1) My primary issue with the standard model was stated in the 2012 blog post Why Intelligent Design Fails As A Theory as follows:
“We say the universe looks fine-tuned because our conceptualisation of fine-tuning has been attributed to the patterns we observe in nature. But don't forget concepts of fine-tuning didn't begin as cosmological observations; they began with concepts related to the adjustment of parameter models within engineering, and the electromagnetic spectrum, with low-end frequencies of things like radio waves, and the high-end frequencies of gamma rays. Fine-tuning is a human conception, and to call the universe fine-tuned for life is rather like claiming that our legs are designed for trousers because they fit in so well.”
2) I have my own variation on the fine-tuning model, which takes a more expansive interpretation of God’s creation, as outlined in my book The Genius of the Invisible God (and as seen in blog posts like The Mathematical Bias Theory: Why There ‘IS’ a God – in 20 Steps
But I want to write an article now, because fine-tuning
arguments for God are interesting (and ultimately compelling at the deepest
level, as per my number 2 above), and they have gained lots of popularity with
the rise of online blogging and podcasts – it’s just that so many
misunderstandings are uttered about them (from both sides) that you’ll do well
to stumble upon a genuinely enlightening conversation about them.
So, let me try to produce something that proves to be worth my while writing, and (hopefully) worth your while reading.
The first thing to say, about point 1 is that, obviously just because fine-tuning is a human conception it doesn’t mean it’s not true. Every description of reality is filtered through human concepts; we have no other means of apprehending the world. The challenge has always been to determine which ones illuminate reality and which merely project our assumptions onto it.
And there are really two distinctions at play here:
1) Conceptual distinction: Fine-tuning is a human-imposed category and may not describe reality itself.
2) Anthropic objection: We observe a life-permitting universe because only in such a universe could observers exist. To use an analogy, a creature can only awaken in a house compatible with its existence, but it does not follow that the house was built for that creature. Similarly, observers can only exist in universes compatible with their existence. Having established that, we are ready to move forward.
How fine tuned does the universe appear to be?
It’s true that the universe appears to be
exquisitely fine-tuned. The parameters that govern the laws of physics are set
within an extraordinarily narrow band, enabling the existence of complex
structures. Take the cosmological constant, which dictates the rate of the
universe’s expansion: if it were slightly stronger, the universe would have
torn itself apart almost instantly. Conversely, if it were just a bit weaker,
it would have collapsed back in on itself before any meaningful structures
could emerge.
The potential range for the cosmological constant, based on our understanding of physics, is immense. Yet, for complexity to arise, it must fall within a minuscule fraction of that range - approximately one part in 10^120, as the argument goes. This figure purports to represent how finely balanced the value must be within its possible range for a universe capable of forming complex structures. The odds of the cosmological constant being fine-tuned to 10^120 are so staggeringly small that it's difficult to comprehend. But if you imagine the entire observable universe filled with grains of sand, with each grain representing a possible value for the cosmological constant - then picking the one correct grain of sand by chance would be far more likely than achieving the necessary fine-tuning.
However, some people are not convinced that this is a good indication of a created universe. One of the most common objections to fine-tuning is the claim that we can’t say that the cosmological constant is rare as we only have one example of it taking on a value. But this gets probability wrong. By that logic, we could never identify any single observed outcome as improbable, because every outcome only occurs once.
No, we say something is probable or improbable as a ratio of favourable cases to total possible cases. That’s why we can say it’s highly probable that it will rain in Norwich at some point in November 2026, but highly improbable that lightning will strike every house on my road at precisely 12:01pm on November 25th 2026.
What the objectors miss is that the rarity of the cosmological constant actually does arise from theoretical models of physics, which define the space of possible values it could take. These models establish the vast range of potential values and demonstrate that the subset compatible with complex structures is incredibly narrow. The rarity is not inferred solely from observing our universe as a single hit, but from the theoretical framework that defines the range of possibilities. Similarly, planet Earth only happened once, but the improbability of Earth-like planets can be evaluated by comparing the total number of planets and the conditions required for a planet to support life.
Consequently, then, the vast improbability of the cosmological constant is determined by comparing the tiny range of life-compatible values to the total theoretical range - and under that probability estimate, it is remarkable. Now, if it were possible that you could randomly choose one grain of sand somewhere on Cromer beach without my knowing which one and leave it in its place, and the next day I went to the same beach and found your grain of sand on my first attempt, you’d have good reason to believe I had some inside knowledge. Similarly, with the cosmological constant, there is a good reason to suppose that those initial conditions were specially selected by a God who knows what is required to create life in this universe.
And let me conclude by saying that the oft-proffered multiverse objection; that the fine-tuning of this universe could be explained by the existence of a multiverse - each with different physical constants - does not remove the explanatory challenge, it merely shifts the very same problem along to an even bigger problem of why there is a multiverse with the capacity to generate such a vast array of universes, each with different physical constants. Such a multiverse would require its own precise conditions or fine-tuning to generate a vast array of universes with varying physical constants.
For a multiverse explanation to succeed, it must generate a sufficiently vast ensemble of universes, with a distribution of constants that makes life-permitting universes unsurprising. However, if there’s no guarantee of equal probability across the range, the multiverse might need vastly more universes to achieve the same likelihood. The improbability of such a multiverse-producing mechanism might itself approach or exceed the improbability of fine-tuning in a single universe. And if the multiverse did indeed confer equal probability across the range, that would also require its own precise conditions or fine-tuning to generate equal probability.
Whichever way we cut the cloth, fine-tuning is astounding, and remains strong evidence for God the cosmic mathematician, but only when conducted in the right way. The reason is that the argument is not really about improbability alone. Improbable things happen all the time. A random arrangement of Scrabble tiles is improbable, but so is one of Mozart’s symphonies or one of Shakespeare’s plays. The difference is that the latter exhibits an identifiable structure that intelligence is known to produce. The real question is whether an outcome displays a recognisable pattern that points to intelligence in a way that augments basic fine-tuning arguments, which is what I’ve attempted to present in my works The Genius of the Invisible God, and The Mathematical Bias Theory.
The big failing of most fine-tuning articles I’ve read is that they underestimate the extent to which fine-tuning is unlike ordinary improbabilities because it concerns not an event within the system or an improbability within a set of probabilities, but the architecture of the system itself. We are dealing with the mathematical conditions that make a created system possible in the first place.
So, to put it in one simple line, it is the reasoning that says: behind the cosmic mathematics stands a cosmic mathematician.
