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.

“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.