David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 68 (1):22 – 43 (1990)
The standard view of philosophers is that the existence of particular events within our universe is capable of being explained in terms of initial conditions and natural laws, but that the existence of our universe itself is a 'brute given' that is incapable of naturalistic explanation. A supernatural explanation of the existence of our universe may be alleged to be possible ('God created our universe so that humans may exist and the existence of humans is an intrinsic good'), but an explanation that appeals only to factors, situations or regularities in nature is deemed to be in principle impossible. It is also a standard view of philosophers that the less fundamental natural laws of our universe are capable of being explained in terms of more fundamental laws of our universe, but that the most basic natural laws of our universe are incapable of being explained naturalistically. Perhaps they can be explained supernaturally, by asserting that God ordained them so that humans may eventually evolve, but no other explanation is supposed possible
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Paul Draper, Kai Draper & Joel Pust (2007). Probabilistic Arguments for Multiple Universes. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (3):288–307.
Quentin Smith (1994). Anthropic Explanations in Cosmology. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 72 (3):371 – 382.
Quentin Smith (1995). Internal and External Causal Explanations of the Universe. Philosophical Studies 79 (3):283 - 310.
David Brooks (1992). Why This World? Philosophical Papers 21 (3):259-273.
Similar books and articles
Mark Colyvan, Jay L. Garfield & Graham Priest (2005). Problems with the Argument From Fine Tuning. Synthese 145 (3):325 - 338.
Stephen Grover (1998). Cosmological Fecundity. Inquiry 41 (3):277 – 299.
Richard Swinburne (2005). Prior Probabilities in the Argument From Fine-Tuning. Faith and Philosophy 22 (5):641 - 653.
Dan Dennis (2011). Evil, Fine-Tuning and the Creation of the Universe. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 70 (2):139-145.
Robert C. Cummins (2000). "How Does It Work" Versus "What Are the Laws?": Two Conceptions of Psychological Explanation. In F. Keil & Robert A. Wilson (eds.), Explanation and Cognition, 117-145. MIT Press
Richard Swinburne (1990). The Limits of Explanation. Philosophy 27 (Supplement):177 - 193.
Richard Swinburne (2002). Arguments From Design. Think 1 (1):49 - 54.
John Foster (2004). The Divine Lawmaker: Lectures on Induction, Laws of Nature, and the Existence of God. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads25 ( #120,994 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #369,877 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?