Could the fine-tuning argument be wielded in a slightly different way? I have in mind the simple observation that for all of human history as far as I can tell, the debate has yet to be settled. Intelligent people on one side affirm God’s existence. Intelligent people on another side do not. There seems to be sufficient fodder for both sides to wield. And not merely sufficient but rather the question itself seems to be accompanied by such a finely tuned amount of evidence to accommodate either side and perpetuate the discussion for all of human history so far.
And so here I am in 2025 writing this blog and believing in God. And here you are reading this blog and perhaps believing with me or perhaps not. I suppose the question is, if there were no God, do we have good reason to expect there would be such a delicate balance of evidence for both sides to grab on to?
Leave a Reply