> I think Ross's position is more along the following lines: If all these
> constant are around and needed for life and if we don't have them, life
> would not be able to exist, as we know it, then there must be some
> design.
I don't know what this means. The anthropic "coincidences"
would be needed for the _evolution_ of life but not necessarily to keep
specially created life going for a few millenia. What is striking about
the values of parameters is not just that there are "coincidences"
(which Eddington &c realized long ago) but the idea that they are
_anthropic_. And that is what Ross loses.
Why did God create such a complex universe in the first
> place? Because He is God and He does what He wants. ALso, God likes
> impresses us all the time, look at the Grand Canyon, freeing the Jews
> from the Egyptians, and, most importantly, He sent His som to die for the
> sins of a world that had turned its back against Him. That is the most
> impressive thing of all.
These can all be understood as aspects of the fulfillment of
God's intention for the universe, especially the latter (Col.1:20).
They are not just arbitrary pieces of showmanship.
George Murphy