David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Faith and Philosophy 22 (5):641 - 653 (2005)
Theism is a far simpler hypothesis, and so a priori more probably true, than naturalism, understood as the hypothesis that the existence of this law-governed universe has no explanation. Theism postulates only one entity (God) with very simple properties, whereas naturalism has to postulate either innumerable entities all having the same properties, or one very complicated entity with the power to produce the former. If theism is true, it is moderately probable that God would create humanoid beings and so humanoid bodies; but laws of nature would have to have very special properties if they are to bring about the existence of humanoid bodies. Given laws of the present form, the constants of the laws and variables of the boundary conditions of the universe would need to be extremely fine-tuned. So the evidence of the existence of humanoid bodies adds further to the probability of theism as against naturalism. (edited)
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Rodney D. Holder (2002). Fine-Tuning, Multiple Universes and Theism. Noûs 36 (2):295–312.
Richard Swinburne (2003). The Argument to God From Fine-Tuning Reassessed. In Neil A. Manson (ed.), God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. Routledge 80--105.
Mark Colyvan, Jay L. Garfield & Graham Priest (2005). Problems with the Argument From Fine Tuning. Synthese 145 (3):325 - 338.
T. J. Mawson (2011). Explaining the Fine Tuning of the Universe to Us and the Fine Tuning of Us to the Universe. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 68 (68):25-50.
Bradley Monton (2006). God, Fine-Tuning, and the Problem of Old Evidence. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (2):405-424.
Stephen E. Parrish (1999). Theodore Drange on the Fine-Tuning Argument: A Critique. Philosophia Christi 1 (2):73 - 87.
Richard Swinburne (2004). The Existence of God. Oxford University Press.
Kenneth Einar Himma (2002). Prior Probabilities and Confirmation Theory: A Problem with the Fine-Tuning Argument. [REVIEW] International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 51 (3):175-194.
Gregory E. Ganssle (2011). Fine Tuning and the Varieties of Naturalism. Religious Studies 47 (1):59-71.
Neil A. Manson (2009). The Fine-Tuning Argument. Philosophy Compass 4 (1):271-286.
R. White (2011). What Fine-Tuning's Got to Do with It: A Reply to Weisberg. Analysis 71 (4):676-679.
William Lane Craig (2003). Design and the Anthropic Fine-Tuning of the Universe. In Neil A. Manson (ed.), God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. Routledge
M. C. Bradley (2002). The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Bayesian Version. Religious Studies 38 (4):375-404.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads275 ( #7,962 of 1,796,239 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #284,614 of 1,796,239 )
How can I increase my downloads?