Abstract
The argument from fine tuning is supposed to establish the existence of God from the fact that the evolution of carbon-based life requires the laws of physics and the boundary conditions of the universe to be more or less as they are. We demonstrate that this argument fails. In particular, we focus on problems associated with the role probabilities play in the argument. We show that, even granting the fine tuning of the universe, it does not follow that the universe is improbable, thus no explanation of the fine tuning, theistic or otherwise, is required.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
J.D. Barrow F.J. Tipler (1986) The Anthropic Cosmological Principle Oxford University Press Oxford
P. Davies (1992) The Mind of God Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning Penguin London
W.A. Dembski (1999) Intelligent Design The Bridge Between Science and Theology InterVarsity Press Downers Grove IL
Dowe P. forthcoming, ‘The Inverse Gambler’s Fallacy Revisited Multiple Universe Explanation of Fine Tuning’
W.K. Goosens (1979) ArticleTitle‘Alternative Axiomatizations of Elementary Probability Theory’ Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 20 227–239
I. Hacking (1987) ArticleTitle‘The Inverse Gambler’s Fallacy The Argument From Design The Anthropic Principle Applied to Wheeler Universes’ Mind 96 331–340
P.R. Halmos (1974) Measure Theory Springer-Verlag New York
S. Hawking (1988) A Brief History of Time From the Big Bang to Black Holes Bantam London
Hume D. (1955). in H. D. Aiken (ed.). Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Hafner Publishing Co., New York.
Leslie J. (1989). Universes. Routledge, London.
Leslie J. (1998). ‘Cosmology and Theology’. in E. N. Zalta (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Fall 1998 edition). Stanford, URL=http //plato.stanford.edu/archives/ fall1998/entries/cosmology-theology/.
J. Leslie (Eds) (1990) Physical Cosmology and Philosophy Macmillan New York
T. McGrew L. McGrew E. Vestrup (2001) ArticleTitle‘Probabilities and the Fine-Tuning Argument A Sceptical View Mind 110 1027–1037 Occurrence Handle10.1093/mind/110.440.1027
J.C. Polkinghorne (1986) One World The Interaction of Science and Theology Princeton University Press Princeton, NJ
G. Priest (1981) ArticleTitle‘The Argument to Design’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59 422–431
M.J. Rees (1999) Just Six Numbers The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe Basic Books New York
V. Rubakov M. Shaposhnikov (1989) ArticleTitle‘A Comment on Dynamical Coupling Constant and the Anthropic Principle’ Modern Physics Letters A 4 107–109 Occurrence Handle10.1142/S0217732389000149
M. Shaposhnikov I. Tkachev (1990) ArticleTitle‘Higgs Boson Mass and the Anthropic Principle’ Modern Physics Letters A 5 1659–1662 Occurrence Handle10.1142/S0217732390001906
J.J.C. Smart (1989) Our Place in the Universe A Metaphysical Discussion Blackwell Oxford
Sober E. forthcoming, ‘The Design Argument’. Blackwell’s Guide to Philosophy of Religion.
R. Swinburne (1990) ‘Argument from the Fine-Tuning of the Universe’ J. Leslie (Eds) Physical Cosmology and Philosophy. Macmillan New York
R. Swinburne (1991) The Existence of God. revised edn Clarendon Oxford
S. Weinberg (1993) Dreams of a Final Theory The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature Vintage London
R. White (2000) ArticleTitle‘Fine-Tuning and Multiple Universes’ Noû s. 34 260–276
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Colyvan, M., Garfield, J.L. & Priest, G. Problems With the Argument From Fine Tuning. Synthese 145, 325–338 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-6195-0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-6195-0