In Response To My Book: “How Intelligence Acted Upon The Universe: Observable Facts Of Science,” A Conversations Ensued Between Myself And John J Bannan, Attorney and Philosopher. The Following is the text from this exchange:

Fine-Tuning and Quantum Mechanics, Copyright, RCR

Question: John J. Bannan

“Under the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, order has its own probability of existence.  Fine-tuning still says human beings were a random chance of evolution and not the purposeful creation of God as Genesis tells us.  So, your arguments aren’t that good.”

Answer: Robert Clifton Robinson

“The probability of the magnitude of order we observe in the creation of our universe has been calculated as: 1 chance in 10 to the 10th power, to the 123rd power.

In Math this is known as a double exponential improbability and is only used to describe probabilities so small they are functionally indistinguishable from zero — essentially a mathematical impossibility—that our universe exists by chance.

God created the universe”

Question: John J. Bannan

“10^10^123 is Penrose’s number for the likelihood of our particular universe – not the likelihood of any order from chaos.  Moreover, the probability is not zero.  How do you intend to get out of the inherent randomness of quantum mechanics and the evidence that our universe was a quantum fluctuation?  Isn’t this evidence of a supremely stupid random creator?”

Answer: Robert Clifton Robinson

“The world’s most preeminent mathematician, disagrees with you. I published an essay on Penrose if you are still in pursuit of an education:”

Roger Penrose: The Multiverse v. Intelligent Creator: Examining The Cosmological Evidence

Question: John J. Bannan

“Your article did not address my question.  An inherently random quantum fluctuation from a superposition of possible states cannot be determined by definition.  So, how did God determine a fluctuation that cannot be determined by definition?  And are you claiming that quantum fields are not the cause of quantum fluctuations?”

Answer: Robert Clifton Robinson

“Quantum fluctuations are temporary changes in the amount of energy in a point in space, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. These fluctuations are inherently probabilistic and are often described as “random” because they arise from quantum superpositions where outcomes cannot be precisely predicted.

I have written extensively on this.

In quantum mechanics, the term “random” often refers to outcomes that cannot be predicted with certainty, even if the underlying process follows probabilistic laws. The inherent indeterminacy in quantum mechanics does not imply the absence of causality or order; rather, it means that specific outcomes are not determined until measurement.

Your question assumes that if an event is inherently random, it is beyond determination, even by God. This assumption arises from a human interpretation of randomness and indeterminacy. However, from a theological perspective, God, as an omniscient being, would have complete knowledge of all outcomes, including those that appear random to us.

The key here is the difference between human perception of randomness and divine knowledge. While quantum mechanics describes a probabilistic framework, it does not exclude the possibility that an omniscient God knows the exact outcome even before the fluctuation occurs.

In Christian theology, God’s sovereignty implies that nothing occurs without His knowledge or permission. The concept of randomness in quantum physics does not negate divine foreknowledge; it only highlights human limitations in predicting outcomes.

Quantum fields are mathematical constructs used to describe the fundamental particles and forces. Fluctuations occur within these fields, but the fields themselves are not the “cause” of the fluctuations. Rather, fluctuations are an inherent characteristic of the quantum state itself.

Quantum fields are not static; they are dynamic, and the fluctuations are a result of the field’s inherent uncertainty. The notion that fields are the “cause” is a simplification. The fluctuations arise from the quantum nature of reality itself.

If we say that God determined a fluctuation that, from a human perspective, is inherently random, we are asserting that divine sovereignty transcends human-defined randomness. This does not mean that quantum indeterminacy is false; rather, it highlights the difference between human epistemology (how we know things) and divine omniscience (God’s perfect knowledge).

Quantum fluctuations are probabilistic from our perspective, not necessarily from God’s. The concept of randomness in physics does not preclude divine foreknowledge or determination.

Quantum fields are the context in which fluctuations occur, but they are not the singular cause; the nature of quantum reality itself leads to these fluctuations. The theological assertion is that God, being omniscient, knows the outcome of all quantum events, even if they appear random to us.

The point is that randomness in quantum mechanics is a limitation of human observation and knowledge, not a limitation on divine capability or knowledge.

Question: John J. Bannan

“So, even though quantum fluctuations are not determined by definition, you assert that God determines them nonetheless but such divine determination is beyond human comprehension.  That’s weak.  Another problem is the unnecessary additional assumption of a God divinely determining a quantum fluctuation that can be explained by quantum fields without a God.  That’s why I asked you whether you were agreeing with the existence of quantum fields.

Answer: Robert Clifton Robinson

“This is why we call Him God.”

Question: John J. Bannan

“But, you’re not making a good case for the existence of God.  A QFT guy would laugh at you for assuming the existence of a God when all you need are quantum fields.

Answer: Robert Clifton Robinson

“This is the same place Penrose has arrived at. The problem for Penrose in his publishing of this immense number (10^10^123) is that he has cornered himself into an impossibility that the multiverse cannot solve. Even if the multiverse did exist, though there is no scientific proof it does exist, this would not solve the question of origin or source, but make it infinitely more complex. The greater the complexity of the universe in its source and origin, the greater the need for intelligence, rather than a random unguided event.

Faced with a decision that proves an intelligent Creator as the source of the universe, many scientists resort to a far more difficult conclusion: complexity beyond reasonable. While science has consistently relied on the simplest of explanations in the past to define complex systems, faced with God as the answer for the Cosmos, a great number of scientists today resort to a complex answer that cannot be proven.”

Question: John J. Bannan

“There is no theoretical limit on the size of the set of possible states from which an inherently random quantum fluctuation can arise.  Not sure why you think it takes an intelligent God to roll the dice?  Another problem with your explanation is that you haven’t shown that life is objectively special such that it implies a stacked deck.  While drawing a royal flush is special to you, it’s not special to the deck.”

Answer: Robert Clifton Robinson

“Your comment overlooks the distinction between human epistemology (how we know things) and divine omniscience. While it is true that from a scientific perspective, the outcome of a quantum event may seem inherently random, this does not mean that the event is genuinely indeterminate from a theological standpoint.

God, being omniscient, knows the outcome of all possible states and fluctuations. The concept of randomness in quantum mechanics is a description of human limitations, not a statement about divine capability.

An omniscient God would know not only every possible outcome but also which outcome will occur, even when we perceive it as random.

The issue is not whether there is an infinite number of potential states but whether randomness from our perspective means randomness from God’s perspective. Randomness does not negate divine foreknowledge or causality.

Your assertion that randomness does not require a guiding hand only applies within a naturalistic framework. From a theistic perspective, especially within Christian theology, God is not just a causal agent but the sustainer of all reality.

Even if outcomes appear random to us, the existence and sustenance of the physical laws that govern these fluctuations point to an intelligent cause.

Even in games of chance, such as rolling dice, the apparent randomness arises from a lack of precise knowledge of the variables involved (e.g., force, angle, surface). God’s omniscience would include knowledge of every variable, making the outcome certain from His perspective.

In cosmology, the fine-tuning of the universe’s constants to support life is not merely a matter of subjective preference but an objective observation that these constants fall within extremely narrow parameters necessary for life to exist.

The probability of life arising by purely random quantum fluctuations is analogous to drawing a royal flush repeatedly in poker. While one royal flush may be statistically possible, continuous success of this nature suggests a non-random influence—a stacked deck.

The difference between drawing a royal flush and the existence of life is that while the former is an isolated, rare event within a controlled system (a deck of cards), the latter is the result of numerous precisely tuned conditions in the universe. The consistent fine-tuning suggests intent rather than chance.

The existence of natural laws and finely tuned conditions that make quantum fluctuations possible point to an intelligent cause, rather than random unguided events.

Life’s existence is not just a random occurrence but a product of precise, fine-tuned conditions that indicate a purposeful origin, rather than a random, unguided process.

Your argument fails to consider the theological assertion that God, being omniscient and omnipotent, can determine outcomes that appear random to humans.

Question: John J. Bannan

“But, you have no scientific evidence that the fine-tuning must be sustained in time.  Conservation of energy and mass are laws of physics and you have no scientific evidence that laws of physics need to be sustained in time.  There is no scientific evidence to believe that what you are saying is true.  Why would a scientist believe your philosophical assertion about the necessity of sustaining the fine-tuning and laws of physics over time, when there is no scientific evidence that they can change over time in our universe?”

Answer: Robert Clifton Robinson

“You argue that there is no scientific evidence that fine-tuning must be sustained over time, suggesting that the laws of physics are immutable once established.

So far, all scientific observations indicate that these constants have remained consistent throughout the observable universe. For instance, the fine-structure constant, which governs electromagnetic interactions, has been measured in distant galaxies and found to be the same as it is locally.

While science shows the constants are consistent, it does not explain why they remain consistent. Theological perspectives propose that the consistent sustenance of these constants reflects an underlying purposeful cause rather than a random occurrence.

The “laws” are human descriptions of observed regularities, not agents that actively maintain consistency. The question then becomes: What ensures the continued regularity of these constants?

Imagine a perfectly tuned musical instrument. If left untouched, natural forces may cause it to go out of tune. In the universe, however, the constants remain “tuned” without apparent external adjustment. The theological assertion is that this consistent fine-tuning is actively sustained by a conscious, omnipotent being rather than being a naturally eternal state.

The law of conservation is based on the principle that energy and mass cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.

However, this law itself is an empirical observation and does not inherently guarantee permanence. It holds within the framework of current physics but does not explain why it should continue indefinitely without change.

The constancy of such laws over time is an assumption rooted in the principle of uniformity. From a purely naturalistic perspective, there is no ultimate reason why these laws could not change; we merely assume they won’t because we have observed consistency.

From a theological perspective, the constancy of these laws points to a sustaining force or intelligence that ensures their persistence.

You ask why a scientist would accept a philosophical assertion without scientific evidence that the laws could change.

Scientists often operate under the assumption of the uniformity of nature because it has been observed consistently. However, this is a pragmatic approach rather than an ontological guarantee.

Philosophically, we cannot be certain that the future will resemble the past simply because it always has before. Science relies on this assumption, but it is not scientifically provable.

The assertion that the universe’s fine-tuning and physical laws require sustaining is a philosophical one because science does not address why the constants exist or why they remain constant.

In Christian theology, God’s sustenance of creation means that the consistency of physical laws is not merely an accidental feature but a reflection of divine will.

The assertion that fine-tuning needs sustaining is based on the premise that the laws and constants of the universe are contingent rather than necessary. If the universe had come into existence through a random process, there would be no inherent reason for fine-tuning to continue. The fact that the constants have remained unchanged for 13.8 billion years suggests not randomness but intentionality.

Think of a balanced spinning top. Without an external stabilizing force, it would eventually topple over. The fine-tuned constants are like the top remaining balanced indefinitely, which implies not just an initial push but ongoing stabilization.

While it is true that we have no scientific evidence that the laws of physics can change over time in our universe, this lack of evidence does not prove that they are inherently immutable; it only shows that they have remained consistent within the observable timeframe.

While science describes the consistency, it does not explain the underlying reason. Theology proposes that the sustaining power is God, who ensures that the constants do not vary.

Scientists assume the continuity of laws based on past consistency, not because of a fundamental proof. This assumption aligns with the theological idea that a rational, orderly universe reflects an intelligent cause.

Finally, the claim that fine-tuning must be sustained over time is not contradicted by science; rather, science simply observes consistency without explaining why it persists. Theologically, this consistency points to a sustainer rather than an inherent immutability of the laws themselves.”

See Rob’s New Book: “A Universe That Proves God: The True Source of the Cosmos“

Click On Image To Look Inside

Sources and Citations:

Fine-Tuning of the Universe: Barnes, L. A. (2012). The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 29(4), 529-564.

This paper extensively discusses the physical constants and their narrow range necessary for life, emphasizing the fine-tuning problem.

Barrow, J. D., & Tipler, F. J. (1986). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford University Press. Explores the anthropic principle and the precise values of constants that allow the universe to support life.

Collins, R. (2009). The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe. In W. L. Craig & J. P. Moreland (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Discusses the philosophical implications of fine-tuning and the likelihood of life-permitting universes.

The Problem of Uniformity and Sustaining Physical Laws: Hume, D. (1748). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Introduces the problem of induction, questioning whether past regularities guarantee future consistency.

Craig, W. L. (2001). Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time. Crossway. Addresses the philosophical problem of sustaining physical laws and argues for divine causality as a grounding principle.

Polkinghorne, J. (1998). Science and Theology: An Introduction. Fortress Press. Discusses how theological perspectives can coexist with scientific principles, including the continuous sustenance of physical laws.

Conservation Laws and the Nature of Physical Laws: Feynman, R. P. (1963). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I: Mainly Mechanics, Radiation, and Heat. Addison-Wesley. Feynman discusses the conservation of energy and the foundational nature of physical laws.

Carroll, S. M. (2004). Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity. Addison-Wesley. Discusses the consistency of physical laws within the framework of general relativity and the philosophical implications of a consistent universe.

Quantum Mechanics and Randomness: Heisenberg, W. (1927). Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43(3–4), 172–198. The foundational paper introducing the uncertainty principle and the inherent probabilistic nature of quantum events.

Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox. Physics Physique Физика, 1(3), 195–200. Discusses the limits of determinism in quantum mechanics, highlighting how entangled states challenge classical causality.

Swinburne, R. (1993). The Coherence of Theism. Oxford University Press. Argues that divine omniscience can encompass events that appear probabilistic to humans.

Philosophical and Theological Perspectives: Plantinga, A. (1974). God, Freedom, and Evil. Eerdmans. Discusses the compatibility of divine foreknowledge with human perception of randomness.

Davies, P. (2007). The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? Mariner Books. Examines the fine-tuning of physical constants from both scientific and philosophical perspectives.

Categories: Robert Clifton Robinson