Friday, March 24, 2023
HomeDebate ReligionThe fine tuning argument does not work under an omnipotent God

The fine tuning argument does not work under an omnipotent God

There are two mutually exclusive premises for the universe;

1) A multiverse is possible, excluding the acts of God.
2) A multiverse is not possible, excluding the acts of God.

The fine tuning argument for God relies on premise 1 to be false. If premise 1 were true, it would be plausible for the universe we live in to exist without a conscious creator.

God, as an omnipotent being with the ability to create this universe, must therefore have the ability to create different universes to ours, with different constants.
This is problematic though, as it means that the meta-law preventing a multiverse is able to be broken through omnipotence.

The issue I have with this is that it is an unfounded belief that only a God such as theirs could be omnipotent. I wouldn’t even believe that an omnipotent actor would need to be conscious. An omnipotent process (not completely omnipotent, but with the ability to break meta-laws) that could create a multiverse is just as plausible as an omnipotent God.

View Reddit by Royim02View Source

Mary Johnson
Mary Johnson
I have been reading and writing for over 20 years. My passion is reading and I would like to someday write a novel. I enjoy exercise and shopping.


  1. Its not that the multiverse theory is impossible, the argument would be that it simply isn’t true whilst still being possible. In the same way that God could have made a universe where the stars have googly eyes but didn’t. God could have made the multiverse but didn’t.

  2. Fine tuning doesn’t even work on earth.

    Can all life live on land? Can all life live in the waters. Did you know there is a bacteria that has developed recently to eat at the plastic in the ocean? Can any other creature do that?

    Would a lion do well in the arctic?

    Why isn’t there more planerts with life on them and why can’t we just go to them and walk around? Wouldn’t the world or universe being tuned for life would mean life would be everywhere that anyone and anything could be there and without need of any kind of assistance?

  3. I think you’re over complicating it with a multiverse. At its core, the fine tuning argument fails before getting out of the gate because it’s setting up a ‘heads I win, tales you lose’ position.

    If life exists and it appears fine tuned, then a creator is required.
    But if life exists and everything shows it shouldn’t be possible, well that would be a miracle requiring a god.

    If finding *x* proves a premise and finding *not x* proves the same premise, then one should probably consider the person making the argument either doesn’t understand what evidence is, or they do and are just hoping their audience doesn’t.

  4. There is little reason to believe that a multiverse provides a serious objection to the fine-tuning argument, so both premise 1 could be true. More important than that, no defender of the Fine-Tuning argument would defend premise 2. You need to rephrase that heavily since it currently entails that our universe is the only possible universe, making it basically the modern Oppy-an response to the FTA.

  5. >I wouldn’t even believe that an omnipotent actor would need to be conscious.

    If they weren’t conscious they wouldn’t be able to think, and ergo definitionally could not be omnipotent, as there is at least one thing they are unable to do.

Comments are closed.

Most Popular