Abstract It is commonly argued that the fact that our universe is fine-tuned for life favors both a design hypothesis as well as a non-teleological multiverse hypothesis. The claim that the fine-tuning of this universe supports a non-teleological multiverse hypothesis has been forcefully challenged however by Ian Hacking and Roger White. In this paper we take this challenge even further by arguing that if it succeeds, then not only does the fine-tuning of this universe fail to support a multiverse hypothesis, but it tends to favor a single-universe hypothesis instead.

The first part of this research discussed a theoretical framework of a new theory of time which was systematically proposed, developed and defended. Time was exposed to a natural categorization that calls forth two different real times; Existential and Essential. The current paper which is the conclusion of the research deals with the ontological dimension of Essential time. Contrary to the fine-tuning of physical constants of the universe by coincidence, this article tries to establish that “coincidence” in itself depends on time. The Essential time provides a timeline of creation which starts from absolute uniformity to dis-uniform universe and coincidence is planned. Hence, essential time is uniform, formless and powerful to facilitate the creation of the universe by forming dis-uniformity to everything that was uniform. The question that why essential time is able to do that and what is the source to trigger dis-uniformity brings the discussion to the ontology of essential time. This ontological being in essential time will be proved by two premises. The article argues that why the interpretation based on essential time must be considered instead of “coincidences” of modern science, “Demiurge” of Plato and “unmoved mover” of Aristotle to explain the final cause of the universe. By doing so the fundamental flaw in the anthropic principle is revealed and argued that it does not present a convincing answer to the “why” question of the universe. The combinations of scientific, philosophical and metaphysical arguments establish a conclusive interpretation about the ontological being in essential time without any deviation from the universal facts of the universe. This might end the creation dilemma which is, why did the universe come into existence.

In the last 50 years, physicists have discovered that the structure of the universe must be precisely structured in order for there to exist embodied conscious beings that can meaningfully interact with each other. Here I present a basic version of the argument that these discoveries strongly support theism over naturalism, an argument that has come to be known as the “fine‐tuning argument.” I then respond to various objections to the argument.

This study applies Bayesian inference to evaluate the probability of divine influence in shaping the universe's fundamental properties and fostering life. We used various techniques and simulations to study, understand, and gather evidence of divine influence on the creation of our universe. The impact of life-maintaining parameters on cosmological constants, the occurrence of Boltzmann Brains, fractals, golden number, and the Fermi Paradox. Quantum entanglement, specifically in the GHZ states, are subjects considered for our study. The findings show that the hypothesis of divine intervention (99.995%) is significantly more likely than naturalistic mechanisms (0.0049%) and that the complexities and fine-tuning of nature as found in the universe would be more probable as the result of a deliberate design rather than random naturalistic processes.