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
    Proponents of the fine-tuning argument for design may mot... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    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 a priori arguments for God's existence such as the ontological 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.A priori arguments for God's existence do not rely on empirical facts that entail conditions right for life
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.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.Kant demonstrated that existence is not a predicate, undermining the ontological argument's inference from conceivability to actuality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the a priori argument fails to establish even prima facie probability of God's existence, it cannot supply the non-negligible ur-prior P(D) required by the fine-tuning framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A fine-tuning argument that depends on the success of the ontological argument inherits its burden of proof without gaining independent evidential support.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The ontological argument's validity is itself deeply contested, making it an unstable foundation for assigning non-negligible priors to theism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bootstrapping a Bayesian prior from a disputed a priori argument imports all controversies of that argument into the fine-tuning inference, compounding rather than resolving epistemic uncertainty.
      ?

      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

    Key Terms

    P(D)(Bayesian formulation of the fine-tuning argument)
    The prior probability assigned to the design hypothesis, i.e., the hypothesis that the universe was designed
    Proponents(referring to the philosophers who believed in British idealism)
    People who support or advocate for a particular idea, theory, or movement.
    Ur-prior(as used in philosophy of probability)
    An 'original' or foundational prior belief that everyone supposedly shares as a starting point; 'ur' is a German prefix meaning 'original' or 'primordial.'
    a priori(Frege treats 'analytic' as entailing 'a priori' for arithmetic.)
    Knowable independently of empirical experience; here treated as a consequence of analyticity.
    design argument(Natural theology, 17th–18th century)
    An a posteriori argument that infers the existence of a divine designer from observed features of nature, such as its orderly and elegant physical laws
    fine-tuning argument(Cosmological fine-tuning; expansion speed of the universe as the parameter under discussion)
    A theistic argument that infers a designer from the observation that the physical constants and initial conditions of the universe fall within a narrow life-permitting range, on the grounds that this outcome is improbable under the hypothesis of no designer.
    ontological argument(Described as an early and now-canonical formulation found in Anselm's Proslogion.)
    An argument that seeks to demonstrate God's existence from the concept or definition of God alone, without appeal to empirical evidence.

    Related

    A fine-tuning argument that depends on the success of the ontological argument i...A priori arguments for God's existence do not rely on empirical facts that entai...Bootstrapping a Bayesian prior from a disputed a priori argument imports all con...If the a priori argument fails to establish even prima facie probability of God'...
    +3 moreShow less
    Kant demonstrated that existence is not a predicate, undermining the ontological...The ontological argument's validity is itself deeply contested, making it an uns...

    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

    The ur-probability framework permits background evidence that does not entail th...

    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 ...75%The design argument falls well short of what it claims to prove75%The objection from the absence of an efficient cause does not conclusi...74%
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit