Precision is the fine-tuning argument's wedge. Several fundamental parameters appear to lie in ranges compatible with complex structure that are narrow relative to commonly discussed comparison ranges. The often-cited 10¹²⁰ figure for the cosmological constant primarily expresses the discrepancy between observed vacuum energy and a naive Planck-scale estimate, not straightforwardly the width of a life-permitting interval. The tradition reads the broader sensitivity evidence as evidence of selection and the selection as evidence of a selector. The resulting inference is a serious empirical challenge to the necessity claim for T, S, and Φ (the three structural conditions, borne by Time, Space, and Substance) defended in §[§2.1](<2.1 The S5 Pipeline.md>)–2.6. The fine-tuning argument is a single inference (from narrow-window precision of the constants to selection) with two extensions the theist presses when the core inference meets resistance. The reply follows this shape rather than treating the three versions as independent objections.

Against the core inference, two lines apply pressure: McGrew, McGrew, and Vestrup (Timothy McGrew, Lydia McGrew and Eric Vestrup, 2001) challenge the choice of measure, while Carter (Brandon Carter, 1974) and Bostrom (Nick Bostrom, 2002) show that observer selection must be included in the likelihood model. Against the multiverse extension, the reply asks whether the higher-order mechanism and its parameters receive independent support or merely move the explanatory burden. Against Swinburne's Bayesian cumulative case (Richard Swinburne, 2004), the issue is whether theism and its rivals supply justified comparative likelihoods for embodied observers of our kind.

Beneath all three forms lies a prior question: what alternative configurations and comparison class the probability model is licensed to range over. And beyond the bare inference lies a stronger reading (that the universe is not merely life-permitting but life-intended) which separates cleanly from the core argument and fails on its own terms.

The reply takes the prior question first, then the three forms, then the teleological gloss. The observation behind the argument is not in dispute. The constants of this universe do sit within narrow ranges compatible with complex structure. The account contests the inference from the observation to selection, not the observation itself.

The fine-tuning tradition is the empirical wing of natural theology's design inheritance. Where Paley's watchmaker reasons from biological complexity to a designer, the post-Paley inheritors ((Robin Collins, 2009); (Luke A. Barnes, 2012); (Richard Swinburne, 2004); and (Plantinga, A., 2011) at selective points) reason from the values of the fundamental physical constants to the same conclusion. Substantial changes in the effective cosmological constant relative to the observed value can prevent galaxies and other complex structures from forming; the exact life-permitting range depends on the model and on which parameters are varied together. Vary the strong force coupling by a few percent and stable atomic nuclei do not form. The quantitative sensitivities have been catalogued with professional care. What is contested is whether precision of this kind, against the background of no further specification of the alternatives, is genuinely evidence of selection. The naturalist reply has two heads. Anthropic reasoning ((Brandon Carter, 1974); (Nick Bostrom, 2002)) notes that observers can only observe observer-permitting conditions. This supplies a selection effect, not by itself a complete explanation of why any observer-permitting universe exists; its force depends on the cosmological ensemble and observation-selection model adopted. The probabilistic critique (Timothy McGrew, Lydia McGrew and Eric Vestrup, 2001) argues that the likelihood calculations the theist runs presuppose a measure over an unbounded parameter space for which no canonical measure exists. The present account absorbs both replies and adds a third: the precision is not a feature of a configuration picked out from among rivals but a feature of what a configuration within T, S, and Φ must look like to be a configuration at all.

The challenge bears on [§2.4](<2.4 Structural Requirement.md>) most directly. T and S, defended there as necessary structural conditions, admit no variation: not because the values of physical constants are fixed at a particular numerical setting, but because the roles T and S discharge are logically prior to anything a numerical setting could register. Fine-tuning compares this configuration to alternative configurations. The comparison is coherent only at a level where 'configuration' has content, which is within the structural order. What follows presses the point that the argument's demand for a tuner applies the idiom of selection one level above where it has purchase. One question stands upstream of the entire dialectic and is taken first; three forms of the move then take up the objection at the level of the inference itself.

*The prior question.* Probability is downstream of possibility. Before assigning a physical chance distribution, one must establish a genuine space of alternative outcomes. A Bayesian confirmation argument can instead use epistemic probabilities over rival hypotheses, but it must still justify its comparison class, priors, and likelihoods. Mere ignorance about whether the constants are necessary does not by itself provide a canonical distribution over their values. This question sits upstream of the normalizability problem: McGrew, McGrew, and Vestrup (Timothy McGrew, Lydia McGrew and Eric Vestrup, 2001) show that even granting a space of alternatives, no canonical measure over it exists; the prior question asks whether the space has been shown to exist at all.

The proponent has a practiced escape. Probability, they note, need not wait on metaphysics; rational agents assign credences to propositions whose modal status is fixed but unknown all the time. Goldbach's conjecture is either necessarily true or necessarily false, yet a mathematician may rationally hold it to 0.99 on inductive grounds; so (the move runs) one need not first prove the alternative constants metaphysically possible in order to spread a credence across them and call the actual values surprising. The escape shows that a Bayesian design argument can use epistemic probabilities without positing an objective chance process that sampled the constants. Rational credences can be evidentially responsive even when the proposition is necessarily true or false. The remaining burden is comparative: the proponent must justify the likelihoods and priors under theism and its rivals, rather than infer an ontic selector directly from an objective frequency distribution. Epistemic probability can support an abductive conclusion, but only through defensible comparative likelihoods; it cannot be treated as if it revealed a literal sampling process over constants.

A second escape runs the other way: perhaps the alternatives only seem possible. Kripke (Kripke, Saul A., 1980) shows that some truths are necessary but knowable only a posteriori (that water is H₂O, that Hesperus is Phosphorus) so that what presents itself as a contingent setting can be a necessary one wearing the appearance of contingency. If the constants are necessary a posteriori, the apparent space of alternatives is an illusion of contingency, and the fine-tuning improbability never gets started. The present account does not lean on this claim, and notes the standing counter: Chalmers (Chalmers, David J., 2002) argues from modal rationalism that ideal conceivability does track genuine possibility, so the appearance of contingency cannot be dismissed so cheaply. The dialectic is unsettled, and the account does not rest on settling it. It rests only on the asymmetry the prior question fixes: the burden lies with the proponent to establish that the alternatives are possible in the sense the measure requires, and that burden has not been discharged. And the account's own positive footing is insulated from the dispute in any case. What it asserts of complex structure (that a structure-permitting, life-permitting configuration is always available to necessary T, S, and Φ) is a necessary possibility, not a claim that the constants could not have differed; a claim of that form stands whether or not ideal conceivability tracks genuine possibility, since conceiving the constants otherwise leaves a necessary possibility exactly where it was. The dispute the proponent would need to win to revive the inference is therefore one the account can decline from either side.

One discipline must be observed in pressing this. The claim is not that the numerical values of the constants are necessary: that is a separate and stronger thesis, argued elsewhere and not needed here. The claim is that the structural conditions T, S, and Φ are necessary, while the contingency of the particular numerical settings within them is unestablished. The argument requires that contingency as a premise and has not earned it. The conclusion is not 'the values are necessary' but 'the values have not been shown to be contingent in the sense the inference needs', and an inference that presupposes an unestablished premise does not transmit its conclusion.

*First.* The precision argument, in its contemporary form, runs from likelihood ratios rather than intuition. Collins and Barnes do not rely on intuition; they rely on comparative probabilities. If life is extraordinarily rare across the space of possible constants under naturalism, and non-rare under theism, then the narrow-window observation confirms theism. The form of the argument is Bayesian: P(tuning | theism) / P(tuning | naturalism) is large, and observing tuning updates credence toward theism.

The calculation requires a probability measure over the space of possible constants. McGrew, McGrew, and Vestrup (Timothy McGrew, Lydia McGrew and Eric Vestrup, 2001) press a serious measure problem: an unbounded parameter space admits no uniform normalizable measure, and the ratio of life-permitting to life-forbidding regions is undefined without additional constraints. Defenders answer with restricted ranges, scale-sensitive priors, or direct likelihood comparisons, so the objection imposes a burden rather than refuting every Bayesian formulation. 'One part in 10¹²⁰' presupposes a flat measure over an interval that extends to infinity in both directions; a log-uniform measure would yield a different ratio; a measure weighted by physical plausibility another; and the argument offers no principled reason to prefer any of them. The sensitivity of the conclusion to the measure chosen is as large as the purported fine-tuning itself. Stenger's *The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning* (Victor J. Stenger, 2011) observes that many of the 'fine-tuned' constants are only fine-tuned relative to a particular parameterization; under different but empirically equivalent parameterizations, the apparent precision dissolves. Carroll (Sean Carroll, 2016) notes that whether the tuning is 'fine' depends on what set of possible universes one is comparing the actual one to, a set the theist has not specified.

The most developed reply on the theist's side is Collins's (Robin Collins, 2009), which concedes that the full parameter space admits no canonical measure and restricts the comparison to an *epistemically illuminated* range: the interval of values across which the life-permitting effect of variation can actually be assessed, within which, Collins argues, a normalizable measure is available and the life-permitting sub-region is vanishingly small.

The restriction relocates the problem rather than resolving it. An epistemically illuminated range is bounded by what inquirers can currently model, not by what is metaphysically possible, so a measure defined over it is a measure over the reach of present physics, and confidence drawn from it is confidence about that reach, not about a space of ways the constants could have been. This is the objective-epistemic conflation the prior question already isolates, reappearing one level in: Collins secures a normalizable measure by substituting an epistemic boundary for a modal one. And even granting the illuminated range as a genuine space of alternatives, the measure over it is still unfixed, since a uniform and a log-uniform measure on the same finite interval deliver different ratios and the argument supplies no principled reason to prefer either. The coarse-tuning observation that the life-permitting band is narrow on any reasonable measure survives the restriction, but it establishes only that the band is narrow relative to the illuminated range, which is a fact about the range our physics can survey, not evidence that the constants were drawn from a wider space and selected from it.

Anthropic reasoning makes a complementary point that does not duplicate the measure problem. Carter (Brandon Carter, 1974) and Bostrom (Nick Bostrom, 2002) argue that observers can only find themselves in observation-permitting conditions: not because observation causes the conditions, but because the selection effect is built into what it is to be an observer making an observation at all. Were the constants otherwise, no one would be measuring them. The present account extends the anthropic point rather than replacing it: T, S, and Φ are not conditions that happen to be observer-permitting; they are conditions that make observation possible in the first place. An observation that these conditions obtain is made from within them. That fact requires an observation-selection correction, but it does not by itself show that the observation has no evidential bearing beyond the conditions.

*Second.* The multiverse-insufficiency extension presses the design inference up one level. Conceding everything naturalist cosmology asks for (a universe-generating mechanism, an ensemble of universes, a stochastic process sampling parameter space) the theist ((Robin Collins, 2009), §6; (Luke A. Barnes, 2012)) argues that the fine-tuning demand reappears at the meta-level rather than dissolving. Any universe-generating mechanism must have its own structure: laws governing what universes it produces, a range of constants it can assign, a probability measure over outcomes. Those higher-order parameters are themselves either contingent (so the fine-tuning demand reappears at the meta-level) or necessary (so the theist concedes the destination of the present account). The regress of designers, the theist argues, does not terminate in the multiverse; it terminates in whatever fixes the multiverse.

Two replies. Hacking's inverse-gambler objection warns that observing one apparently unusual outcome does not automatically support many unobserved trials. Contemporary multiverse arguments often add independent cosmology and an observation-selection rule, so the objection constrains naive inferences rather than every multiverse explanation.

The sharper reply is available within the modal framework defended in §[§2.1](<2.1 The S5 Pipeline.md>)–2.6 rather than from the fine-tuning dialectic's neutral empirical register; conditional on that framework, S5 preserves the necessity of any genuinely necessary higher-order parameter. It does not identify the parameter or explain its high-resolution content. Necessary meta-parameters would be invariant features of the ensemble theory, but T, S, and Φ are too coarse to determine their specific values or probability law. The structural roles constrain any genuine universe-generating realizer; they do not identify every higher-order parameter or meta-tuner with the triad. Readers unconvinced by the prior modal framework can rely on the McGrew normalizability point alone: that closure is framework-neutral, and the S5 closure is a further sharpening available only on top of it.

*Third.* The Bayesian cumulative case, pursued most carefully by Swinburne (Richard Swinburne, 2004), takes the argument in a more restrained probabilistic direction, retreating from entailment to confirmation. Swinburne does not claim the fine-tuning observation entails a designer; he claims it raises the probability of theism relative to naturalism by a non-trivial factor, and that when combined with other probabilistic considerations, the cumulative case for theism becomes compelling: simplicity (the prior-from-simplicity wing of Swinburne's case, engaged at [§5.1.4](<5.1.4 Argument from Simplicity.md>)), the existence of consciousness, and the phenomenon of moral awareness. Fine-tuning is one weight on a larger scale.

Monton (Bradley Monton, 2006) isolates the structural problem with the fine-tuning weight specifically. If God is omnipotent, God can instantiate conscious beings in any logically possible configuration. The present configuration is not therefore necessary for the existence of conscious beings. But if it is not necessary for the existence of conscious beings, the theist cannot explain why God selected this one rather than another except by appeal to divine preference, which does no Bayesian work: preference is compatible with any observation and discriminates between no hypotheses. The probability P(this configuration | theism) is as free as divine preference allows; which is to say, unanchored; which is to say, unable to contribute a determinate likelihood ratio.

A sharper version presses on the theist's own commitments rather than on Bayesian bookkeeping. God is held to be a conscious being not in this universe. If the constants of this universe are necessary for the existence of conscious beings, no conscious beings exist outside this universe, and God does not exist as characterized. If these constants are not necessary for consciousness simpliciter, the fine-tuning argument must be stated more narrowly in terms of embodied observers or life of our general kind. That limits the conclusion but does not make the observation evidentially null; comparative likelihoods may still differ over how readily rival hypotheses produce such observers. The fine-tuning premise concerns embodied life or observers generated by physical laws, whereas God is proposed as an unembodied mind. That is not a simple equivocation, but it narrows the evidence: the likelihood comparison must explain why theism predicts a physically life-permitting cosmos of this sort rather than merely the existence of consciousness somewhere.

*The teleological gloss.* The inference examined so far concludes only that the constants were selected; it is silent on what for. A stronger reading is almost always present in the tradition and rarely separated out: that the universe is not merely life-permitting but life-intended, tuned for life, with life as the purpose the tuning serves. This gloss is separable from the bare inference, and it fails on its own terms, independently of whether the bare inference succeeds. It is also the reading that carries the argument's rhetorical force, so its collapse matters.

*Any-tuning.* The gloss assumes that this configuration is specially suited to conscious life: that life is what these constants are for. But that only configurations near ours could host conscious beings is precisely what the argument has not shown. For all that is known, most configurations might support life of some kind; our inability to imagine it reflects the limits of our physics, not the limits of the possible (Michael Ikeda and Bill Jefferys, 2006). Worse for the gloss, the theist's own ontology already contains conscious beings that hold none of this universe's constants fixed. God is a conscious being with no physical parameters at all. Angels and demons, on the traditional commitment, are conscious without bodies. The saved in heaven and the damned in hell are conscious persons in conditions that are not this universe's physics, on the doctrine, not even this universe. If consciousness can obtain in God, in heaven, and in hell, then this configuration is not necessary for consciousness on the theist's own accounting, and the 'tuned for conscious life' gloss contradicts the metaphysics it is meant to serve. The example is not a hostile construction; it is drawn from the proponent's own creed.

*The reversal.* Scoped to the gloss rather than to the bare inference, the fine-tuning observation runs the other way. If God is omnipotent, the space of means by which conscious life could be realized is enormous: God could sustain life in any configuration, or with none, or by direct fiat. A universe that must be threaded through a needle's eye of constants to permit life is therefore a strange choice for a being to whom all means are open: it is exactly the expedient a maker without options would be forced into, not one a maker with every option would prefer. The likelihood reversal makes this precise (Michael Ikeda and Bill Jefferys, 2006): once observability is taken as background, learning that the universe is naturalistically life-permitting cannot raise the probability of a supernatural tuner, and on the for-life gloss specifically it lowers it, since an omnipotent intender had no need of a delicately balanced mechanism at all. The positive thesis follows: life that needs no apparatus to be created, yet is given a vast and precarious one, is evidence against the apparatus being for it.

*Function.* The sharpest form of the objection turns on how teleology is individuated. A thing made for a purpose is identified as such by its serving that purpose: the test of 'made for X' is 'succeeds at X.' An omnipotent maker cannot fail at function: whatever such a maker intends, obtains. So if the universe were made for life, it would be unmistakably, abundantly, securely hospitable to life, because nothing could have constrained the maker to do less. What is observed instead is a cosmos in which life clings to a vanishing margin, sustains itself against constant threat, and is extinguished with ease. A product that barely and precariously discharges its supposed function is, by the only test teleology affords, not made for that function. This wing is immune to the 'precious because rare' reply: rarity is evidence of difficulty, and difficulty is exactly what omnipotence does not face.

*Scale.* Three observations reinforce the functional point. Qualitatively, life does not find a hospitable world; it engineers itself against a hostile one. Survival is a labor of building shelter, regulating temperature, and defending against an environment that is not arranged for the organism; cities are monuments to how much must be done to make a patch of the world habitable. The relation runs opposite to the gloss: life is tuned to its environment by adaptation, not the environment to life by design. Quantitatively, the life-permitting region is a vanishing measure of a cosmos overwhelmingly lethal to life: near-absolute vacuum, lethal radiation, temperatures at both extremes, durations and distances on scales that dwarf anything life occupies.[[1]](cosmic-scale-disparity) Structurally, the narrowing recurs one level down inside that vanishing region: the fraction that is habitable is not itself one hospitable environment but a partition of mutually exclusive niches, where crossing from one into another is lethal rather than merely difficult, an ocean drowns what land life requires, open air suffocates what ocean life requires, and each further subdivision (pressure band, temperature range, salinity, atmospheric composition) forecloses what its neighbors permit. There is no environment hospitable to life as such, only a fractal series of disjoint environments each hostile to whatever is not already fitted to it. The fracturing recurs even inside a single generalist species. The Bajau of maritime Southeast Asia carry a genetic adaptation, an enlarged spleen serving as an oxygen reservoir, that lets them free-dive to depths and durations unadapted humans cannot match, while Tibetan and Andean highlanders meet the same challenge of high-altitude hypoxia by two different physiological routes: lower hemoglobin concentration in the one population, higher in the other. Ethiopian highlanders answer the same hypoxic pressure a third way, holding hemoglobin at sea-level norms while still reaching oxygen saturation levels neither of the other two groups matches by their own route. Inuit and Yup'ik populations carry a variant of the gene *CPT1A* that lets a near-zero-carbohydrate, fat-heavy diet fuel the body without the metabolic cost that same diet would impose on someone without it. The Haenyeo free-divers of Jeju evolved their own route to breath-hold diving in cold water, independent of the Bajau's. None of this is a claim of lethal incompatibility of the ocean-and-land kind; it is a claim about differential fit. Even the species most often cited as nature's generalist exception has already sorted into sub-populations locally optimized for extremes the rest of the species only tolerates. A universe that is for life is, on inspection, almost entirely against it.

What unifies these wings is omnipotence. Each dysteleological observation invites the reply that the hostility is instrumentally necessary: that a universe capable of producing life must be large, old, and governed by laws that are lethal elsewhere. That reply binds a constrained maker, not an omnipotent one. The moment the maker is granted omnipotence, every appeal to instrumental necessity lapses, and the hostility, scarcity, and precariousness become unforced features of the product, which is to say, evidence about its purpose. This is the cosmological specialization of the evidential structure Draper (Draper, Paul, 1989) presses for pain and pleasure: the distribution of good and ill in the world is more expected on indifference than on benevolent intention, and the gap is evidence.

Three replies are available to the gloss, and each fails for a stated reason. The instrumental-necessity reply binds the process, not the agent, and an omnipotent agent is not bound by the process. The minimalist-masterpiece reply (that a great maker might sign a single, spare, improbable work) does no Bayesian work, since 'a great maker would do this' is compatible with any observation whatever, and it collides directly with the suffering the spare work contains. The soul-making reply (that hardship is the point) concedes that the universe is not made for life's flourishing but for its testing, which is a different purpose, post-hoc with respect to the fine-tuning data, and which reactivates the problem of evil rather than answering it.

*The Fall.* A last rescue holds that the tuning was once benign and was broken: that the world's hostility postdates a fall, an original sin, a derangement of nature. The rescue faces a trilemma and forfeits its setting. Which conditions changed? If the physical constants changed, the claim is a physical hypothesis with no physical evidence, and one that runs against the very constancy the fine-tuning argument relies on. If only the biological or moral order changed, the cosmic hostility (vacuum, radiation, scale) was there from the start and is unexplained. If the change is purely spiritual, it does no work against the physical dysteleology at issue. And the rescue forfeits the project: an inference licensed only by an ancient text is no longer natural theology, which was the genre the fine-tuning argument entered to occupy. The collective form of the doctrine compounds the cost. A penalty visited on all conscious beings for the act of two, through a headship none of the penalized consented to or could have refused, is a moral structure an omnipotent maker had every means to avoid, who could, for instance, have created each pair on its own world to stand or fall for itself, with no representation imposed. That the collective arrangement was chosen when non-collective ones were available is not a necessity to be excused but a choice to be assessed, and it is assessed under the problem of evil, engaged in its own right elsewhere.

The eliminativist wing of the fine-tuning debate presses harder than the present argument does. Stenger (Victor J. Stenger, 2011) argues that the appearance of fine-tuning is a statistical artifact: that under a full accounting of the possible parameterizations, no remarkable precision remains to be explained. (The Ikeda–Jefferys reversal, a distinct claim, is engaged above against the for-life gloss rather than against the bare observation.) The present account does not commit to the eliminativist's stronger claim. Some sensitivity is real; the question is what the sensitivity is of. The eliminativist answers: of nothing in particular, once the parameterization is normalized. The present account answers: of the configuration to the conditions prior to configuration. The two answers converge on rejecting the design inference and diverge on whether any feature of the observation survives the rejection. The present account preserves the observation and denies the inference; the eliminativist denies both. Where the eliminativist says the theist is chasing nothing, the present account says the theist is chasing the structure.

*Probability rides on modality.* The three forms share a structure worth stating directly: every probability is conditional on the modal frame that fixes its sample space, so probability questions are asked within a structure, never of it. That cuts against the tuner from two sides. Tuning requires a standard to tune toward, and the standard admits no tuner: if it is contingent, fine-tuning collapses into preference-matching and a regress of standards opens; if it is necessary, there is nothing to tune, since what holds necessarily holds in virtue of its necessity, not by being selected for. And the precision of any probability assignment tracks the resolution of the modal map beneath it, so a coarse map that under-distinguishes necessity from contingency inflates apparent contingency and, with it, apparent improbability. The narrow-window number is calibrated against what, at the structural level, is not itself a probability-bearer; precision against an ill-formed structure is fool's-precision, and the argument presents that precision as evidence about the very structure it was conditioned on.

A note on division of labor. The adjacent constructions that extend the fine-tuning debate are covered in their own sections. The Platonist reading of physical laws (whether the constants are prescriptive features of a separate domain or descriptive features of structural necessity) is [§4.2.4](<4.2.4 Platonism.md>). The Wigner problem of mathematical applicability runs close to fine-tuning and is engaged in [§4.3.6](<4.3.6 The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics.md>). The multiverse taken as full-blown modal realism is [§4.4.1](<4.4.1 Modal Realism.md>). Swinburne's broader cumulative case for theism, of which fine-tuning is one component, is engaged on its simplicity wing in [§5.1.4](<5.1.4 Argument from Simplicity.md>). The cumulative structure does not rescue the fine-tuning weight: Swinburne's method aggregates several individually-weak considerations toward a posterior above one-half, but each faces the same structural-presupposition reply and its own comparative burdens wherever it is pressed (fine-tuning here, simplicity at [§5.1.4](<5.1.4 Argument from Simplicity.md>), the PSR at [§4.1.3](<4.1.3 Principle of Sufficient Reason.md>)), so the contribution of this weight must be reassessed before the cumulative posterior can be claimed. The §5 replies are reckoned together at [§5.4](<5.4 What the Rival Ultimates Carried.md>). The problem of evil (reactivated above by the for-life gloss and by the appeal to a fall) is engaged in its own right in its own treatment, to which the present section defers. The present section confines itself to the direct inference from narrow-window observation to a tuner, and to the for-life gloss laid on top of it; the companion moves are handled where they belong.

*What converges.* A prior question, three forms, and a separable gloss converge on a qualified verdict. Fine-tuning can enter a Bayesian case, but only after its comparison class, priors, measure, and observation-selection effects are defended. The multiverse extension can move rather than remove the explanatory burden, yet necessary higher-order parameters are not thereby identical with T, S, and Φ. The cumulative case must show that theism predicts embodied observers in a cosmos like this more strongly than its rivals; the existence of an unembodied divine mind neither proves nor disproves that likelihood claim. Finally, the for-life gloss, separable from the bare inference, fails on its own terms: on the theist's own ontology consciousness obtains without this configuration, an omnipotent maker cannot fail at the function the gloss assigns, and the world's overwhelming hostility is evidence against its being for life rather than for it.

A final consideration: the argument for a tuner is delivered within the configuration it calls tuned. The precision of the constants is measured across moments, in laboratories configured in space, using instruments that persist through measurement; the inference from precision to selection is run by minds that instantiate the very structural roles whose contingency the argument is trying to leverage. The observation 'these constants are precisely set' is a report from within a world where the constants obtain; the inference 'therefore a setter' imports the idiom of selection from domains where selection has content (domains where unselected options also obtain) into a domain where no such options are available to compare against. The actual measurement and argument are structured acts, but a classical theist denies that divine selection is a temporal engineering process using pre-existing space and material. Retorsion establishes the structure of inquiry, not the absence of an external selector. The stronger objections remain the comparative-likelihood, measure, and grounding burdens developed above. The precision is a feature observed from within one structured configuration. Whether it is also evidence of selection remains a comparative explanatory question rather than something retorsion settles.

[[1]](cosmic-scale-disparity): The scale disparity, quantified. The observable universe spans roughly 93 billion light-years and roughly 13.8 billion years; a single known planet has hosted life for about 4 billion of those years, and reflective life occupies a fraction of a percent of that span. The precondition compounds the disparity: the mammalian radiation that eventually produced humans followed directly from the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction roughly 66 million years ago, in which an asteroid impact eliminated the non-avian dinosaurs and most other species then living; the ecological niches that opened were what primates, and later humans, expanded into. A universe built for a species that arrives this late, by way of a mass extinction, and occupies this little of it, is a strange one to have spent 13.8 billion years preparing, most of it filled with sterile voids.


---

← [5.1.4 Argument from Simplicity](<5.1.4 Argument from Simplicity.md>) | [5.1.6 Intelligent Design](<5.1.6 Intelligent Design.md>) →
