When it comes to the anthropic principle it’s all about asking the right questions – i.e. not what are the chances that every tiny event that led to me being here happened, but given a vast universe what are the chances that intelligent life can form over a timescale of 14 billion years. I think this is sort of what you’re alluding to when you say it would be more pleasing if the universe was infinite.

I’m not sure if I can agree with you saying that no man will ever understand infinity. In an intuitive way, certainly no one can understand it because we’re not designed to, but mathematicians and physicists regularly deal with infinities and the maths behind it is as rigorous as any other branch that we’ve developed. (even I as an undergraduate have to deal with infinity pretty much everyday when doing calculations). Maybe you wouldn’t class this as really understanding it, but then do we really understand anything?

Also, an infinite universe is completely compatible with the big bang theory, in fact I think I’m right in saying that most cosmologists do think the universe is infinite (the observable universe is different, limited by how long it takes light to travel). Now of course this leads to a lot of unintuitive questions like how can a universe which is and always has been infinite start from a singularity, and what the hell is it expanding in to? Well……… I don’t think our minds are designed to be able to process such things.

Of course, there are always going to be things we don’t understand, but this list gradually gets smaller and smaller (it’s still pretty massive at the moment admittedly), but I don’t accept there is anything that is not understandable. Or if there is it’s because it’s a meaningless question that we’ve invented. (“what’s the meaning of life?” being probably the best example of this. No doubt interesting to discuss, but completely meaningless to the physical world) I’m not sure if I can properly justify this, but I think in the interest of progress it’s best to assume we can find out more and more, because as soon as you assert that something can’t be explained, inevitably it gets attributed to god (which is no explanation at all in my mind).

I agree with you about the use of ‘faith’ and ‘unfaith’ but from my current perspective I want to say that by faith I mean belief. I may have actually used the word incorrectly when I think about it. In what I wrote I meant ‘belief’ in God as opposed to ‘faith’ — because I agree with you about the ‘leap of faith’ aspect: I find it stupid. I meant only from my reasoning and weighing up of the situation (in that one can ‘know’ God exists in the same way you and I would say we ‘know’ he doesn’t). Does that make sense? I regret the use of the word ‘faith’, I think. Without qualification.

I do also agree with you that it’s delusional. I mean, that’s how I spend 90% of the time seeing it. A delusion that is justified by the sheer unlikelihood of my being here. But then, I think about it for a while, a shiver runs over me and I think ‘maybe it’s not delusion’ — even though it almost certainly is.

Obviously there’s lots to say on the whole fate thing, and the unrefined, Hollywood-deus ex machina-everything’s okay!!!!! style is a joke, just like the monotheistic God is. (‘He’ just is.)

To be fair, I’ve been thinking a lot about pantheism/pantheists lately, and I almost think I am one. I think most atheists are. In that we believe nature is something truly staggering and wonderful, full of subtleties we’ll never understand and a ridiculous dose of what looks like luck. They just, unfortunately, use the word ‘God’ instead of nature. But if you replace it with nature, I think you get a very interesting balance. But I hate these labels more than anything, and obviously it’s a loaded term.

And, the best question saved till last! I honestly can’t decide. Or rather, I fluctuate. Which in itself is almost evidence in favour of the anthropic principle being false. I want to think it’s all neat and wrapped up and ready for us to understand, but the fact we can’t understand infinity is deeply worrying to me. A large part of me wants to think the universe is infinite — most importantly, in terms of time. I think that it would be most satisfactory for it to have existed forever. It’s nonsensical, but then something being outside of the big bang is nonsensical. And I prefer the infinity idea. But then, no man will ever be able to understand infinity. So that would make the anthropic principle false.

So, my answer: no idea.

Fascinating to talk about though. Are there any other topics you’d like me to write about we could discuss some more? Like if you think I should go into more detail or critique a religion or something?

Thanks anyway, I love you.

“The most important part of being an atheist – and this is the one thing that the pious disagree with most of all – is that one should always doubt their unbelief and question their unfaith.”

I almost agree with this, in that I completely agree that it’s incredibly important to question everything – although I would actually say everything except unfaith. I suppose there are different ways to define faith, but essentially it means believing something without or in spite of opposing evidence. I just refuse to accept this is ever a reasonable thing to do, and it makes me so angry that faith is considered to be virtuous within our society.

I actually find the idea of fate and destiny absolutely horrible, and I’m glad that there is probably no such thing – although of course it is impossible to justify saying that we are in anyway special, and that the deterministic (or at least probabilistically deterministic (no idea if that is a real expression)) laws which appear to govern the universe don’t apply to us, but at least there is no intelligence behind planning it, and no human can claim to know anything of it.

To me the idea that things are already planned out would just make me think well what’s the point then? Of course there is nothing wrong in having “faith” in yourself, a certain level of self-delusion (I’m not implying that you’re deluded haha) is almost definitely healthy. I guess I just don’t like the idea that things would, on a fundamental level, be out of my control, even if it were to get me where I wanted. I might be a bit strange (actually I know that I definitely am), but it really bugs me in movies and TV shows where fate and destiny are brought into it. If that was always going to happen and there were no alternative pathways then no one really did anything!

“I find this fact particularly fascinating and difficult to grasp: consider how many potential human beings could have been created in this one situation, ignoring all the rest of the history of time and the universe. All of the millions of potential sperm and all of the potential times when procreation was possible. And I arrived.”

I totally agree with you here, this is a mind boggling thing to consider. I mean I personally think the anthropic principle is totally satisfactory here (doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a profound thought), I don’t know what your thoughts are on that?