Switch to: References

Citations of:

Does the Universe Need God?

In J. B. Stump & Alan G. Padgett (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 185-197 (2012)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. On the Carroll–Chen Model.Christopher Weaver - 2017 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 48 (1):97-124.
    I argue that the Carroll-Chen cosmogonic model does not provide a plausible scientific explanation of the past hypothesis (the thesis that our universe began in an extremely low-entropy state). I suggest that this counts as a welcomed result for those who adopt a Mill-Ramsey-Lewis best systems account of laws and maintain that the past hypothesis is a brute fact that is a non-dynamical law.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • On the Carroll-Chen Model (Long Unpublished Version on Arxiv).Christopher Gregory Weaver - manuscript
    I argue that the Carroll-Chen cosmogonic model does not provide a plausible scientific explanation of our universe's initial low-entropy state.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Kalām Cosmological Argument Meets the Mentaculus.Dan Linford - 2020 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axaa005.
    According to the orthodox interpretation of bounce cosmologies, the universe was born from an entropy-reducing phase in a previous universe. To defend the thesis that the whole of physical reality was caused to exist a finite time ago, Craig and Sinclair have argued the low-entropy interface between universes should instead be understood as the beginning of two universes. Here, I present Craig and Sinclair with a dilemma. On the one hand, if the direction of time is reducible, as friends of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Big Bounce or Double Bang? A Reply to Craig & Sinclair on the Interpretation of Bounce Cosmologies.Daniel Linford - forthcoming - Erkenntnis:1-23.
    On the orthodox interpretation of bounce cosmologies, a preceding universe was compressed to a small size before "bouncing" to form the present expanding universe. William Lane Craig and James Sinclair have argued that the orthodox interpretation is incorrect if the entropy reaches a minimum at the bounce. In their view, the interface between universes represents the birth of two expanding universes, i.e., a ``double bang'' instead of a ``big bounce''. Here, I reply to Craig and Sinclair in defense of the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Science, God and Ockham’s Razor.David Glass - 2017 - Philosophical Studies 174 (5):1145-1161.
    In discussions about the existence of God, it is sometimes claimed that the progress of science has removed the need for God. This paper uses a Bayesian analysis of Ockham’s razor to formulate and evaluate this argument, which is referred to as the science explains away God argument. Four different strategies for responding to this argument are presented and evaluated. It is argued that one of these strategies highlights how difficult it is to show that the conditions for applying Ockham’s (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Fine-Tuning as Evidence for a Multiverse: Why White is Wrong. [REVIEW]Mark Douglas Saward - 2013 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 73 (3):243-253.
    Roger White (God and design, Routledge, London, 2003) claims that while the fine-tuning of our universe, $\alpha $ , may count as evidence for a designer, it cannot count as evidence for a multiverse. First, I will argue that his considerations are only correct, if at all, for a limited set of multiverses that have particular features. As a result, I will argue that his claim cannot be generalised as a statement about all multiverses. This failure to generalise, I will (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations