Fine-tuning as evidence for a multiverse: why White is wrong
Roger White (God and design, Routledge, London, 2003) claims that while the fine-tuning of our universe, \(\alpha \), may count as evidence for a designer, it cannot count as evidence for a multiverse. First, I will argue that his considerations are only correct, if at all, for a limited set of mult...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
Springer Nature B. V
2013
|
In: |
International journal for philosophy of religion
Year: 2013, Volume: 73, Issue: 3, Pages: 243-253 |
Further subjects: | B
Design
B Multiverses B God B Fine-tuning argument |
Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Parallel Edition: | Electronic
|
Summary: | Roger White (God and design, Routledge, London, 2003) claims that while the fine-tuning of our universe, \(\alpha \), may count as evidence for a designer, it cannot count as evidence for a multiverse. First, I will argue that his considerations are only correct, if at all, for a limited set of multiverses that have particular features. As a result, I will argue that his claim cannot be generalised as a statement about all multiverses. This failure to generalise, I will argue, is also a feature of design hypotheses. That is, design hypotheses can likewise be made insensitive or sensitive to the evidence of fine-tuning as we please. Second, I will argue that White is mistaken about the role that this evidence plays in fine-tuning discussions. That is, even if the evidence of fine-tuning appears to support one particular hypothesis more strongly than another, this does not always help us in deciding which hypothesis to prefer. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1572-8684 |
Contains: | Enthalten in: International journal for philosophy of religion
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s11153-013-9395-4 |