The issue with the “Puddle Analogy”

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.03381.pdf

A frequent atheist/materialist argument I see against fine tuning is the “puddle analogy” where a sentient puddle believes the pothole is made for it. This highlights issues with that.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.03381.pdf

A frequent atheist/materialist argument I see against fine tuning is the “puddle analogy” where a sentient puddle believes the pothole is made for it. This highlights issues with that.

An interesting short paper.
The piece ends up by suggesting the existence of the multiverse as being a possible though perhaps doubtful solution to be seriously considered. Showing that the authors seem to really be materialists. This materialist nature is also shown by their failure to realize the most fundamental flaw in the Multiverse theory. This flaw is that the Multiverse theory actually, instead of the intended dismissing of teleology of any sort as the originating creative force originating the Universe (that is, trying to account for Fine Tuning by something other than the intuitively apparent Intelligent Design by some very high and powerful intelligence(s)), instead turned out to have just sort of shot themselves in the foot.

With their theory of the Multiverse it is apparent that they now have to account for another additional "meta" fine tuning - that of the larger reality which now incorporates a whole new different set of even more complicated principles and equations and important mathematical relations exactly finely tuned to create an infinite number of randomly varying separate non-communicating universes. The structure of the new higher reality fundamentally apparently has to incorporate an even more complex Intelligent Design.


Therefore (as originally intended) once again the door was attempted to be closed to even the forbidden mention of a Designer or other creator being(s).
The authors don't seem to realize (like so many other materialist multiverse theorizers), that with that theory they now have to account for another additional fine tuning - that of the larger reality which now incorporates a whole new set of principles and equation s and important mathematical relations finely tuned to create the higher reality of a existence which fosters our lower reality of an infinite number of separate non-communicating universes with randomly different principles and mathematical structures.

Unfortunately for them, the materialists have created an even greater challenge for themselves, to somehow dismiss the teleology of a beyond cosmological Intelligent Design.

Showing that the authors seem to really be materialists.

I suspect Luke Barnes is a theist...At the very least he is quite open to theism being correct from what I've read/watched from him...

Also they make the same argument you make in your post against a multiverse explanation for fine tuning? ->

Another live option is the multiverse, the notion that our universe is one of many, each with their own physical laws and conditions. In
many proposed models of a multiverse, most universes are dead and sterile, but with enough spins of the cosmic roulette wheel, the right
conditions for life should show up somewhere. We should not be surprised to find ourselves in one with physical conditions
that allow us to be here.

At the moment, the multiverse is a rough sketch of a scientific theory, or more exactly, a collection of sketches. If we had a rigorous
multiverse theory, we could predict the variety of generated universes and see whether our universe is rare or common. Just as importantly, we could ask: are life-permitting universe generators as fine-tuned as life- permitting universes?