The design argument, cosmic ?fine tuning,? and the anthropic principle

1987 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 139-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Jefferson Davis
Keyword(s):  
Anthropic Principle ◽  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Design Argument

A user's guide to design arguments

2008 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
TRENT DOUGHERTY ◽  
TED POSTON
Keyword(s):  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Self Organization ◽  
Design Argument ◽  
Biological Design ◽  
Unknown Probability ◽  
Central Claim

AbstractWe argue that there is a tension between two types of design arguments: the fine-tuning argument (FTA) and the biological design argument (BDA). The tension arises because the strength of each argument is inversely proportional to the value of a certain currently unknown probability. Since the value of that probability is currently unknown, we investigate the properties of the FTA and BDA on different hypothetical values of this probability. If our central claim is correct this suggests three results: (1) It is not very plausible that a cumulative case for theism include both the FTA and the BDA (with one possible qualification); (2) Self-organization scenarios do not threaten theism but in fact provide the materials for a good FTA; (3) A plausible design argument of one sort or another (either FTA or BDA) will be available for a wide variety of values of the key probability.

scholarly journals Life on earth — An accident? Chiral symmetry and the anthropic principle

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (07) ◽  
pp. 1461005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulf-G. Meißner ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Chiral Symmetry ◽  
Big Bang ◽  
Anthropic Principle ◽  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Nuclear Forces ◽  
Life On Earth ◽  
The Big Bang

I discuss the fine-tuning of the nuclear forces and in the formation of nuclei in the production of the elements in the Big Bang and in stars.

scholarly journals The New Design Argument and God

wisdom ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (6) ◽  
pp. 46
Author(s):  
Haig Khatchadourian
Keyword(s):  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Anthropic Principle ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Design Argument

This paper aims at a critical discussion and evaluation of a new version of the teleological or design argument for the existence of God advanced by Brandon Carter. In this discussion I shall concentrate on his claims and arguments to “Long Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology,”[1] limiting myself to what is called the Strong anthropic principle and leaving aside the even stronger Final anthropic principle. In his paper he makes the following fundamental claims respecting the Strong anthropic principle.

THE WEAK ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE AND THE DESIGN ARGUMENT

Zygon® ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-130
Author(s):  
Joseph M. Zycinski
Keyword(s):  
Anthropic Principle ◽  
Design Argument

Mellor's ‘Bridge–Hand’ Argument

1986 ◽  
Vol 22 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 473-479
Author(s):  
B. L. Hebblethwaite
Keyword(s):  
Anthropic Principle ◽  
Recent Criticism ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Design Argument

In his article ‘God and Probability’, 1 Hugh Mellor introduced the notion of the ‘bridge-hand fallacy’, allegedly committed by those who think they can appeal to probabilities in arguments for design. I should like to give this notion another airing, partly because of its recent criticism in two interesting books - R. G. Swinburne' The Existence of God and D. J. Bartholomew's God of Chance - and partly because it seems worth asking how it fares in relation to the most recent examples of design argument, namely those which appeal to the so-called ‘anthropic principle’ in cosmology.

Fine-Tuning Futures

ASHA Leader ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christi Miller
Keyword(s):  
Fine Tuning
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document