Philo, Hume’s spokesman in the Dialogues on Natural Religion, agrees by the end that the more likely hypothesis is that the world was created by some sort of intelligent being or beings. I also have some doubts about what we are supposed to do with the conclusion of the argument, even if we agree with it. The argument will only be plausible to those who already see the existence of some such Being as not completely implausible, and not requiring a similar explanation of its existence. Wouldn’t that in turn require the existence of a Creator-friendly universe, or proto-universe, with parameters set to allow for the development of such a powerful and wonderful Being, capable of setting the parameters for our universe? If so, it doesn’t seem we have gained much with the God hypothesis. This depends on what would be required by the existence of such a Creator. Are these hypotheses initially more or less plausible than the God hypothesis? Given a string of universes, one would expect the various combinations of parameters for basic physical factors to show up in endless combinations, just as one expects all of the individually unlikely combinations of hands to show up, if one plays bridge long enough. If it hadn’t happened, we wouldn’t be here to be surprised, so maybe it shouldn’t be that surprising to us.Īnother alternative is that there are a whole bunch of universes - not just galaxies in our universe, but complete universes. One alternative is it was one lucky cosmic coincidence. But how likely does it make them? It depends on how likely the hypothesis is independently of the event - it’s “prior probability”- and how likely the alternative hypotheses are. In general, if an event happens, that makes the hypotheses that would explain it more likely. So the fact that we have a life-supporting universe makes it likely that there was a powerful and intelligent Creator. A powerful and intelligent Creator who wanted such a universe would explain it. The reasoning basically says: A life-supporting universe is intrinsically unlikely. But it’s taken seriously by a lot of intelligent and thoughtful people. It may not be responsible, at least not yet, for a world-wide revival of religion. And I’ve heard it expressed - very well in fact - by a speaker at my Rotary Club. I’ve seen this argument developed in the august pages of philosophy journals, and in thought pieces by eminent physicists. (Well, actually I couldn’t do this, but if you Google our guest, “Robin Collins”, you’ll find all the elaboration you want.) We could elaborate the physics involved, and put the reasoning in the form of Bayes Theorem. That’s basically the fine-tuning argument. That seems to amount to God, or at least a God.
This would have to be some Being with incredible knowledge and power. Similarly (a bit) the universe has ended up with a little aquarium for humans, reason and morality, namely, our earth So isn’t it reasonable to suppose that, rather than being an accident, things were set up to allow for this development?īut such fine-tuning, in order to make life possible, requires a fine-tuner. Then the argument is: Isn’t it more plausible to suppose that these things were not accidents, but happened according to a plan of some intelligent being? If I found an aquarium in your house, with water and plants and food in the just combination required to keep goldfish happy, I might reasonably infer that someone put it there because they wanted goldfish, not that it occurred by accident. 251)-in short, life as we know it would be impossible.Īll these things Freeman Dysan calls lucky accidents - which include the initial distribution of matter when the Big Bang banged - and values of some fundamental constants - can be thought of the universe as being fine-tuned so as to allow for the emergence of life and all those other good things that come with it.
Without such accidents, water could not exist as liquid, chains of carbon atoms could not form complex organic molecules, and hydrogen atoms could not form breakable bridges between molecules" (p. It takes off from something that serious physicists, religious or not, tend to agree on. The fine-tuning argument is a modern, up-to-date version of this argument. It must be due to some intelligent, powerful Being - and that’s what God is. Probably the most persuasive argument for the existence of God - I don’t mean to philosophers and logicians, but to ordinary people - goes something like this: All of this - that is, a world with life, intelligence, beauty, humans, morality, etc., - couldn’t have come about by accident.
0 kommentar(er)
