Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (4):556–576 (2005)
AbstractIn 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.
Similar books and articles
Probabilistic Arguments for Multiple Universes.Kai Draper, Paul Draper & Joel Pust - 2007 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (3):288–307.
Fine-Tuning, Multiple Universes, and the "This Universe" Objection.Neil A. Manson & Michael J. Thrush - 2003 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 84 (1):67–83.
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.
What Fine-Tuning's Got to Do with It: A Reply to Weisberg.R. White - 2011 - Analysis 71 (4):676-679.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
No references found.