Seems to me like the arguments of fine-tuning vs multi-verses is just an endless series of mirrors. If someone says that the universe is fine tuned, someone counters with multiple universes. If someone says that the multiple universes are also fine tuned, someone counters with multiple multiple universes... It doesn't actually lead anywhere.
Good basic idea, and nicely written too, but ultimately just the same argument as we've heard before.
If anyone is interested, and it won't bother you guys arguing about fine-tuning, I'd like to point out this quote from the paper;
quote:
The final alternative is merely to claim that the simplicity and beauty of the laws of nature is simply a brute fact that requires no explanation. One could always adopt this position, but then given that theism naturally explains these features of the laws of nature, the atheist must admit that theism offers a better explanation of them than atheism, and thus that they support theism over atheism. Why? Because a natural, non-ad hoc explanation of a phenomenon x is always better than no explanation at all. And theism does seem to offer such a natural explanation: for example, given the classical theistic conception of God as the greatest possible being, and hence a being with a perfect aesthetic sensibility, it is not surprising that such a God would create a world of great subtlety and beauty at the fundamental level.
I would like to know if anyone can provide a non-circular argument for this? It seems to me like the classic theistic conception of God is found mostly by finding beauty in the first place.
This message has been edited by Melchior, 10-10-2004 07:48 AM
™ Version 4.2
