> No, I suggested that those who believe in the anthropic principle are the ones who live on faith (blind faith actually).
The anthropic principle in intself is pretty much undeniable, so I'll just assume that you actually do know what you're talking about and attacking the many-universes part. Anyways, it is still far less complex than having a god, doesn't create paradoxon, doesn't need to invoke any kind of questionable age-old writings, and has in this interpretation backing in string theory, so I would hardly call this "blind faith".
> My evidence is found in the God's revealed Word. You may not agree with my evidence, however it is an account for the validity of my reasoning, an account which you do not have.
Did it ever occur to you all the written down stuff might just be made up? For all you know, it could be, unless your god has personally visited you and assured you it's all true.
> Surely you see the circularity in such a comment!!! How could you possibly know that your reasoning was flawed unless you FIRST assumed that the reasoning you used to determine this, was NOT itself flawed.
He's talking about specific lines of reasoning.
> First of all...who says it's not a good thing to do? Is this a universal wrong? What is 'good' in your worldview? Secondly, I do not have the time to respond to everyone's entire post.
Right, add "avoiding actually responding" to the list. Anyways, as for "firstly": Generally, what I consider "good", happens to be, in my worldview. (Yay, my opinion is my opinion. Big suprise.) "Universally good", for all I care, is what the majority of human beeings consider to be good, this is very likeley evolved behavior. And, "secondly": You aren't responsing because you don't have the time, you aren't responding because you can't.
> How do you know?
Do you run around on highways? I think not. Neither do I. We both came to the conclusion that that might be unhealthy through various observations and reasoning.