Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Proponents of the fine-tuning argument for design may mot... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Proponents of the fine-tuning argument for design may motivate a non-negligible ur-prior P(D) by appealing to the cosmological argument

    Natural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The cosmological argument appeals only to very general empirical facts
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The cosmological argument does not entail that conditions are right for life
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The ur-probability framework permits background evidence that does not entail the existence of life
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The cosmological argument, if successful, establishes a necessary being whose nature already determines whether life-permitting conditions obtain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A designer whose existence is necessary cannot coherently generate a non-negligible ur-prior for design without collapsing into a version of the ontological argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Combining the cosmological and fine-tuning arguments therefore risks circular probabilistic reasoning, not independent evidential support.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Swinburne and Sobel demonstrate that classical cosmological arguments presuppose a creator with specific attributes like simplicity or perfect goodness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.These presupposed divine attributes already prejudge the likelihood of life-permitting conditions, making P(D) non-independent of P(life|D).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Using the cosmological argument to motivate P(D) therefore violates the ur-prior framework's requirement that background evidence be evidentially prior to the explanandum.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Related

    A designer whose existence is necessary cannot coherently generate a non-negligi...Combining the cosmological and fine-tuning arguments therefore risks circular pr...Swinburne and Sobel demonstrate that classical cosmological arguments presuppose...The cosmological argument appeals only to very general empirical facts
    +5 moreShow less
    The cosmological argument does not entail that conditions are right for lifeThe cosmological argument, if successful, establishes a necessary being whose na...The ur-probability framework permits background evidence that does not entail th...These presupposed divine attributes already prejudge the likelihood of life-perm...Using the cosmological argument to motivate P(D) therefore violates the ur-prior...

    Similar

    Proponents of the fine-tuning argument for design may motivate a non-n...91%The argument from fine-tuning for design is vindicated insofar as the ...78%The cosmological argument appeals only to very general empirical facts74%The cosmological argument rests on the causal maxim and the principle ...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: fine-tuning
    View source passageHide passage
    Motivating a non-negligible prior \(P(D)\) for design is especially challenging in the framework of the ur-probability solution to the problem of old evidence because it constrains the background evidence to facts that do not entail the existence of life. Collins argues that if we focus only on a limited class of constants \(C\), the background evidence that we can use to motivate the prior \(P(D)\) is allowed to “includ[e] the initial conditions of the universe, the laws of physics, and the val
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit