You can access physicist Sean Carroll article “Does the Universe Need God?” and some comments in response by Kenny Pearce here. (h/t Prosblogion)
God and Modern Physics
September 13, 2012 by Jon
Posted in General Interest | 4 Comments
4 Responses
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
-
Recent Posts
- University of North Florida Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies Facebook page
- 16th Annual Northeast Florida Student Philosophy Conference Schedule
- Cfp: Appalachian Regional Student Philosophy Colloquium
- Cfp: Geogia Southern Undergraduate Philosophy Conference
- Cfp: 2013 University of South Florida Graduate Philosophy Conference
Recent Comments
- peugeot on Kate Lindemann: The Interview
- where is your thyroid on Sexual Perversion
- Leland on Sexual Perversion
- Mother-Earth1213 (@Viti2013) on Your Thoughts On Getting a “Love Upgrade”
- download now on The Moral Significance of Animal Cognition
- www.suwios.pl on Moral Responsibility vs. Moral Judgement
- reputation management on Killing a Vegan: Degrees of Subjectivity
- Shayna on Killing a Vegan: Degrees of Subjectivity
- Ernest on Kate Lindemann: The Interview
- Http://Www.Bigbagstore.Com.Au/?P=54 on Philosophy and Pornography
Categories
- Action Theory
- Aesthetics
- Ancient Philosophy
- Asian Philosophy
- Bioethics
- Buddhism
- Business Ethics
- CFPs
- Christianity
- Comparative Philosophy
- Conferences
- Continental Philosophy
- Early Modern Philosophy
- Environmental Philosophy
- Epistemology
- Ethics
- Experimental Philosophy
- Feminist Philosophy
- General Interest
- Grad School
- Hermeneutics
- Hinduism
- Interviews
- Islam
- Job Market
- Judaism
- Late Modern Philosophy
- Latin American Philosophy
- Logic
- Medieval Philosophy
- Metaphysics
- Moral Psychology
- Naturalism
- News & Notes
- Phenomenology
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Language
- Philosophy of Law
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Mind
- Philosophy of Psychiatry
- Philosophy of Psychology
- Philosophy of Religion
- Philosophy of Science
- Political Theory
- Pragmatism
- Race and Gender
- Social Philosophy
- Teaching Philosophy
- Uncategorized
Blog Stats
- 412,369 hits
Interesting article.
Though I have an issue with Pearce’s reply to the first commenter regarding the fine-tuning argument; he states:
“…there are things that natural science tries to explain that it hasn’t been able to explain so far, so we should posit God as the explanation.”
FTA doesn’t say this, does it? My understanding was that FTA suggests the probability that God exists is very given the fine-tuning of the universe (and thus rational to believe that God exists); hence an inference to the best explanation.
Tim,
The Fine Tuning Argument is supposed to be an inference to the most probable hypothesis (if ‘probable hypothesis’ is what you mean by ‘best explanation’, ignore the point). However, it fails fabulously, and for some very well known reasons.
ahh I can’t type… *high* should follow very
Well, fine tuning arguments for theism have taken several forms. There’s inference to the best explanation style arguments, bayesian probabilistic arguments, deductive arguments, etc.