Qabasat

Qabasat

An Analysis of the Confrontation the Anthropic Principle and the Multi-World Theory with Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
1 Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Theology, Farabi Campus, University of Tehran.
2 Assistant Professor of the Department of Philosophy of Religion, Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute.
3 PhD student of Islamic Philosophy and Theology, Farabi Campus, University of Tehran.
10102
Abstract
According to the anthropic principle, the world, which has an observer, should be in accordance with this observer. This principle is regarded as an explanation for the present order in the world or the primitive condition of the world, thus disregards the explanation of its goal. In addition to the multi-world theory, it is rather sometimes regarded as a challenge for explaining the final goal of the world, even though it does not claim to explain the present order of the world.
This article will present four means to defend the explanation of the final goal against these criticisms and will show that we can defend this explanation on the base of one of the following: criticizing the multi-world theory and paying attention to the explanation of the present order - instead of understanding the order- ; priority of the explanation of the final goal over the multi-world theory in terms of simplicity and comprehensive explanation; considering that it is more probable for an orderly world to belong to a collection of orderly worlds rather than to belong to a collection of accidentally orderly worlds; and paying attention to the order dominant on the mechanism of the realization of different worlds.
Each one of these accounts is prior to its previous account in terms of not being based on a specific cosmological presupposition.
Keywords

  1. هاوکینگ، استیون و لئونارد ملودینو؛ طرح بزرگ؛ ترجمه سارا ایزدیار و علی هادیان؛ چ1، تهران: انتشارات مازیار، 1390.
  2. Barrow, John D. & Tipler, Frank J.; The Anthropic Cosmological Principle; New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
  3. Dawkins, Richard; The God Delusion; London: Bantam Press, 2006.
  4. Carter, Brandon; Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology; Berlin: Springer Science+Business Media, 2011.
  5. Collins, Robin; “The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe”, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology; Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland; Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2009.
  6. Craig, William Lane; “The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle”, In The Logic of Rational Theism: Exploratory Essays; Problems in Contemporary Philosophy 24, 1990, pp.127-153.
  7. Ellis, George; Does the Multiverse Really Exist; Scientific American; vol.305, Issue 2, 2011, pp.38-43.
  8. Henderson, Lawrence J.; The Fitness of The Environment, an inquiry into the biological significance of the properties of matter; New York: The Macmillan Company, 1913.
  9. Kragh, Helge; “The Origin of the Modern Anthropic Principle”, Journal of Cosmology; vol.13, 2011, pp.3700-3705.
  10. Paul, Edvards; The Encyclopedia of Philosophy; ed. Donald M. Borchert; New York: Macmillan Refrence USA, 2005.
  11. Rabounski, Dmitri; “Zelmanov’s Anthropic Principle and the Infinite Relativity Principle”, Progress in Physics: vol.1, 2006, pp.35-37.
  12. Smith, Quentin; “World Ensemble Explanations”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly; 67, 1986, pp.73-81.
  13. Swinburne, Rechard; Is There a God?; New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
  14. Swinburne, Rechard; The Argument from Design, in Contemporary Perspectives on Religious Epistemology; Geivett, R. Douglas & Sweetman, Brendan (ed); New York: Oxford, 1992, pp.201-211.
  15. Zelmanov, Abraham; Chronometric Invariants; New Mexico: American Research Press, 2006.