On the Rational Reconstruction of the Fine-Tuning Argument: A Response to Robin Collins and Alexander R. Pruss
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The incorrect determination of Ω is what McGrew, McGrew, and Vestrup criticized, and ad-hoc attempts to force a finite sample space from an infinite one do not seem convincing.
“The incorrect determination of Ω is what McGrew, McGrew, and Vestrup criticized, and ad-hoc attempts to force a finite sample space from an infinite one do not seem convincing [32].”
From Is cosmological tuning fine or coarse? (2021) · cites this paper as [32]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe
Collins, R. (2009) · The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology · doi:10.1002/9781444308334.ch4 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Manson, N. A. (2009) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2008.00188.x · Cited by 41 · see citing works
(2013) · Philosopher's Imprint · Cited by 38 · see citing works
The nomological argument for the existence of God
Hildebrand, T., & Metcalf, T. (2022) · Noûs · doi:10.1111/nous.12364 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
“…about assigning probabilities to sample spaces that aren’t normalizable (Manson 2009, McGrew et al. 2001, Collins 2005, Pruss 2005, McGrew and McGrew 2005). well-known objections.15 Despite this controversy, we’ll simply assume that it’s possible to defend explanatory arguments along these…”
BackgroundIs cosmological tuning fine or coarse?
Díaz-Pachón, D. A., Hössjer, O., & Marks II, R. J. (2021) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/07/020 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Is It Possible to Know Cosmological Fine-tuning?
Pachón, D. A. D., Hössjer, O., & Mathew, C. (2024) · The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad2c88 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“This legitimate criticism of FT measurements came from philosophy, where it was called the normalization problem ( McGrew et al. 2001, 2018; Colyvan et al. 2005; McGrew & McGrew 2005 ) .”
BackgroundSometimes Size Does Not Matter
Pachón, D. A. D., Hössjer, O., & Marks, R. J. (2022) · Foundations of Physics · doi:10.1007/s10701-022-00650-1 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“McGrew and McGrew look to be the first to note that small intervals can correspond to large probabilities [4].”
BackgroundPage, B. (2018) · Res Philosophica · doi:10.11612/resphil.1659 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
The problem of invoking infinite polytheisms: a response to Raphael Lataster and Herman Philipse
Saward, M. D. (2016) · International Journal for Philosophy of Religion · doi:10.1007/s11153-016-9585-y · Cited by 2 · see citing works
The Universe’s Fine-Tuning Does Call for Explanation
Fumagalli, R. (2025) · Journal for General Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s10838-025-09734-8 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“…most authors (including many critics of FTAs) concur that FTAs are “unfairly weakened” if they are “saddled with the requirement that [their] probability claims must be objective claims about nature” (Monton 2006, 407–408; also McGrew and McGrew 2005, 435; Weisberg 2010, 433, for similar remarks).”
Collins’ core fine-tuning argument
Saward, M. D. (2014) · International Journal for Philosophy of Religion · doi:10.1007/s11153-014-9453-6 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- McGrew, L., McGrew, T., & Evangelical Philosophical Society
- ORCID
- McGrew, Lydia
- Venue
- Philosophia Christi
- Publisher
- Philosophy Documentation Center
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 425-443
- ISSN
- 1529-1634 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2900717368
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Philosophia Christi (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Theology and Philosophy of Evil
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Keywords
- fine-tuning argument, cosmological argument, rational reconstruction, design argument
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
