Why Modern Physics Points To God

For years, we’ve been told that science made God unnecessary.

Atheism had won. God was for the weak-minded. Rational people read Richard Dawkins and watched Neil deGrasse Tyson and Alex O’Connor. Religion, they said, was just a fairy tale.

But as science progresses, that story is beginning to unravel.

Far from removing the need for a Creator, modern physics increasingly points toward one.

Why? Because the deeper scientists dig into the universe’s fundamental laws, the more they encounter a startling truth: the universe appears to be fine-tuned. Not vaguely-tuned, but astonishingly, exquisitely, fine-tuned.

But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. To understand what fine-tuning actually means, let’s first look at how this discovery came about.

At the foundations of our universe, physicists discovered about 25 physical constants — unchanging numbers that define the structure of reality. You might not have heard of numbers like the fine-structure constant or the cosmological constant, but they are crucial. They determine how atoms hold together, how stars form, and how fast the universe expands.

The big question was, how can physicists explain these strange numbers? Before the discovery of fine-tuning, physicists had two unsatisfying possibilities: either the constants are just brute facts with no explanation, or some deeper law might eventually explain all their seemingly random values.

Since these solutions were neither satisfying nor plausible, Richard Feynman — one of the most celebrated physicists of his time — called explaining the constants “one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics.”

Then came fine-tuning.

Scientists slowly realized that if some of these constants were even slightly different, the universe would be completely chaotic, lacking all complexity and structure. No galaxies, no chemistry, no life. It’s almost like the values of the constants have a purpose in producing our complex universe.

Take the cosmological constant. Its value is about 10 to the power of negative 122. That’s a decimal point followed by 121 zeros and then a 1. If it were even a bit lower or higher, the universe would either collapse back on itself or expand so rapidly that no structures would ever form.

Does that seem like a cosmic accident? No one — not even atheist physicists — thinks that. It’s a bit like finding a safe with a trillion-digit combination already set perfectly. That’s not something anyone can reasonably attribute to blind chance.

Once fine-tuning was discovered, the two earlier explanations — that the constants are brute, necessary facts or the result of an unknown deeper law — became nearly impossible to defend. These ideas were only somewhat plausible back when the constants seemed arbitrary, and the challenge was simply to explain their mysterious values. But neither pure necessity nor blind mathematical inevitability accounts for why the constants fall exactly where they do. To continue placing faith in those explanations, despite what fine-tuning reveals, is to ignore the weight of the new evidence.

So, what’s the alternative?

One explanation is straightforward: the universe is fine-tuned because it has a fine-tuner. An intelligent Creator set the parameters needed for generating a complex and ordered universe that’s full of atoms, molecules, planets, stars, galaxies, and life.

At this point, critics often respond: “You’re just using God to fill in the gaps! That’s the old ‘God of the gaps’ fallacy.”

But that misses the point. This isn’t about ignorance. It isn’t a case of “We don’t know, so it must be God.” This is all about what we do know. We know the values of the constants. We know they are fine-tuned. And we know that when a system is exquisitely calibrated, it suggests an intelligent calibrator. That’s not filling a gap in our knowledge — it’s drawing a clear inference from established scientific evidence.

Yet, for many in the scientific community, the idea of God isn’t seen as a legitimate option — not because science rules it out, but because of prior philosophical prejudices. So, instead, they turn to an alternative: the multiverse.

The multiverse hypothesis posits an infinite number of unobservable universes, each with different physical laws and constants. In such a scenario, anything that can happen does happen — somewhere. Of course, in an infinite multiverse, there would be at least one universe with just the right conditions for life — and that’s the one we happen to observe. After all, we couldn’t exist in any of the countless, lifeless universes where complexity never forms.

This is sometimes presented as a clever way to explain fine-tuning without God. But that impression fades once you consider what an infinite multiverse actually implies.

Physicist Alan Guth said it best: “Anything that can happen will happen; in fact, it will happen an infinite number of times.” So, in an infinite multiverse, there are universes where George Washington is still alive. Where you’re president. Where unicorns are real. Where Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs exist.

We’re not joking. That’s what the theory implies.

After all, in an infinite collection of universes, every possible arrangement of atoms must exist somewhere. With infinite universes, science begins to blur into science fiction.

The trouble is, no one has ever observed another universe. By definition, an infinite multiverse is untestable, unfalsifiable, and unobservable. It’s not a scientific theory in the usual sense — it’s philosophical speculation dressed up as science, aimed at avoiding the clear implications of fine-tuning. And that’s just the beginning. From here, the problems with the multiverse only get worse.

So, let’s consider where this leaves us.

On one side, theists point to the measurable, precise fine-tuning of nature’s constants. We observe one universe — ours — and it appears finely set up for atoms, planets, stars, and life. On the other side, atheists propose an infinite number of unobservable universes to avoid the possibility that ours was fine-tuned.

Now, ask yourself: which seems more rational?

Science has brought us to a turning point. The fine-tuning argument is no relic of ancient theology. It’s a modern, scientifically-grounded case for an intelligent cause of the universe. The resistance it provokes stems not from a lack of evidence, but from discomfort with what the evidence implies.

In the end, modern physics offers us a glimpse into the deep structure of reality. And what we find is not chaos, but extraordinary order and purpose. The universe is fine-tuned. Fine-tuning points to a Fine-Tuner. If we’re serious about science, we must be equally serious about following the evidence wherever it leads — even if it leads us directly to God.

Rabbi Elie Feder, PhD, and Rabbi Aaron Zimmer, host the “Physics to God” podcast.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.