Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T02:34:08.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Our Universe a Mere Fluke? The Cosmological Argument and Spinning the Universes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

J. van Brakel
J. van Brakel*
Affiliation:
University of Utrecht
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent discussions about the argument from design have taken into account developments in cosmological theories, most especially the so-called anthropic principle associated with the “Wheeler”- and “Carter”-universes. Part of these discussions can perhaps be summarized as briefly as can be in the following opposition:

  1. 1. The world is very unusual, so it must have been made by an intelligent creator.

  2. 2. The world is very unusual, but unusual things do occur by chance.

    The phrase “the world is very unusual” is short-hand for something like:

  3. 3. It is extremely improbable that a random concatenation of the forces, energies, particles, fields of the universe (or whatever we think the building blocks are) should, in a single trial, form into anything orderly, let alone anything that supports our form of intelligent life.

Type
Part III. Physics
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1988 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1988 , 1988 , pp. 75 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bartholomew, D.J. (1984). God of Chance. London: SCM Press.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, R.B. (1968). Scientific Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cicero, (1964). De Divinatione. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa, T. (1958). “On the Use of the Notion ‘Probability’ in Physics.” American Journal of Physics 26: 388–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. (1987). “The Inverse Gambler’s Fallacy: The Argument From Design. The Anthropic Principle Applied to Wheeler Universes.” Mind 96: 331–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hebblethwaite, B.L. (1986). “Mellor’s ‘Bridge-Hand’ Argument.” Religious Studies 22: 473–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, J. (1986). “Anthropic Explanations in Cosmology.” PSA 1986, Volume 1, pp. 87–95.Google Scholar
Mellor, H. (1969). “God and Probability.” Religious Studies 5: 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolston, H. III (1987). Science and Religion. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Rutherford, E. (1913). Radioactive Substances and Their Radiations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swinburne, R.G. (1979). The Existence of God. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
van Brakel, J. (1976). “Some Remarks on the Prehistory of the Concept of Statistical Probability.” Archive for the History of the Exact Sciences 16: 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Brakel, J. (1985). “Het waarschijnlijheidsbegrip: niet interpreteren maar construeren.” Kennis en Methode 9: 266–283.Google Scholar
van Brakel, J. (1985). “The Influence of the Discovery of Radioactive Decay on the Changing Concept of Physical Probability.” Archive for the History of the Exact Sciences 31: 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar