Multiple universes and the fine-tuning argument: A response to Rodney holder

Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (4):556–576 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX


In this article I examine a common objection to the fine-tuning argument (an objection which may be referred to as the atheistic many universes (AMU) objection). A reply to this objection due to Roger White has been the subject of much controversy; White's reply has been criticized by Rodney Holder, on the one hand, and Neil Manson and Michael Thrush on the other. In this paper I analyze Holder's work in an effort to determine whether the AMU objection successfully defeats the fine-tuning argument. I conclude that the fine-tuning argument can be reformulated so as to avoid the AMU objection.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 89,718

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Probabilistic arguments for multiple universes.Kai Draper, Paul Draper & Joel Pust - 2007 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (3):288–307.
The fine-tuning argument.M. C. Bradley - 2001 - Religious Studies 37 (4):451-466.
Fine-Tuning, Multiple Universes, and the 'This Universe' Objection.Neil Manson - 2003 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 84 (1):67 - 83.
Fine-tuning and the infrared bull’s-eye.John T. Roberts - 2012 - Philosophical Studies 160 (2):287-303.
The fine-tuning argument.Neil A. Manson - 2009 - Philosophy Compass 4 (1):271-286.


Added to PP

363 (#48,689)

6 months
10 (#133,855)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Michael W. Rota
University of St. Thomas, Minnesota

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references