Again this is correct. These different layers of sea, since they each have a different density and temperature cause a phenomena which in science we call: "light refraction". Upon each refraction, a percentage of light is reflected back up. So the light is really stoped in part layer by layer.
(Do note this only acounts for part of the darkness, allot of the light is also reflected on the surface (+-30%) and also some part of it is "absorbed", nevertheless, that this verse does not contradict science is amazing)
(for this verse I didn't look for scientific sources, as I take it the behaviour of light is something widely known and thought in high-school level physics)
Atheist; (he says that
you are abusing science to support your religion)
answer: No, clearly this is not the accurate description of things. I'm not having a go at you for having faith in people who do good work, I'm having a go at you because you link your personal faith to those people's work, in an attempt to inappropriately give your faith the same prestige of their work. That's a form of abuse of their good name even. See,
you're trying to make it seem as if it's you (=science) vs. me (=religion). And as if my views are contrary to science. But that is not at all the case. My views are perfectly compatible with science.
Perhaps yours might be to, but that doesn't change that
science is neutral in this, and that your constant cry of "god of the gaps" is a hypocrite argument, since you fill the gaps with your faith-based assumptions as well.
Atheist;
God is not falsifiable, simply because you require faith in Him.
answer: wouldn't that be neat if everything was falsifiable? Well sadly some things aren't.
When a scientist believes in string theory due to it's mathematical harmony; despite that it's not falsifiable, people seem to look the other way. But if a theist believes in God based on a harmony in his world-view, it's like everybody goes: "look at that blind fool..." [
Both are faith based, so why the double standards?]
Atheist;
you're trying to use science to explain God because of advancement in science today only;
answer:
It's not some new-age way of trying to fit Religion within the parameters of science. In fact it's the same explenation that exists since the beginning of Islam (since the Qur'an continuously encourages people to study science, reflect on the universe to believe in God through His signs), that despite scientific advancement still works.
From;
http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/atheism-agnosticism/refute-objections-existence-god-quranic-scientific-miracles-1979
When debating, they might say that
science may disprove the need for God in the future.
First of all, we don't need to argue about the future. Science is what we understand of the universe
today, so we have to accept the reality as it is today and not how it will be in the future.
2nd, we're realising that Science is showing the need for Intelligent Design today.
3rd, If they argue that science will disprove the need for God in the future, whose to say that science won't prove the need for God in the future?
Who created God?
God is uncreated by definition.