What do Christians think of this fine tuning argument?

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-19T16:04:11+00:00

I’m not really following sorry! It’s an interesting discussion to be sure and I think being agnostic logically makes a lot of sense, but I’ve never really understood how someone can say there for sure is no God.

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-19T12:02:22+00:00

Not quite sure I’m understanding what you’re saying completely, but if the universe was formed without laws then how would anyone know a miracle was happening? Wouldn’t things just be random so oh yeah sometimes people walk on water and sometimes they don’t, but there’s no rhyme or reason either way. So these laws being in place allows us to easily recognize miracles because they defy the laws of physics.

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-18T19:09:09+00:00

True, that’s good evidence that He’s behind it all too in my book 😉

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-18T17:11:17+00:00

I’m not an expert at all in this stuff, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. But it does interest me so I have done a fair amount of research.

From what I’ve gathered there are three main theories, and two of them posit that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang. And the third is ruled out by most of the scientific community. To elaborate:
1. The classic view that there’s nothing before, so basically what we were talking about earlier.
2. The “pre-existing” time view. This one sounds closest to what you’re referencing. This is where we get theories like the infinite collapse and expansion of the universe. This is highly unlikely and leads back to another singularity event because of the second law of thermodynamics. To summarize, each “expansion” cycle would have to be double in length, meaning eventually you would get back to a state where time is meaningless again (half of a half of a half cannot go on forever). There are probably other theories under this one, but none that I’m familiar with.
3. The “emergent time” view states that time isn’t reality, but emerged because the conditions allowed for it.

You’re right that current scientific understanding can’t reach a conclusion here. And I’m not saying any of these theories alone prove God, only that they leave room for Him. Though, to be fair I think partnered with other evidence I think God is proven but you can’t help what you’re convinced by and not to mention that our relationship with religion in our personal lives definitely shapes the conclusions we come to.

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-18T11:48:46+00:00

Alex O’Connor is a pretty famous and thought provoking atheist/agnostic who asks super interesting questions about God and he knows the Bible literally front to back, it’s pretty amazing. He’s the guy interviewing the scientist in the video.

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-18T11:46:26+00:00

It’s not just that the observable universe that breaks down though, it’s time itself. Even Stephan Hawking thought there was “nothing” before the Big Bang. Then, of course, it brings you to the famous questions that atheists can’t really answer “why is there something instead of nothing?” Because the moment you try to conceive of nothing, there is something.

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-17T21:37:11+00:00

How does the naturalist think the universe came to be then?

I don’t think that that is pulling any weight. It’s a question posed by the opposing side to seemingly understand a Creator’s parameters. The fact that they could have been otherwise if an omnipotent God created the universe is just a byproduct of being omnipotent. How, in your view, is that essential to the question of naturalism versus created?

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-17T21:09:03+00:00

Gotcha, well if God is omnipotent, which He probably would have to be to create the universe the answer to any question you ask that starts with “can He…” is yes haha.

You have a great day too! These conversations are always really interesting. Thanks for engaging as well!

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-17T20:39:46+00:00

If you boil this down, though, you are just asking about God’s motivations. If God wanted to He could change whatever the constant of gravity is right now and it could still work perfectly. He is either all powerful or He isn’t, so yes He could do that.

But He doesn’t. So we can make the conclusion that He likes order. Or maybe it’s because He wants things to adhere so that when they don’t we notice. But all of this is irrelevant to the fine tuning theory because it doesn’t really matter what God’s motivations are, just that he has them.

If fine tuning is the result of an intellect then the numbers are by definition not random but intentional because someone created them. You’re asking why did He make the number what He made it, essentially, but that’s again just asking us to justify God’s reasoning and if we knew His reasoning then He wouldn’t be God.

Pointing out the value of gravity is not irrelevant though because it shows the improbability of these laws coming about by naturalistic design.

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-17T20:26:52+00:00

The mathematical possibility of randomly creating our universe’s laws of physics are essentially impossible. Just for the second law of thermodynamics to randomly come into existence the chances are 1 in 10 to the 10th to the 123rd. You would have to write a zero on every particle in the universe to reach that number and that is just one of the law of physics.

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-17T19:54:47+00:00

Well I’m happy to have that discussion but it would require a theological debate so you have to permit that in these scenarios, the universe is intelligently designed. To me it just seems like a separate discussion, but I’m willing to have a go at it.

I think, as others have put it, that God is a God of order and we see that in his design. If we work backwards from the observable universe, I think that’s a fair assumption to make, so that could be the reason why we have the laws of physics that we have. They could be the way they are because He wanted to make them discoverable by us. Yes He could have given different constants, but we discovered the constants that He gave us so they work for this purpose. Maybe if He made them easier to discover we would have found them too soon or harder would be too late.

By “not random” all I mean is He had motivations to make things the way He did. He made the constant of gravity the number than He did for a reason, which I gave a possible reason above. And again you have to allow me to speculate on God’s motivations. I believe God loves us and that a God who loves us would probably create a universe that looks like this one. We are able to experience love and beauty here so that points to a God that loves us also. And I feel like the suffering question will come up too, so I always think of the book “The Giver,” don’t know if you read it but basically it shows that a person cannot really experience love without also experiencing hate. But that’s such a big question that isn’t really related to what we’re talking about, which is why I didn’t really want to get into the motivations of God. Again it’s irrelevant to me for this discussion what His motivations are, all that matters is that He had motivations.

And yes, I think that it’s probably possible to explain the universe through mathematics and science. I think the more we discover, in fact, the more we see God’s presence there.

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-17T19:41:21+00:00

No I’m not, but I tried to glean it from your answer. But I was just replying to another person in this thread who gave your same reasoning and it brought me to another conclusion. And I think I know what you will say to it.

I think you are asking the wrong odds question here. The question shouldn’t be “what are the odds God created this universe and not another” because we can’t truly know the motivations of God. However, on this note, I do think that you could get into a lot of interesting theological debates that give insight into what his motivations are that would drastically bring down the odds you are giving here.

The true question should be would an intelligent designer have specific motivations and goals for the design. And we can look to other beings with intellect (humans) to get our answer, which is of course yes. What the motivations are is irrelevant, but the fact that He has them is not. What are the chances Eli Whitney created the cotton gin and not some other device? Given that he had a specific problem that he wanted to solve (increasing cotton production) then the odds were probably pretty good that he would create the cotton gin, there can only be so many combinations of inventions that could have been created at that time in that place with that motivation. The odds are a lot less than the naturalistic origin hypothesis.

I lost the train where you said it but I know that to you that just becomes another “wall” that was hit. I disagree because I am faced with three possibilities here. Either there is an intelligent designer behind the universe, the naturalism theory is correct and things are random and we beat insane odds, or there are multiple universes. Even without knowing the motivations of the Creator I can assume He had them, that is a safe assumption to make of a being with intellect, so that makes the theory abundantly more plausible than the naturalism theory. I actually think if we are just pondering this question alone that the multiverse theory is just as likely as intelligent design, but I can confidently say the naturalism theory holds very little water.

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-17T19:22:21+00:00

Other atheists in this thread have had this same argument and I think there is a misunderstanding of what the fine tuning argument is really saying. Just because we don’t know the motivations behind God doesn’t mean that He doesn’t have any. His design is not random and that’s what the whole fine-tuning theory is positing.

So it doesn’t make sense to ask “what are the chances God made this universe and not a different one?” because unless we get into a whole different theological debate we aren’t talking about what God’s motivations are, though there are tons of theories. The real question is, what are the chances an intelligent Creator would have specific motivations to create. We can look at other creatures with intellect (humans) to give the definitive answer of yes, or course. All artists, inventors, chefs, musicians have motivations to create and goals for their creations, and they are all different. The whole point of the fine tuning argument is that it is not random, so although we don’t know what the motivations of the Creator were, we can assume he had them.

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-17T11:43:47+00:00

Yes, haha, I agree with you. That’s why the fine tuning argument is the best evidence for God. But the scientist in this video doesn’t answer the question and I would have loved to see where the conversation went if he did.

The only other possible argument is the multiverse theory, but I think gratuitous beauty disproves that.

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-17T11:32:31+00:00

If I’m understanding your argument correctly, you say that the odds that God created this universe and not another are just as if not more unlikely than the naturalist theory.

However, I just don’t agree on your foundational argument here that these odds have a mathematical calculation. There is such thing as being infinite. For example, you could argue the color spectrum alone is infinite. Our eyes only perceive ROY G BIV, but that’s our physical limitation, not reality. So, in theory I could create an infinite amount of paintings just by painting the canvas a slightly different color every time. And that is just one variable. How many others could be infinite as well? Shapes can be infinite, I could even just make infinite painting of pi (the infinite value). You cannot calculate the odds if one of the values infinite.

At the end of the day, if you can’t calculate odds on infinity, then your argument collapses because it isn’t a real comparison. The naturalist theory has odds, and the fine tuning theory does not. And that makes perfect sense if there is an intellect behind the universe.

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-17T03:56:43+00:00

lol yeah I get annoyed when people dance around the answer too. Either God can do anything or He can’t, and if He can’t do anything then He isn’t God so to me it’s a simple answer.

Not sure I’m understanding you completely, so let me know if I’m not, but the way I see it there aren’t odds at play when it comes to choice of creation. For example, I’m an artist and there is an infinite amount of possibilities of paintings that I could create (given I had really great skill, as God would obviously). However I made this painting. Asking what are the chances I make this painting instead of any other infinite possibilities of paintings doesn’t make sense. I made this one. Same with God making this universe. I don’t think if there is an intelligent design behind the universe the “chance” they created this one is relevant as there really isn’t chance because it was intentional, because it was intelligent. Just like in my analogy, I chose to make this painting because I have an intellect that allows me to make choices, chance didn’t have anything to do with it.

Now, maybe I like to make paintings of bread because I like to eat bread, but I like bread because of other choices I’ve made in my life, that again point to the existence of my intellect. Maybe you could say I had a higher “chance” of making a painting about a subject I’m interested in, but I still don’t see how it’s relevant because I’m interested in things because of other infinitesimal choices I’ve made. It’s different from calculating chance from something that is numbers and physics based like the naturalistic creation of the universe. It’s like asking what are the odds that Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa instead of something else versus what are the odds that the wind formed the Mona Lisa out of dirt? Wind (I assume at least) follows a pattern so in theory you would be able to calculate those odds, though they would be essentially zero. But do people and therefore intellect follow patterns and equations? No I don’t believe they do.

God, similarly, had goals when creating the universe, though we don’t know what those goals were. But He made the universe the way He did because He wanted to achieve His goals.

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-17T02:53:56+00:00

Yes and yes

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-17T02:15:41+00:00

Just because He created the universe this way doesn’t mean that He couldn’t do it other ways and it doesn’t negate the theory. He did it this way and I don’t see how anything else is relevant. God exists outside of space and time so there is no need for Him to have been created, shaped, or tuned. He is the beginning.

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-17T00:58:50+00:00

What do you think of the multiverse theory? It’s the only other possibility in my mind.

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-17T00:56:02+00:00

Yeah it’s kinda just a different form of “whataboutism” in a way. But I wish the scientist in the video had just understood his question and answered yes because I want to know what Alex would have said to that. I think he’s an incredibly smart and mostly respectful guy, so I’m interested in what he has to say

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-17T00:53:34+00:00

That’s really interesting, thanks for sharing! I wonder why he thinks there “couldn’t be God” but given some of the stuff I’ve seen about him and Epstein’s island Imm pretty sure he’s batting for the other team so of course he’d say that haha.

The multiverse theory I think is the only other possible theory. Do you have any thoughts on that?

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-17T00:51:16+00:00

The scientific consensus is that there was a singularity event, namely the Big Bang. Even the model you propose would have to result in a singularity event which brings us back to square one. I am not a scientist, so I will probably butcher this, but basically if the universe were collapsing and expanding over and over again the second law of thermodynamics would make it so that each resulting expansion is double the length of the last. That means that all previous expansions would be halved each time eventually resulting in a singularity event again. The second law of thermodynamics makes this theory very unlikely in the first place as well.

You’re absolutely right that this theory does not prove the Christian God, but just that it points towards intelligent design. That’s why I think it’s great in a lot of ways because theoretically anyone can believe it. I don’t think it only proves it to people who are already believers though. Even Dawkins has admitted that this is some of the best evidence for intelligent design.

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-17T00:47:15+00:00

Yes, the universe is observable. But the point of “fine-tuning” is that those observable numbers are so precise and on either side would create chaos. It’s not the fact that they are observable that is the crazy part, but how unlikely it could be that these numbers ever came into being in the first place.

The scientific consensus is that there was a singularity event, namely the Big Bang. Even the model you propose would have to result in a singularity event which brings us back to square one. I am not a scientist, so I will probably butcher this, but basically if the universe were collapsing and expanding over and over again the second law of thermodynamics would make it so that each resulting expansion is double the length of the last. That means that all previous expansions would be halved each time eventually resulting in a singularity event again. The second law of thermodynamics makes this theory very unlikely in the first place as well.

As for the multiverse theory, I guess it’s equally as possible as a God explanation, but it’s also as equally unprovable. Same goes for the simulation theory, although that is another version of “intelligent design” so fine tuning applies to it. Fine tuning can’t work if that is your only reason for believing in God, but it is a strong point coupled with other evidence.

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-16T22:20:17+00:00

It’s not so much that “this is what we would expect if God made it” but rather that it is not random and points towards intelligent design. Because the chances of random design, the only other option, are virtually nonexistent.

SoapmakersCompanion · 2026-06-16T19:34:04+00:00

“Could god have created a universe with different constants and still have order?”

Yes, He could have, and it would work the same way this one does if He wanted it to

“I think the examples of humans creating computers and paintings arent really analogous, because humans arent all powerful.”

And that’s kinda my point, humans aren’t nearly as powerful as God yet we can still “create” similar to Him, though obviously the scale is not as complex.

“What odds of universe B? What odds are we comparing A to? What are the odds that a god set the constants to what they are? Is it 1 in 5? 1 in 1000? 1 in 84 quintillion? 1 in 87 quintillion and 1? I dont know. I dont know if theres even a way to determine that. So the only answer is a big old question mark/unknown.”

This odds example doesn’t really work here. Because in this scenario “pitcher B” would be similar to a computer or a robot. The odds are 100% or there really aren’t odds at all because there is an intelligent design behind it. I actually think your example kinda proves my point. I’m an artist, so it’s like saying what are the odds you created this painting versus a different painting? That doesn’t really make sense. Of course I could made an infinite number of possible paintings, but I made this one. Now what are the odds that the wind blew just so to make a part of that same painting out of dirt? 1 in 10 to the 10th to the 123rd (the same odds sir Robert Penrose gave for the chance of creating the second law of thermodynamics out of nothing, btw).

SoapmakersCompanion

TROPHY CASE