Perhaps the metaphysical question that has garnered the most interest in intellectual history concerns the existence
of God. Arguments for and against the existence of a creator. come in several types. The laws of physics have been used on. both sides of the debate.
In the 1700s, some figures, like Baron d’Holbach, contended that the system of the universe Isaac Newton gave us leads directly to the lack of a need for any sort of divinity at all. In his masterwork The System of Nature, d’Holbach dismisses philosophers who thought that God was necessary to explain the continual motion of the heavens.
Late-20th-century physics brought the argument back to life. The Standard Model is our best account of the laws governing everything except gravitation. The general theory of relativity. accounts for that. All of these equations have constants within. them—that is, terms that have to be included in the equations to. make the units come out right.
Physicist Robert Dicke pointed out in his article “Dirac’s
Cosmology and Mach’s Principle” that we can arithmetically. combine these constants to give rise to dimensionless. numbers—that is, we can multiply and divide these constants in. combinations that make all the units cancel out. Numbers that. should have nothing to do with each other—things like the age. of the universe, the mass of the proton, and the gravitational. constant—seem to be intricately related when properly. multiplied and divided by each other. That is strange.
Physicist Martin Rees has argued that it seems to be the result of. the fine-tuning of the universe. If these constants were slightly. different in numerical value, the result would be a universe completely incapable of giving rise to life. Richard Swinburn, a professor, contends that the facts arising from contemporary physics show an interrelation and a sensitivity that cannot but. resurrect the teleological argument: The intricacy of the universe implies the existence of an intelligent creator God.
The contingency approach to denying design takes a different line, arguing that there is not actually anything here that needs. explaining. It contends that things just are the way they are. If that is the case, there is nothing to explain.
Elliot Sober weighs in on this question of fine-tuning arguments in philosophy of physics. His argument does not make the move of the necessity approach. We don’t need to assume anything about the ultimate form of the laws of nature. We can take them as they are. We can also grant that the universal laws could be of a different form and that the constants could be of a different value. We will allow all of this to be contingent—that is, not necessary.
If all of this could have been otherwise, but turned out to be as it is, then it seems we need an explanation. However, Sober argues that is not the case. Just because something highly improbable occurs does not mean that it was designed. Improbable things accidentally happen all the time. The key is to look at them from the proper direction.
For instance, imagine a lottery: If the lottery sells 250,000
tickets, the odds of winning are very tiny. As such, it is more than unlikely that any given person will win.
However, it is certain that. someone will win.
Sober argues that the fine-tuning argument makes the mistake. of looking from the wrong direction. We are holding the winning. lottery ticket. We are in a universe that supports life.
Source credit- Professor S. Gimbel, Gettysburg College
of God. Arguments for and against the existence of a creator. come in several types. The laws of physics have been used on. both sides of the debate.
In the 1700s, some figures, like Baron d’Holbach, contended that the system of the universe Isaac Newton gave us leads directly to the lack of a need for any sort of divinity at all. In his masterwork The System of Nature, d’Holbach dismisses philosophers who thought that God was necessary to explain the continual motion of the heavens.
Late-20th-century physics brought the argument back to life. The Standard Model is our best account of the laws governing everything except gravitation. The general theory of relativity. accounts for that. All of these equations have constants within. them—that is, terms that have to be included in the equations to. make the units come out right.
Physicist Robert Dicke pointed out in his article “Dirac’s
Cosmology and Mach’s Principle” that we can arithmetically. combine these constants to give rise to dimensionless. numbers—that is, we can multiply and divide these constants in. combinations that make all the units cancel out. Numbers that. should have nothing to do with each other—things like the age. of the universe, the mass of the proton, and the gravitational. constant—seem to be intricately related when properly. multiplied and divided by each other. That is strange.
Physicist Martin Rees has argued that it seems to be the result of. the fine-tuning of the universe. If these constants were slightly. different in numerical value, the result would be a universe completely incapable of giving rise to life. Richard Swinburn, a professor, contends that the facts arising from contemporary physics show an interrelation and a sensitivity that cannot but. resurrect the teleological argument: The intricacy of the universe implies the existence of an intelligent creator God.
The contingency approach to denying design takes a different line, arguing that there is not actually anything here that needs. explaining. It contends that things just are the way they are. If that is the case, there is nothing to explain.
Elliot Sober weighs in on this question of fine-tuning arguments in philosophy of physics. His argument does not make the move of the necessity approach. We don’t need to assume anything about the ultimate form of the laws of nature. We can take them as they are. We can also grant that the universal laws could be of a different form and that the constants could be of a different value. We will allow all of this to be contingent—that is, not necessary.
If all of this could have been otherwise, but turned out to be as it is, then it seems we need an explanation. However, Sober argues that is not the case. Just because something highly improbable occurs does not mean that it was designed. Improbable things accidentally happen all the time. The key is to look at them from the proper direction.
For instance, imagine a lottery: If the lottery sells 250,000
tickets, the odds of winning are very tiny. As such, it is more than unlikely that any given person will win.
However, it is certain that. someone will win.
Sober argues that the fine-tuning argument makes the mistake. of looking from the wrong direction. We are holding the winning. lottery ticket. We are in a universe that supports life.
Source credit- Professor S. Gimbel, Gettysburg College
