Hi, I'm an agnostic atheist, but I am also a big supporter of strong interpretations of the anthropic principle, so I have to correct some of your illogic here:
[2] I think that denying the validity of the anthropic principle happens because people are unwilling to give up the notion that they hold a priviledged vantage point in the universe.
The anthropic principle says that we DO hold a priviledged vantage point.
Anthropic selection effects, (weak interpretations), say that we do not, but you have to prove that more than one universal configuration is even possible, before you can use it to supercede the observed "specialness". Speculative and unproven or non-evidenced *plausibilites* are valid counter-arguments to equally non-evidenced causes, like, "god" or ID, but they cannot be used as "proof" of anything.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2007-05-24 03:18 pm (UTC)[2] I think that denying the validity of the anthropic principle happens because people are unwilling to give up the notion that they hold a priviledged vantage point in the universe.
The anthropic principle says that we DO hold a priviledged vantage point.
Anthropic selection effects, (weak interpretations), say that we do not, but you have to prove that more than one universal configuration is even possible, before you can use it to supercede the observed "specialness". Speculative and unproven or non-evidenced *plausibilites* are valid counter-arguments to equally non-evidenced causes, like, "god" or ID, but they cannot be used as "proof" of anything.
This notion has always proved to be false
No, your statement is what is false.
Where is this "list" that you mention?