Is this a blow to fine tuning arguments?

The physics is beyond me, but I found this article interesting in that it would seemingly eliminate fine tuning arguments. Essentially it states that the universe is as it is because it couldn’t be anything else, as I interpret it. Any thoughts?


If so, hallelujah. If there is a God and He wishes to be unambiguously known to all, surely He is at least potent enough to accomplish that. If there is a God and he does not wish to be unambiguously known some people would be better off to stop trying to out this closeted God.

1 Like

This only reinforces my own objection that probabilities which cannot be calculated are meaningless, or at least amount to no more than a purely subjective judgement. But I think this claim that the laws of physics are inevitable is just as subjective and in some ways the word “bootrap” is just another way of saying that the whole argument is circular. I think that like the multiverse idea this is an example of fighting fire with fire. If theists are just going make stuff up to support their beliefs then why shouldn’t the atheists do the same?

But as an objection to fine tuning it is enough to say that many of the way things are could be inevitable and thus to talk about probabilities in connection with them are pure fantasy. Certainly there is plenty of precedent for finding at that some of laws of nature are a result of physical processes, but some of these processes (like spontaneous symmetry breaking) are completely random so the claim of inevitability frankly sounds a bit absurd as well.


Based on my understanding, fine tuning arguments/evidences are not falsifiable. So, whether the laws of Physics are inevitable or not, doesn’t change fine tuning one bit.

If it were found, for example, that a man can live on Mars, then it would just point to an Intelligent Designer, just as if the opposite were found (i.e that a man cannot live on Mars).

1 Like

  – What’s stopping Roger Penrose from believing that God created the Universe?

1 Like

To be honest this made it seem even more relevant that it was fine tuned if anything at all.

I feel like all it did was show how the tuning was and is still found on such a extremely small level and how it systemically all fits together as if that was its very purpose.

All metaphors break down. There is no need for supernatural fine tuning. Chance and necessity will do that at the threshold of the multiverse.

You neglect that God is omnitemporal.
“We have to believe in free will, we have no choice.” I.B. Singer :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

1 Like

I neglect no such thing.

The ‘like’ is for the Singer. Isaac Bashevis of course,

This (if it were true) would be the greatest argument in favor of fine tuning.

It would be a blow to the common misconception of fine tuning, namely that it is related to the (unknowable) probability of our physics being infinitesimally small.

What fine tuning actually means (whether it is right or wrong) is this: It is the claim that the habitability of our universe is on an unstable point in the physics parameter space. If you change things just a bit the universe is uninhabitable. (It does not demand that there are no other habitable points, just that they aren’t near ours.)

In other words, the fine tuning is related to the sensitivity of the universe’s habitability to changes in the physics. That’s it. Properly understood it makes no claim about whether the probability of our universe is small or large.

If the probability of our physics is in fact unity, then you have the best possible prima facie evidence for a designer. For the physics would be inevitable and yet the universe would still be riding on an unstable equilibrium. With no multiverse (each universe with random physics) to save the day, the only counter argument to design would be pure luck.

I have been tilting at this windmill for literally two decades: the low probability case that the IDers champion is actually the worst case if you want to point to a designer, for it is exactly what the multiverse predicts. The best case scenario for hinting at design is the “inevitable” universe. In that scenario, habitability has been built into the fabric of spacetime.


God is omnitemporal and there is no such thing as chance.

Right. We really do inhabit totally different spacetime continua.

God is not meta-Bender, a clock, from Futurama with the infinite movie of eternity in His chest.

Toss a coin.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.