In a paper titled Is our existence in need of further explanation, Carlson argues that our universe, even if fine tuned, and even if granted to have a meaningfully very low probability, does not need a creator nor does it need a multiverse to explain it.
He says, “If there are many cosmoi, was their creation a chance event? Might there instead have been only half as many cosmoi, or just a few, or a single one? And if there is a cosmos creator, might it have been the case that he had not existed, or that he had chosen to create some other cosmos, or none at all? If the answers to these questions are positive, the creator-or-many-cosmoi theorist has merely pushed the invoking of chance one step back in the explanatory chain. This achievement does not make her hypothesis preferable to the single-cosmos- plus-chance hypothesis. Admittedly, she may speculate about some `hidden necessity’ behind the existence of many cosmoi, or a creator. But the single- cosmos-without-creator theorist may with equal justification (or lack thereof) speculate that the existence of our cosmos is somehow necessary, thus removing the element of chance from his hypothesis.”
One could respond to this by stating that even if the cosmos’s existence initially is necessary, it does not follow that everything else within the cosmos is necessary. Given indeterminism in quantum mechanics, one can argue that the universe’s state of affairs then cannot be necessary. One can’t say the same for God if we simply define God to be necessary not just in terms of His existence but also His actions.
But what if one changes the argument to “in need of an explanation” instead of using the word “necessary”? Are these the same things?
For example, does the following reasoning work: “God is posited to be a necessary being who always existed. One can still ask why He is necessary, with His particular attributes, instead of anything else. One can respond to this by stating that He is in no need of an explanation. But if this can be done without justification, then one can state that the universe, even if indeterministic, needs no explanation.”
If legitimate, then something not needing explanation does not depend upon whether something is deterministic or not. Is this true?