PHL101 - White on God, The Appearance of Design and Cosmological Fine Tuning

What is the local argument for the argument from design?

draws attention to the resemblance between particular small scale aspects of the world and obvious creations of human intelligence - argues that these parts must of been created by intelligent life which then gave humans similar intelligence

This argument is posteriori - need sensory experience or knowledge of a sensory experience to believe it

What is the global argument for design?

draws attention to the resemblance of the universe as a whole, and the creation of human intelligence

argues that the universe is set up in such a way that it had to have been thought through and created by intelligence of a sort

This argument is posteriori - need sensory experience or knowledge of a sensory experience to believe it

How does Paley argue for the local argument for design?

P1 Some naturally occurring objects (e.g., eyes)
resemble obvious creations of intelligence (e.g.,
watches) in that they appear to have been
designed for a purpose.
P2 The only reasonable explanation of this appearance
is that natural objects are the creations of an
extremely powerful intelligent designer.
P3 When a given hypothesis is the only reasonable
explanation of some fact, then it is reasonable to
believe the hypothesis.
C1 It is reasonable to believe that an extremely
powerful intelligent designer exists.
C2 It is reasonable to believe that God exists.

What is the primary objection to Paley’s argument?

The central premise, premise 2, which is debunked by Darwin’s theory of evolution, as his theory provides an alternative inference to the best explanation that is evolution, which explains the appearance of natural objects better

Problem with Darwin’s theory is that it pre-supposes a larger existence of order and design in the universe - something had to have created evolution and life itself

How does White argue for God existence through the idea of cosmological fine tuning?

P1 If a fact E that we observe stands in need of explanation, and hypothesis H provides a satisfactory explanation of E that is better than any alternative explanation available, then E provides significant evidential support for H.
P2 That our universe is hospitable to life stands in need of explanation.
P3 That God adjusted the constants in order to allow for life to develop provides a satisfactory explanation for why our universe is life-permitting.
P4 There is no comparably satisfying explanation of this fact available.
(C) That our universe is life-permitting provides significant evidential support for theism

What are some objections to Whites argument P2?

Objection to P2 - While the exact constants that allow for life in the universe are extremely rare and unlikely, we should not be surprised that the universe is fine tuned, as if it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be here to observe it - the universe must be fined tuned for us to question the probability of its fine tuning, and thus does not require an explanation

What are some objections to Whites argument P3?

Objection to P3 - premise 3 is simply an instance of a kind of explanation that we all find obviously compelling: accounting for phenomena by appeal to the actions of rational agents, rather than trying to comprehend the low probability of an event or occurrence - some argue that the existence of the universe requires a special kind of rational agent with supreme abilities, such as god

First objection: It is too easy to appeal to God, and thus explanatory appeal to God is empty
Second objection: Explanations invoking human rational agents involve beings we at least somewhat understand. But since we don’t understand God, explanations that appeal to God are mystery-mongering

What does White think about his own Premise 4?

he believes it to be the most vulnerable/faulty premise and thus offers another explanation - the Multiverse hypothesis

if our universe is just one of very many universes, one part of a
large ‘multiverse.’ The constants on which life depends may vary randomly among the universes. Given a large enough number of universes, it is to be expected that at least one such universe will meet the conditions for life - the explanation also removes the need to explain the universe, thus eradicating P2