Inquiry 41 (3):277 – 299 (1998)
|Abstract||This paper characterizes various responses to the question, 'Why does our universe exist?' Some responses- that the question is senseless, that the existence of our universe is logically necessary- are implausible. Adjudication between more plausible responses requires us to evaluate the argument from the 'fine-tuning' of the universe, a refurbished version of the argument from design that appeals to cosmology rather than biology. The evidence of fine-tuning should lead us to adopt, albeit provisionally, cosmological fecundity, the hypothesis that there exist many universes of varying characters. The existence of our universe is thereby rendered less surprising. This is to be preferred both to the theistic hypothesis and to the view that the existence of our universe requires no explanation.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
R. White (2011). What Fine-Tuning's Got to Do with It: A Reply to Weisberg. Analysis 71 (4):676-679.
John Taylor (1997). Kalam: A Swift Argument From Origins to First Cause? Religious Studies 33 (2):167-179.
Darren Bradley (2009). Multiple Universes and Observation Selection Effects. American Philosophical Quarterly 46 (1):72.
Neil Manson (2003). Fine-Tuning, Multiple Universes, and the 'This Universe' Objection. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 84 (1):67 - 83.
Bradley Monton (2006). God, Fine-Tuning, and the Problem of Old Evidence. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (2):405-424.
David S. Oderberg (2003). The Beginning of Existence. International Philosophical Quarterly 43 (2):145-157.
Mark Colyvan, Jay L. Garfield & Graham Priest (2005). Problems with the Argument From Fine Tuning. Synthese 145 (3):325 - 338.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads101 ( #7,674 of 722,753 )
Recent downloads (6 months)76 ( #458 of 722,753 )
How can I increase my downloads?