Hamed Safaeipour; Ebrahim Azadegan
Volume 9, Issue 2 , July 2019, , Pages 1-24
Abstract
One of the most controversial and focal inter-disciplinary challenge in filed of science and religion, and contemporary natural teleology, is Teleological Argument (TA) or "Argument from finality" for the existence of God. In this paper by analyzing one of the specific revisions of the TA, named: "Cosmological ...
Read More
One of the most controversial and focal inter-disciplinary challenge in filed of science and religion, and contemporary natural teleology, is Teleological Argument (TA) or "Argument from finality" for the existence of God. In this paper by analyzing one of the specific revisions of the TA, named: "Cosmological Fine-Tuning Argument (CFTA)" (by William Laine Craig), we will criticize main competitor's natural explanations- (a)Multiverse Hypothesis, (b)other kinds of Life, (c) Supper symmetry Breaking theory- and defend this claim that "CFTA is the best explanation for the Fine-Tuning of the Universe". If CFTA is sound and persuasive, "Theistic Finalism" is better explanation than "Atheistic naturalism" for explaining Fine-Tuned state of the world and the way of Atheism, in methodological naturalism (MN), is not a paved way.
Hamed Safaeipour; Sayyed Mohammad Ali Hojjati; Ebrahim Azadegan; Lotfollah Nabavi
Volume 4, Issue 8 , July 2014, , Pages 77-109
Abstract
The primary aim of the current paper is to critically examine the Standard Objection to a new revision of Design Argument. It refers to an epistemic challenge based on a philosophical interpretation of the Anthropic Principle (AP), i.e. Anthropic Objection (AO) to the Cosmological Fine-Tuning Argument ...
Read More
The primary aim of the current paper is to critically examine the Standard Objection to a new revision of Design Argument. It refers to an epistemic challenge based on a philosophical interpretation of the Anthropic Principle (AP), i.e. Anthropic Objection (AO) to the Cosmological Fine-Tuning Argument (CFTA). According to AO, being surprised by observing the Life-Permitting Universe (LPU), which has a very low antecedent probability, is improper, because human cannot find himself in a universe which is not compatible with his existence. The argument, therefore, is accused to infer results that arise from the Observation Selection Effect (OSE) and has no other value. To respond to this objection, we point out and clarify two mistakes: first, an epistemological one, and second, a methodological one. First, we will show that AO is rooted in Hume’s criticism of Analogical Design Argument (ADA), according to which the source of abstraction of the notion of Design is a kind of illusion. We claim that AP is not tautological or trivial, but rather it is verifiable, and corresponds to reality and state of affairs. Secondly, we argue that stepping out from Argument from Design to Argument to Design is a methodological mistake committed by Elliott Sober. Finally, we defend the rationality of CFTA against the Standard Objection
