Atheists, do you agree with the 'anthropic principle', that is, the idea that the Universe was created in

Question

anticipation to the arrival of human existence.

Answer 1

There is no point to life, we live and die and there is nothing else, we are here randomly, we may never know fully know why the universe appeared but i know it isn't a god or any other force.

Answer 2

The evidence suggesting that there are far more developed beings in the universe is denied only by the government and those who haven't yet woke to the fact that the government tells lies.  These beings can, and do, travel among the stars; they are plentiful!  In comparison, the human race is nothing; less than nothing; we still can't even get along with each other!  It would be arrogant to think that the universe was created for us.

Answer 3

As expected, not many atheist would agree with that.  If you remove an intelligent creator from the scheme of things, how can there be any "anticipation" of anything?

It's like Nietzsche's point in this.  While theologians would say that creation points to a creator, he said that by looking around and seeing how great everything is, how can you hope to limit it by saying that it has a predefined purpose.

Answer 4

That's not what the anthropic principle is.  The weak variant of the anthropic principle is essentially that the fact that we are capable of observing the universe requries that the universe and our place in it are necessarily suitable for intelligent life.  The strong variant is that a universe cannot exist unless it is suitable for intelligent life at some point.

The anthropic principle explains why, even without an intelligent designer, the universe should have the illusion of design.  That is, it should be suitable for our existence.  The probability of someone observing a universe unsuitable for the existence of observers is zero.

Answer 5

Your question contains an implicit assumption in the phrase "was created"; that phrase assumes there was a creator. Atheists say there was no creator. That is also the minimalist position as it makes one fewer assumption.

Much paper and ink have been used in arguing this and I do not think anyone has ended up much the wiser.  Maybe a few younger people reading some of it have had their ideas expanded but that would be just about all. There are "weak" and "strong" anthropic principles but frankly I could not care less where one starts and the other finishes. It's like arguing "Ford" or General Motors", only a few care.

Some physicists are inclined to think that there are or were multiple versions of the Universe, in "space" or in "time".  It is inhabitable now because it is middle aged and has quietened down, it has three dimensions of space and other conditions apply e.g. the force of gravity.  

Now it may be that there are presently regions of this Universe where all or some of these conditions are different.  Life as we know it might not be possible there.  Life of any kind might not be possible at all.  

It may be that the moment at which our Universe became calculable by our mathematics, called the "Planck time" was "preceeded", if you will, by the appearance of other Universes that collaped immediately or rapidly because the conditions that governed them were not suitable for long term survival. For example, in a Universe otherwise similar to ours, gravity might have been far too strong.  These Universes might have followed each other, lasting microseconds to millions of years until one "got it right" or "close enough" and that's the one we are in.

The formation of our Universe was essentially the rapid expansion of space-time followed considerably later by the formation of matter. At the instant that space-time appeared, time itself appeared and the question of "before" is either meaningless or cannot be answered in present physics and maybe not in any physics.

Now whether the Universe was created as a one-off by some deity, or it is just one of a series of Universes that might have existed or still exist by some cosmic accident is probably not knowable.  

It is reasonable to surmise that a deity might have had a hand in it. Charles Darwin was attracted to this idea, many people have been.  

However the fundamentalist Christian position that the Universe was or is micro-managed by this deity is pretty untenable given lots of biological or anatomical facts, eg. the actual structure of the mammalian eye militates angainst the idea of it having been designed. The blood supply to the retina is between the lens and retina, exactly the wrong side of it.  

That written, the deity is still possibly something that started the Universe off but has had little or niothing to do with it since.

But the evidence, such as it is, is still quite consistent with the absence of any intelligence involved in the formation of the Universe.  

Answer 6

The (weak) anthropic principle is simply that the improbability of intellegent life occuring is meaningless since there will be no intellegent life to notice this until the initiating events, no matter how improbable have occured.

The notion that the universe was created FOR humans does not come into play.

Answer 7

Of course not.  Atheists don't believe the universe was created by an intelligent force.  Instead life on earth evolved to fit the conditions that existed.

I found a book once at a used bookstore on the remainders table that was about the anthropic principle.  It was filled with essays from various philosophers and thinkers about whether we were created for the earth or vice versa.  I thought it would be simple but I don't think there was one essay in that book I could understand completely!  It was the deepest philosophy book I've ever read!  I would read for about half an  hour and then I'd have to go lie down.

Answer 8

No Atheists would not believe that. You just have to realize that some people are grounded in science and not what humans want to believe about themselves or what they have been taught to believe so that they can be controlled by others.

In other words why is man so important that the Universe would be created for him with forethought? And in different religions there have been many things used to control society.

There is no right and wrong here believe what you want, but your asking the premise for an Atheist.

Answer 9

No, that's too anthropocentric for me.

There are many other animals on our planet, that live just the same as we do, that need the same things: food, water, and protection from the elements.

I also think that if the "universe" was created for humans, we did a pretty good job of messing things up.

Answer 10

Of course not.

What a silly idea.

Answer 11

no. since man evolved to live on earth, we fit quite well with earth and i could understand why it could seem like that. also our solar system is such that earth can sustain our type of life, so in a sense the solar system could fit with that, but the rest of the universe, and even some of those things, could be much better suited for humanity. we would never have had to breed anything for example. if it was really built just for us also, why wouldn't we already find everything naturally. like natural computers. why make man need to invent and breed some things but not others when we could have been given everything and anything man could ever want or use. let alone the difficulties that come with the existence of anyone or any single thing being able to create the universe, particularly that universe needs to exist in order for anything else to exist since it is time and space and all "material" of which all things are made, energy.

Answer 12

No.

This one believes that all that exist has arisen in interdependence through a cause and effect relationship which implies that all are one.

Be well and please be wise.