Max talks about the likelihood of the evidence of fine-tuning, given the existence of a fine-tuner. Well, okay , but what justification does Max have to front-load his hypothesis in this way? Even if we assume the first uncaused cause that Max argued for in his first of three cumulative case arguments, he still needs independent reasons for thinking that this uncaused cause has a particularly narrow interest in the tuning-based activities that lead to life.

This can’t be stressed enough: we cannot evaluate the probability of the evidence of the finely- tuned constants given our background knowledge and the existence of an uncaused cause unless we are in a position to know what the uncaused cause hypothesis would predict if true. So I hope this question can be addressed; what justifications does Max have for thinking that given the fine-tuning evidence, a LPU is not unlikely given the the existence of a uncaused cause?