#11: How I Overcame Depression and Suicidal Thoughts by Understanding the Fine-Tuning of the Universe

The form of this post—how it’s laid out or arranged—became crystallized in my awareness at the present time. Due to its importance, I decided to present this now, before Part 2 of the last post—“Is the Christian God the Same as the Islamic God?”—which is still in preparation. Hopefully, it will be coming up soon, God willing. (I’m no longer potently sick, as I was in January and February.)

This post considers two prominent reasons for suicide (trauma and loss) and presents theistic perspectives which can, if carefully understood, overcome these reasons, and thereby prevent suicide as an outcome. This happened in my own life—obviously, I’m still here—and I have no trace of a depressed or suicidal thought today, though in 2003, I was consumed with these thoughts. This approach has therefore eliminated ALL depression and suicidal thoughts in my own life!

In short, THIS APPROACH CAN WORK—IF (1) it’s carefully understood, and if (2) the person having depressed and/or suicidal thoughts is able to believe in God—preferably on the basis of evidence and reason or logic—which is how I, as a former atheist, came to believe.

In contradistinction

In contradistinction to what is often asserted in our culture, THE EVIDENCES FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE ARE NUMEROUS AND OVERWHELMING IN THEIR CUMULATIVE EFFECT—if an individual is willing to consider them fairly and objectively, with no (or minimal) preconceived bias. In other words, realistic denials of God’s existence are no longer possible among those who are informed and truly objective—after the publication of Dr. Stephen Meyer’s latest book: Return of the God Hypothesis (HarperOne, 2021). This book is a GAME-CHANGER: it makes a huge difference in the debate about God’s existence! (Quotes from this book demonstrate this difference, as we shall see.)

Reflecting this change, New York Times bestselling author Eric Metaxas recently wrote a book titled: Is Atheism Dead? (Salem Books, 2021) In it, he makes a powerful statement at the very beginning: “We are living in unprecedentedly exciting times. But most of us don’t know it yet. That’s essentially the point of this book, to share the news that what many people have dreamt of—and others have believed could never happen—has happened, or at any rate is happening this very minute and has been happening for some time. By this I mean the emergence of inescapably compelling evidence for God’s existence.” (Is Atheism Dead? Introduction, p. 3, Kindle Locations 64-67)

Here’s a potent 5-minute video of Metaxas, asserting that new scientific evidence affirms the existence of a Creator God. He emphasizes this in the process of describing his book, Is Atheism Dead? This video is embedded in this page: click or tap on the center of the following YouTube block to play it:

In this video, Metaxas affirmed that, “We have something happening right now, that’s been happening, that is as big news as it gets! … The evidence for God from science … now, while we’re living, the evidence literally from science for the existence of a Creator God … the evidence is so overwhelming, as I argue in the book, as to be open and shut. In other words, if you want to be an agnostic today, that’s fine … we can have a conversation. But if you want to be intellectually honest, today I don’t think you can say ‘There’s no God; I believe there’s no God.’ Science … has made that impossible!” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIcjJGM6Gms)

Metaxas has covered these same points in a recent, longer (hour-and-13-minute) video on “Is Atheism Dead?” At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLxdWn7ntBI. Also, Metaxas made possibly the most-positive and encouraging video I’ve ever seen about God’s existence, as he spoke at Calvary Church in Albuquerque, New Mexico, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo7jjVajISI.

Dr. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist I highly respect, has commented about Metaxas’s book—that, “With great oratorical skill and irrepressible humor, Metaxas engages lay readers with the story of how recent discoveries have made atheism scientifically, historically, and philosophically untenable.” (Is Atheism Dead? P. 1, Kindle Locations 8-10)

Also, Dr. Stephen Meyer, Director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, has recently written a Newsweek article, summarizing his observations and conclusions about the scientific evidence: “How Science Stopped Backing Atheists and Started Pointing Back to God” at https://www.newsweek.com/how-science-stopped-backing-atheists-started-pointing-back-god-opinion-1724448—although I think that, in his title, Dr. Meyer has understated the case. About the fine-tuning of the universe, physicist Paul Davies has stated that, “The impression of design is overwhelming.” Physicist Fred Hoyle wrote: “A common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” (See the citations in sections 2A & 2B.)

19 years of careful study

For 19 years, I’ve carefully studied the perspectives of reputable scholars about these evidences, and have become convinced that this “contradistinction” (that the evidences for God’s existence are numerous and overwhelming in their cumulative effect) is the truth. To be an atheist today, one must be unaware of these evidences (as I was) OR one must unjustifiably rationalize them away; i.e. without sufficient warrant. The evidences for intelligent design and, more specifically, the theistic God’s existence, are much-more cogent than atheistic rationalizations—as Dr. Gunter Bechly discovered without being persuaded by a religious or churchgoing background, for he had none. See the 6-minute video “A German Scientist Speaks Out about Intelligent Design” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM. Hence, when I was confronted with these evidences years ago, I realized that I could no longer remain an atheist.

This “contradistinction” is especially relevant here, concerning suicide prevention, because, generally speaking (i.e. with an occasional exception for those counselors having great expertise), a theistic-based approach to counseling is MUCH more powerful than a secular or non-theistic approach, as can be perceived from the content of this post. I’ve seen this: if a person wants EFFECTIVE counseling help in the matter of suicide prevention, I recommend a compassionate, theistic approach, ideally in which both the counselor and counselee believe in God. (To help bring this about, see more below, under “personal help.”)

(Note: “theistic” is an adjective referring to theism, which is belief in a Creator God who intervenes in the universe that He has made. The best-known theistic religions are Christianity or Christian theism, Judaism, and Islam. I believe in Christian theism because of numerous, cogent, historical evidences supporting the historical reliability of the New Testament and, by clear implication, the veracity of Christ’s claims. Cf. section #4 of Post #8; I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, Crossway Books, 2004; The Historical Reliability of the New Testament by Dr. Craig Blomberg, B&H Academic, 2016.)

Personal help

I can (and hopefully will) clearly explain every relevant concept in this post, but, in addition, some people need direct, personal help. I therefore recommend, in the United States and its territories, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (1-800-273-8255 or text 741741)—which is now called the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. Anyone in the United States can access it by simply pressing (or dialing on your phone) 988.

The 988 website reads as follows: “988 has been designated as the new three-digit dialing code that will route callers to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (now known as the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline), and is now active across the United States. When people call, text, or chat 988, they will be connected to trained counselors that are part of the existing Lifeline network. These trained counselors will listen, understand how their problems are affecting them, provide support, and connect them to resources if necessary.”

Continuing: “The previous Lifeline phone number (1-800-273-8255) will always remain available to people in emotional distress or suicidal crisis. The Lifeline’s network of over 200 crisis centers has been in operation since 2005, and has been proven to be effective. It’s the counselors at these local crisis centers who answer the contacts the Lifeline receives every day. Numerous studies have shown that callers feel less suicidal, less depressed, less overwhelmed and more hopeful after speaking with a Lifeline counselor.” (https://988lifeline.org/current-events/the-lifeline-and-988/) There’s help available at this lifeline 24 hours a day, every day; if you’re in need of counseling help for depression, emotional distress, or suicidal thoughts, press or dial 988.

988 is specifically for crisis counseling pertaining to suicidal, mental health, substance use, and veterans issues. The Lifeline accepts calls, texts, and chats; it’s available in all 50 states (of the United States) and in all 5 major territories (Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa). Frequently asked questions and answers are at https://www.samhsa.gov/find-help/988/faqs.

For Christian counselors in your area, go to https://connect.aacc.net/ and https://www.therapyforchristians.com/.

I also recommend the Christian teaching and counseling help that’s available from Calvary Chapel churches and Vineyard Christian Fellowship churches in the USA and internationally. As I stated, generally speaking, a theistic-based approach to counseling is MUCH more powerful than a secular or non-theistic approach—especially in suicide prevention, as we’ll see in this post.

To find such churches, see https://www.calvarychapel.com/church-locator/ (scroll down the page to where you can type in a postal code, city name, state, or province) or https://calvarycca.org/churches/ or https://vineyardusa.org/find/.

(Note: I, of course, can’t claim that every pastor of a Calvary Chapel or Vineyard Christian Fellowship is always perfect in his judgment; no human being is ALWAYS perfect. But Calvary Chapel and Vineyard churches are among the best I’ve seen, so I can generally recommend them. Every pastor should be careful to adhere—to stick like glue—to sound Biblical teaching and wisdom. For more on this, see my About Roger page.)

Generally speaking, I also recommend the encouragement and information provided by the pastors on the Bridge Christian radio, at https://www.bridgeradio.org/program-guide-4/ and https://bridgeradio.liberatedstreaming.com/. Pastors on Bridge Radio often teach through the Bible, verse by verse. Their call-in show, Bridge Bible Talk (answering questions LIVE on the air, Monday to Thursday, 3 pm, Eastern Time, USA), is particularly helpful in answering many Bible and Christian-living questions that Christians are concerned about (also see https://www.bridgebibletalklive.com/).

In addition, I view WDER radio favorably, at https://www.lifechangingradio.com/new-hampshire-wder/. At this page, after clicking on “Listen Now” (in a red font, to the upper right), from the new window and drop-down menu that will appear (to “Select a Station”), one has the option to choose from six stations to listen to.

For more information about this blog, see the home page at https://reasonbasedfaith.com/.

The layout

In this blog, a “section” is a usually-numbered group of paragraphs, with a heading that indicates the number and title of that section; e.g. 2. Scientists speak out about the fine-tuning. (A section is a usually-numbered group of paragraphs because this is most-often the case. However, each post typically begins with one or two or more introductory sections with unnumbered headings—in this post, four.)

The main sections of this post have headings that are numbered without a letter after the number; e.g. 4. The specifics of how I overcame depression and suicidal thoughts. The heading of a sub-section has both a number and a letter; e.g. 4C. I wouldn’t want to go back. Thus, if a heading is identified by only a number in front of its title, it delineates a main section. If a heading has both a number and letter before its title, it delineates a sub-section. The difference is that a main section introduces and describes a topic, while a sub-section elaborates on an aspect of that topic. An outline of the main sections of this post follows:

An overview of my depression and suicidal thoughts
Scientists speak out about the fine-tuning
Chemistry and the critical question
The specifics of how I overcame depression and suicidal thoughts
Refuting the multiverse objection
Theistic design and the origin of biological information
Why should we believe Dr. Meyer?
The Judeo-Christian worldview fits or matches up with reality
Animated videos demonstrating why God exists
Recommended books
Following my blog
Other videos pointing to God’s existence

1. An overview of my depression and suicidal thoughts

I feel that it would be helpful to explain how I (Roger, the author of this blog) overcame depression and suicidal thoughts. I did it in an unusual way that may be helpful to those who are depressed or have suicidal thoughts. This will also serve as the backstory (the story of what helped bring about and led up) to this blog.

The causes of my depression years ago (which had the greatest intensity in 2003) were trauma and loss—in fact, two traumas and two losses! But these are not as important as the remedy I found, which is the theistic implications of the fine-tuning of the universe, combined with an insight from a potent Scripture passage. This post is partially about the fine-tuning, but more-importantly, it’s the story of how I was powerfully released from continual depression and suicidal thoughts, in 2004.

(I’ll explain everything as we go along. I’ll simplify the majority of the technical details, taking all readers into consideration. On the other hand, the fine-tuning of the universe is not a cogent argument for God without some of the details being presented.)

1A. In 2003

To continue: suffice it to say that, in 2003, I was so depressed that I felt like my life was over; I felt like there was no hope left for me in this world. I was a Christian, and I knew that there was great hope in the eternal life I had with God. (Cf. John 3:16; 5:24; Romans 6:23; 10:9-10; Ephesians 2:8-9; 1John 5:13.) But I felt like there was no hope left for the life that I was now living. My circumstances seemed to be just too hard and cruel. What was I to do?

As a result of this, I became profoundly suicidal; I meditated on committing suicide frequently during the day, every day. I felt a bit like Shakespeare’s Hamlet, who was presented with two choices: the fear of the unknown in death through suicide OR the courage or perhaps the cowardice of fighting on in this life (against adverse circumstances)—in his “To Be or Not to Be” Soliloquy (Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1). I was a Christian, so I knew what was coming after death. The problem was staying on in this life! Could I do it?

When one has suffered extreme trauma and loss, it can be really hard to find—what psychologists call—“a new normal”; i.e. a new way of feeling “normal” about your life and circumstances after a great and traumatic loss. It can be extremely stressful and the hardest thing in the world to do! My memories of what used to be haunted me, and I didn’t want to be where I was (in my circumstances), but there was no way to go back. This was compounded by the fact that I had suffered two traumas and two losses! Therefore, no thought offered me any relief, until …

1B. Hugh Ross and the fine-tuning

At the same time in 2003 that I was meditating on suicide daily, I was also listening weekly—out of sheer fascination—to a podcast by the aforementioned astrophysicist that I highly respect, Dr. Hugh Ross. His descriptions of the scientific evidences for God fascinated me. For example, see the video, Cosmic Reasons to Believe, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOW-wJWNw6g&t=1203. Dr. Ross’s website is at https://reasons.org/; I also recommend these parts to his website: https://reasons.org/explore/publications/rtb-101 and https://reasons.org/explore/read and https://reasons.org/explore/watch and https://reasons.org/explore/listen.

Around the time that I was most-seriously considering suicide, Dr. Ross began to describe the fine-tuning of the universe. What’s the fine-tuning?

Note: at this point in this post, I go into definitions and careful explanations of the fine-tuning of the universe. I continue with my testimony on the specifics of how I overcame depression and suicidal thoughts, in sections 4, 4A, and 4B.

1C. The clearest definitions

Dr. Stephen Meyer has the clearest definitions. (He’s the Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, USA.) He defines fine-tuning as “a set of improbable parameters [i.e. properties, features, characteristics] that work jointly to establish some discernable function or outcome. And the examples of things that are finely-tuned are things like a French recipe or an internal combustion engine or a section of digital code. So whenever we see a fine-tuned system, those systems always have one thing in common, and that is that they were intelligently designed.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHIotPuNysk; the bracketed expression is mine.)

From his book, Return of the God Hypothesis, Dr. Meyer’s definition of the fine-tuning of the universe is: “…the discovery that many properties of the universe fall within extremely narrow and improbable ranges that turn out to be absolutely necessary for complex forms of life, or even complex chemistry, and thus any conceivable form of life, to exist.” (Return of the God Hypothesis, HarperOne, 2021, Chapter 7, p. 165, Kindle Locations 2358-2359)

Here’s my favorite animated video from Reasonable Faith, explaining the fine-tuning of the universe. The link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE76nwimuT0. The video is embedded in this page; click or tap on the center of the following YouTube block to play it:

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe

2. Scientists speak out about the fine-tuning

I’m personally convinced that, if a person believes what these reputable scholars and scientists say about the fine-tuning (including Charles Townes, winner of the Nobel Prize), God’s existence can then be perceived as overwhelmingly probable!

Dr. Charles Townes, inventor of the MASER (which was later modified to become the LASER), and a Nobel Laureate—a winner of the Nobel Prize (in his case, in physics)—stated that: “Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.” (Bonnie Azab Powell, “Explore as Much as We Can: Nobel Prize Winner Charles Townes on Evolution, Intelligent Design, and the Meaning of Life,” UC Berkeley News Center, June 17, 2005; https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml.)

Astronomer George Greenstein offered these thoughts: “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” (Quoted in Dr. Hugh Ross’s book, The Creator and the Cosmos, RTB Press, 2018, Chapter 15, Kindle Locations 2913-2915; this quote is from Greenstein’s book, The Symbiotic Universe, published by William Morrow, 1988, p. 27.)

2A. Physicist Paul Davies

British physicist Paul Davies has indicated by several statements that he’s well-aware of the fine-tuning. For example, he stated that: “the laws [of physics] … seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design.” (Quoted in The Creator and the Cosmos, Chapter 15, Kindle Location 2908; quoted from Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984, p. 243.)

Davies also stated that: “[There] is for me powerful evidence that there is ‘something going on’ behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming.” (Quoted in The Creator and the Cosmos, Chapter 15, Kindle Locations 2909-2910; quoted from Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988, p. 203.)

Thirdly, Davies concluded that: “It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe.” (Quoted in The Creator and the Cosmos, Chapter 15, Kindle Location 2911; quoted from Davies, “The Anthropic Principle,” Science Digest 191, October 1983, p. 24.)

2B. Astrophysicists Fred Hoyle and Hugh Ross

Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle—a world-famous scientist and the discoverer of the means (reaction route) of producing carbon inside of stars—was persuaded about the fine-tuning by his own research. He concluded that, “A common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (Quoted in Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 7, p. 174, Kindle Locations 2513-2515; quoted from Hoyle’s article “The Universe: Past and Present Reflection” in the Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 20, September, 1982, p. 16, at https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.aa.20.090182.000245)

Hoyle also stated in 1959: “I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed.” (Quoted in The Creator and the Cosmos, Chapter 15, Kindle Locations 2905-2906; Hoyle was quoted from editor Mervyn Stockwood’s Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge, London: SCM Press, 1959, p. 64.)

Dr. Hugh Ross, himself an astrophysicist, has observed: “In all my conversations with those researching the characteristics of the universe, and in all my readings of articles or books on the subject, not one person denies the conclusion that the cosmos appears to have been crafted to make it a fit habitat for life. Astronomers by nature tend to be independent and iconoclastic. If an opportunity for disagreement exists, they will seize it. But on the issue of the apparent fine-tuning of the cosmos for the benefit of life, and human beings in particular, the evidence is so compelling that I have yet to hear of any dissent.” (The Creator and the Cosmos, Chapter 15, Kindle Locations 2964-2968)

3. Chemistry and the critical question

Dr. Meyer further explained that, “…since the 1950s, physicists have discovered that life in the universe depends upon a highly improbable set of forces and features as well as an extremely improbable balance among many of them. The precise strengths of the fundamental forces of physics, the arrangement of matter and energy at the beginning of the universe, and many other specific features of the cosmos appear delicately balanced to allow for the possibility of life. If any one of these properties were altered ever so slightly, complex chemistry and life simply would not exist.” (Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 7, p. 165, Kindle Locations 2362-2365)

The fine-tuning therefore means that our universe has certain properties or features that are set or established at just the right values—to just the right degree or extent—so that life can exist on a life-friendly planet. These properties are intrinsic to the universe itself, but they didn’t have to be this way—there’s nothing in the laws of physics that determines these values. Yet if they were determined purely by chance, it would be far, far—trillions of times—more probable that the universe would be hostile to life—i.e. that life would be impossible anywhere in the universe, at any time in its history, no matter how friendly a life-friendly planet was!

This concept is brought out clearly in the above video, embedded in section 1C; the link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE76nwimuT0. (Cf. Dr. Meyer’s Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 8, especially pp. 184-190, Kindle Locations 2655-2768; Dr. Ross’s The Creator and the Cosmos, Chapter 15, Kindle Locations 2816-2827.)

3A. Possible range vs. allowable range for life

Why? The total, possible range of values that these parameters could assume or be set at—by chance alone—is huge, in comparison to the tiny, narrow ranges that permit life to exist. This too is illustrated well in the animated video on the fine-tuning embedded in section 1C, above.

Dr. Meyer specified that, “The allowable ranges of many physical constants and parameters are so incredibly narrow within the vast array of other possible values …” (Return of the God Hypothesis, notes for Chapter 7, p. 602, Kindle Locations 9944-9945) As I also quoted him above, “If any one of these properties were altered ever so slightly, complex chemistry and life simply would not exist.” (Ibid, Chapter 7, p. 165, Kindle Location 2365)

Therefore, if chance alone determined what these values were, our universe would most-probably be hostile to life; that is, no life anywhere in the universe would ever be able to form or survive!

Why? The chemical reactions that life requires would not be permitted in a universe where the values of these parameters were not set precisely in favor of life’s existence. Without this fine-tuning, life’s chemistry, and hence life itself, would be impossible at any time in the universe’s history, no matter how friendly a life-friendly planet would be—the fine-tuning is that important and necessary.

3B. More on chemistry and the critical question

Why? The next three paragraphs go over some chemical details about how our universe is fine-tuned; without the fine-tuning, even molecules and hence, life’s chemistry, would not exist! (Molecules are multiple atoms bound together as a unit. For instance, a water molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms bound together with one oxygen atom.) Without the universe being fine-tuned, not even one water molecule could form! And, of course, water is essential for life; no other fluid has water’s unique characteristics. (Cf. Is Atheism Dead? By New York Times Bestselling Author, Eric Metaxas, Salem Books, 2021, Chapter 4: The Fine-Tuned Universe; Chapter 5: More Planetary Fine-Tuning: Water and Sunlight.)

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has affirmed that, “For life to be possible, more than 40 different elements must be able to bond together to form molecules. Molecular bonding depends on two factors, the strength of the force of electromagnetism and the ratio of the electron mass to the proton mass.”

Continuing: “If the electromagnetic force were significantly larger, atoms would hang on to electrons so tightly that no sharing of electrons with other atoms would be possible. [And thus, there would be no molecules, no chemical reactions, and no life.] But if the electromagnetic force were significantly weaker, atoms would not hang on to electrons at all, and again, the sharing of electrons among atoms, which makes molecules possible, would not take place.” [Again, there would be no chemical reactions and no life.]

Concluding: “The size and stability of electron orbits around the nuclei of atoms depend on the ratio of the electron mass to the proton mass. Unless this ratio is delicately balanced, the chemical bonding essential for life chemistry could never take place.” (Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, RTB Press, 2018, Chapter 15, Kindle Locations 2717-2724; the bracketed expressions are mine.)

There are other fine-tuned parameters that also permit life’s chemistry to occur—such as the fine-tuning of the configuration of matter and energy at the beginning of the universe (initial entropy fine-tuning as determined by Oxford physicist Sir Roger Penrose), and the fine-tuning of the expansion rate of the universe. Without the fine-tuning of these parameters, stable planets and stars wouldn’t exist—hence, there would be no possible life sites—as well as no atoms nor molecules! (Cf. The Creator and the Cosmos, Chapter 15; Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 8.)

But let’s get to the critical question, which is: what accounts for this fact, that these parameters or properties—against all odds—are set at precisely the right values for life to exist in our universe?

3C. The two most-popular answers

Theists (including Christians) believe that God is responsible for this, for setting parameters at precisely the right values—for our universe being fine-tuned. But skeptics believe that the multiverse is responsible—though this option is no longer logically feasible as an alternative to theistic design, because of the extreme fine-tuning required for such a multiverse. We’ll delve into this (why the multiverse fails as an alternate explanation for the fine-tuning of our universe) in sections 5, 5A, and 5B.

In the following video, Dr. Meyer explains, among other things, how astrophysicist Fred Hoyle first discovered the fine-tuning; he also explains the multiverse and how it would have to be fine-tuned, if it exists. Click or tap on the center of the following YouTube block to play this video:

Stephen Meyer: Fine-Tuning and the Origin of the Universe

4. The specifics of how I overcame depression and suicidal thoughts

To make a long story short: from the descriptions of the fine-tuning by Dr. Ross, I realized that God was responsible for the fine-tuning (which appeared to be the case then and now is unquestionably the case). Since this was so, He was obviously in control of the parameters or characteristics of the universe. My understanding of the fine-tuning thus made God more real to me. (Scripture teaches that God is in control, but this became more real to me when I saw that science essentially verified it. Cf. Daniel 4:30-37; Philippians 3:20-21.)

Then, because of Romans 8:28, I took this reasoning one step further. The fine-tuning of the universe gave me the confidence to believe that He—God—was somehow in control of the awful things that had happened in my life—in that He allowed those things to happen for a good purpose.

The principle in Romans 8:28 applies to these situations: “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” (New American Standard Bible, The Lockman Foundation, 1995 & 2020) It doesn’t say that God causes all good things to work together for good; it says that God causes ALL things to work together for good—that is, all things, both good and bad.

I therefore thought to myself, “Since God allowed my hellish experiences for a good purpose, and if He’s going to work good through them, then there must be a lot of good coming my way!”

To summarize: I began listening to Dr. Ross’s podcast in 2003, during the worst of my depression. By March of 2004, I understood the fine-tuning of the universe and the relevance of Romans 8:28 to my situation. My knowledge of both of these gave me the confidence to believe that a lot of good was coming my way—if I did what the wisdom of Scripture showed me to do.

(Note: the two conditions of Romans 8:28 are met when a person is sincerely trying to follow the wisdom of Scripture, primarily out of a love for God. The idea is that we love God because He first loved us—but this is only true of the biblical God. “We love because He first loved us.” 1John 4:19, NASB. God said: “I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness.” Jeremiah 31:3, NASB. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” John 3:16, NKJV)

To be perfectly frank, another aspect to this was that, with my understanding of the fine-tuning and Romans 8:28, my intense suffering propelled me into following Scripture very carefully—more carefully than I ever have, because I wanted to minimize future suffering. (Jeremiah 29:11-13; John 10:10; Ephesians 3:20-21) Most Christians are in agreement that following God’s will very carefully will minimize our boneheaded mistakes and thus, many types of suffering—except, potentially, for persecution, the suffering that typically pertains to Christ and his followers.

4A. The results

Here are the results:

In this way (with this understanding) and at that time (in March of 2004), I was released from ALL of the depression and suicidal thoughts; not even a trace of these thoughts remained! I was eager to pursue whatever God showed me to do in Scripture, and I did believe that a lot of good would come my way as a result.

In this way, Dr. Ross’s perspective on the fine-tuning helped me GREATLY. (His perspective on the fine-tuning of the universe is found in Chapter 15 and Appendix A of his book, The Creator and the Cosmos, RTB Press, 2018.)

Now, years later, I see that a lot of good has come—but not through my being inactive. Instead, the good has come through the wisdom of Scripture showing me: (1) to seek for more wisdom from God, in Scripture, His revealed message (the Bible; e.g. James 1:5; John 8:31-32; Jeremiah 29:11-13; Matthew 7:7-8) and (2) to seek to know His truth better by seriously studying Christian apologetics—essentially the cogent and compelling evidences and reasons for God’s existence and identity. (Romans 1:19-20; 1Peter 3:15)

4B. What did I thereby receive?

In short, (1) my extensive studies in apologetics over the past 19 years have given me a strong assurance that I was correct when, years ago, I chose (with my will on the basis of evidence and reason) to believe in the Judeo-Christian God. (2) I’ve received great peace of mind (e.g. Isaiah 26:3-4), and (3) I’ve received, in my own mind and understanding, a lot of content to share on this blog!

There are some people who like and appreciate my blog. But it would probably not have had the information content that it does have if I had not gone through intense suffering. Suffering, properly understood, is a strong motivator to seek God, in prayer and in Scripture, to learn more of His truth and wisdom. God said, “For I know the plans that I have for you … plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.” (Jeremiah 29:11-13)

By the way, my story, and the stories of many other Christians, harmonize with Christ’s statement in John 10:10. Speaking about believers, He said: “…I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.” (New King James Version) His ideal will is obviously abundant life, NOT for us to prematurely end our lives!

4C. I wouldn’t want to go back

This is, in part, why I would never want to go back and become an atheist again, even if I could. (I can’t imagine how I could disregard all of the evidences for God—I’d have to be intellectually dishonest to do so—but if I could, I wouldn’t want to.) Why would I want to make myself unnecessarily vulnerable to depression and suicidal thoughts again? (This is unnecessary because the fine-tuning evidence is scientifically solid and undeniable; the only route of escape for the atheist—the multiverse—is not viable because a multiverse requires more-extreme fine-tuning than our universe does—and hence, it requires an intelligent Fine-Tuner, AKA God.)

Obviously, I’m not saying that all atheists are depressed and have suicidal thoughts! Of course not! (Atheists have a normal sense of self-worth; I did when I was an atheist.) But technically, atheists would have no rational defense against depression and suicidal thoughts if they suffered a great trauma and loss, as I did. (A hypothetical world without God wouldn’t care how much we suffer. In such a world, there would be no principle like Romans 8:28.) My only rescue came from believing and trusting in God; outside of Him, I know of no rescue that’s comparable in its effectiveness.

This is the featured image of this post (at the top of the page). God is exceedingly bright. (Matthew 17:1-2; Acts 26:9-18; 1John 1:5) Although this is a photo of a man looking at the Sun, it’s also analogous to someone discovering the magnificence and beauty of God, including His truth, His love, and His grace.

This is a beautiful testimony of the good things God likes to do. I recommend it: “So I prayed with everything I had” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLj4LaUIvFg.

5. Refuting the multiverse objection

I know that skeptics raise the multiverse objection to the theistic implications arising from the fine-tuning, but this was soundly refuted in the last post, particularly in sections 1A, 1B, 3D, and 3E. The multiverse is a hypothetical, vast array of a virtually-infinite number of other universes that we’ve never observed; no one knows from science if even one other universe exists besides our own! Nonetheless, skeptics say that, if a multiverse exists, our universe has all the right fine-tuned parameters just by chance—we just happen to be in that lucky universe that’s fine-tuned for life!

This multiverse objection is answered and completely nullified by recognizing that extreme fine-tuning is required for a multiverse based on string theory plus inflationary cosmology—the type of unobserved, hypothetical multiverse that skeptics have been forced to use as a postulate if they wanted a halfway-feasible, though speculative, argument. (A multiverse could exist out there, but no one knows if one does. Our universe may be the only one.) The skeptics have only a halfway-feasible argument because, even though it has a logical basis, it’s extremely speculative, plus it doesn’t take into account the fine-tuning required for such a multiverse, and this causes the argument to blatantly fail.

5A. Specifically why

Why? It can be easily recognized that, whether it’s for the actual fine-tuning observed for our universe OR whether it’s for the fine-tuning of a hypothetical multiverse, a transcendent intelligent Designer or Fine-Tuner—AKA God—must exist as the only realistic and viable explanation for either set of fine-tuned parameters. Either the first fine-tuned scenario (of our universe) OR the second fine-tuned scenario (of a hypothetical, string-inflationary multiverse) MUST have happened because OUR universe is unquestionably fine-tuned—something that even skeptics acknowledge!

Of course, the most-logical explanation that’s consistent with Ockham’s Razor is that our universe is, quite likely, the only universe—and it’s fine-tuned—which therefore makes God’s existence the only realistic explanatory option. (Ockham’s Razor is a scientific and philosophic rule stating that: “Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity.”) Cf. section 1C about Ockham’s Razor in the last post; Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 1, pp. 34-36, Kindle Locations 489-522; Chapter 16, pp. 396-400, Kindle Locations 6002-6057.

5B. Summing up

Dr. Meyer summed up his thoughts about the multiverse thusly: “…even if a multiverse hypothesis is true [i.e. even if a multiverse exists], it would support, rather than undermine, the intelligent design hypothesis, since the multiverse hypothesis depends upon the specific features of universe-generating mechanisms that invariably require prior and otherwise unexplained fine tuning.” (Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 16, p. 406, Kindle Locations 6159-6161; the bracketed expression is mine.)

In other words, even if a multiverse hypothesis is true (even if a multiverse exists), the intelligent design hypothesis (that an intelligent Designer caused the fine-tuning of the universe) is supported rather than undermined, because such a multiverse (that skeptics and atheists posit) would need to have universe-generating mechanisms that invariably require prior fine tuning—that would, then, have been caused by an intelligent Fine-Tuner!

What universe-generating mechanisms invariably require prior fine-tuning? Those of string theory and inflationary cosmology, as I noted above. These are the mechanisms that skeptics have been forced to use, but both require fine-tuning in order to produce a string-inflationary multiverse (by both mechanisms)—which skeptics need in order to have a halfway-feasible argument. But now this argument fails because both mechanisms require extreme fine-tuning, and hence, a Fine-Tuner or intelligent Designer.

In other words, in order for life to exist in our universe, either there’s one universe and God fine-tuned it OR there’s a multiverse and God fine-tuned that. Either way, God exists—very definitively, in order to account for either set of fine-tuning.

5C. Dr. Meyer’s book is a GAME-CHANGER

In this sense (of recognizing the extreme fine-tuning required for a hypothetical, string-inflationary multiverse AND of recognizing the resulting conclusion, that an intelligent Fine-Tuner must exist to explain either set of fine-tuning), Dr. Meyer’s Return of the God Hypothesis is a GAME-CHANGER: it makes public what was only known to a comparatively-few physicists. Namely, that atheism (or belief in God’s non-existence) is an invalid explanatory option for the fine-tuning that we DO observe in our universe—which skeptics and atheists acknowledge as a real phenomenon requiring explanation. But now the multiverse option (the only remaining explanatory option that atheists had) is logically invalid. (Either set of fine-tuned parameters—either those of our universe or those of a hypothetical multiverse—must have, as an explanation, the existence of an intelligent Designer—AKA God. There’s no other option or escape route for the atheist.)

The details are in Chapter 16 of Dr. Meyer’s Return of the God Hypothesis, particularly in the sections “Reasons to Prefer Theistic Design over the Multiverse,” “Prior Unexplained Fine Tuning,” “Making Matters Worse,” “Preexisting Unexplained Fine Tuning in String Theory,” “Deflating the Inflationary String Bubble?” “The Failed Predictions of String Theory,” and “A Divine Foot in the Door?”

In the following 9-minute video, as Dr. Meyer is being interviewed by Dinesh D’Souza, after a short discussion about Einstein’s cosmological constant, they briefly discuss the fine-tuning, the multiverse, the universe-generating mechanisms that require fine-tuning, and the simplest explanation. Click or tap on the center of the following YouTube block to play this embedded video:

Part 2: Dr. Stephen Meyer discusses how out fine-tuned universe points to a supernatural Fine-Tuner

If this video hasn’t appeared in your browser, the link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWHoctE3AVY.

6. Theistic design and the origin of biological information

Before I present this reasoning, I should state that I’m well-aware that skeptics will likely object to this on the basis that this is (supposedly) an example of the fallacious God-of-the-gaps reasoning. (E.g. “We don’t know how this happened, so God must have done it.”) This is not God-of-the-gaps reasoning; I’ll specify, very clearly, why it’s not in sections 6E and 6F.

The fine-tuning reinforces theistic design rather than deistic design because of another evidence: the infusion of massive amounts of new, specified information into the genomes (genetic content or DNA) of organisms, in the Cambrian Explosion and in other mass-speciation events, before which no evolutionary precursors or ancestral forms existed in the fossil record—which the Neo-Darwinian mechanism (of random mutations and natural selection, resulting in incremental, gradual changes) cannot account for (also because functional protein space is only a tiny fraction of total protein space), yet which the Intelligent Design paradigm superbly does (account for).

Scientists call this phenomenon of stasis over long time periods—followed by jumps or “saltations” to new life forms appearing which have no evolutionary precursors or ancestral forms in the fossil record—they call this phenomenon “punctuated equilibrium.”

But punctuated equilibrium has no workable mechanism except for the Intelligent Design paradigm! Thus, scientists essentially stick a label on these jumps or saltations—a label which names the phenomenon but doesn’t explain how it occurs from a naturalistic (or essentially atheistic) perspective—especially because functional protein space is only a tiny fraction of total protein space, upon which I elaborate below.

See the video describing these “saltations” (which contradict Darwin’s theory) by paleontologist Gunter Bechly at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V15sjy7gtVM. (Dr. Bechly is the aforementioned scientist who came to believe in intelligent design from the scientific evidence, apart from a religious background, for he had none. Cf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM.)

6A. Darwin’s own words

Darwin wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (The Origin of Species, Signet Classics, Chapter 6, Modes of Transition, Kindle Locations 3268-3270)

The problem today with Darwin’s statement is that entirely-new body plans have been observed to “pop up” in the fossil record, without having had any evolutionary precursors or ancestral forms! This is a direct violation of Darwin’s stated condition (for the success or confirmation of his theory), and thus, by implication, it contradicts his theory! Cf. Stephen Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, HarperOne, 2021, chapters 9, 10, 14, & 15.

Dramatically-new body plans require massive amounts of new, specified information to be in place, in the genetic content or DNA of these new organisms. In the next two sections, 6B & 6C, we see that there’s no naturalistic or materialistic way of accomplishing this. But this is not God-of-the-gaps reasoning—as we see in sections 6E & 6F.

Also see the partially-animated documentary: Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record: the Cambrian animals were animated. Cf. Webinar with Dr. Michael Behe; Dr. Meyer’s Return of the God Hypothesis, chapters 9, 10, 14, & 15, and Meyer’s book, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, HarperOne, 2013, especially chapters 17 & 18.

6B. No chance for chance

“Functional protein space is only a tiny fraction of total protein space” means that, if a protein molecule is constructed with a randomly-arranged sequence of amino acids, the probability of getting a functional protein (one that is sequence-specific in its amino acids and could thus perform a useful function inside a living cell) is “vanishingly small … even on the scale of … billions of years,” according to physicist Ilya Prigogine and his colleagues.

Dr. Stephen Meyer calculated that the probability of randomly producing a functional protein of modest length (150 amino acids) is a “vanishingly small” one chance in 10 to the 164th power, “an inconceivably small probability.” He also calculated that the probability of randomly producing a functional protein given “all the opportunities for that event to occur since the beginning of time” (i.e. given “the probabilistic resources of the universe”) was “less than one [chance] out of a trillion trillion.” And just one living cell requires “many hundreds of specialized proteins.” (Cf. Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 9, pp. 216-217, Kindle Locations 3168-3186)

Hence, we can easily infer that, since the chance of just ONE functional protein forming at random is “less than one out of a trillion trillion” (i.e. a trillion times a trillion)—in the entire history of the universe—and since one living cell requires “many hundreds of specialized proteins”; therefore, the probability of just ONE living cell forming at random is one chance in hundreds of times a trillion times a trillion; i.e. it’s not very great!

Dr. Meyer surmised that: “For these and other reasons, serious origin-of-life researchers now consider ‘chance’ an inadequate explanation for the origin of biological information.” (Ibid, p. 217, Kindle Locations 3186-3187)

6C. Chemical predestination?

Some scientists have proposed a chemical predisposition or “predestination” to account for a sequence-specific DNA molecule and its corresponding functional proteins forming via natural processes. But Dr. Meyer has explained why this can’t possibly account for the extreme diversity of sequence-specific, information-bearing DNA molecules and proteins found in the widely-diverse life forms of our biosphere. The primary reason, in fact, is that such chemical predestination would run counter to and severely limit the extremely diverse sequences of nucleotides in DNA and of amino acids in proteins that we DO observe in widely-diverse life forms! If chemical predestination accounted for all sequence-specific DNA and protein molecules, we would expect the diversity of life on Earth to be MUCH more-limited; what we actually see is the opposite: an enormously-wide range of diversity of life.

Dr. Meyer specified that, “differences in bonding affinity do not determine the arrangement of the nucleobases. In other words, forces of chemical attraction do not account for the information in DNA.” (Ibid, p. 219) Hence, chemical predestination is an inadequate explanation. Cf. Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 9, pp. 217-226, Kindle Locations 3195-3311.

For more, see Chapter 9 of Return of the God Hypothesis (pages 217-226, Kindle Locations 3195-3311) and/or the 10-minute, 47-second video by Dr. Meyer: “Can Self-Organization Explain the Origin of Biological Information?” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxOkYQPXNuA)

6D. Comments from a leading biologist

This problem pertains not just to the origin of life, but also, as I stated, to the origin of dramatically-new body plans in the history of life. Why? A dramatically-new body plan requires a new blueprint—i.e. a massive amount of new, specified information to be in place, in the genetic content of that new organism.

These are among the reasons why a highly-respected biologist, Dr. Gerd Müller, gave the talk that he did. In November of 2016, the Royal Society of London, arguably the world’s most-prestigious scientific body (over which Sir Isaac Newton once presided), held a conference in London, which Dr. Meyer attended. The keynote speaker for this conference was Austrian biologist, Professor Gerd B. Müller, who “opened the proceedings by outlining ‘the explanatory deficits’ of neo-Darwinism, including its inability to explain the origin of ‘phenotypic complexity’ and ‘anatomical novelty’ in the history of life.” (Ibid, p. 242, Kindle Locations 3535-3536)

What did he mean? As Dr. Meyer described it, “I attended this 2016 meeting and it was clear to me that Müller’s Royal Society audience understood the grave significance of his indictment … What exactly does neo-Darwinism fail to explain? A phenotype refers to the visible form of an animal’s or plant’s anatomy.”

Continuing: “Müller was therefore saying that standard neo-Darwinian theory has failed to explain the origin of the new and complex anatomical features and structures that have arisen throughout the history of life. That would include novel animal architectures such as the arthropod, chordate, and molluscan body plans; new anatomical structures such as wings, limbs, eyes, nervous systems, and brains; and new specialized organs such as the vertebrate liver, digestive system, and kidneys. In short, neo-Darwinism fails to explain the origin of the most important defining features of living organisms, indeed, the very features that evolutionary theory has, since Darwin, claimed to explain.” (Dr. Meyer’s description of biologist Gerd Müller’s keynote talk, in Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 10, p. 242, Kindle Locations 3537-3544)

6E. Is this God-of-the-gaps reasoning?

I know that skeptics will be tempted to claim that this is God-of-the-gaps reasoning—which is typically phrased: “We don’t know how this happened, so God must have done it.”

No, it’s not! Dr. Meyer was very specific in stating that the inference to intelligent design is NOT an example of God-of-the-gaps reasoning. Instead, it’s an inference to the best explanation—which is a well-known and well-accepted form of reasoning that’s integral to (i.e. a vital part of) the scientific method. Cf. God-of-the-Gaps or Best Explanation? Best Explanation Apologetics; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Abduction; Inference to the Best Explanation; On Guard Conference: William Lane Craig – What is Apologetics?

Inferences to the best explanation arise as a result of asking the question, “Which of these competing hypotheses best explains the scientific data?”

Dr. Meyer stated that, “…the argument presented here … uses straightforward considerations of causal adequacy along with parsimony and other theoretical virtues to assess the explanatory power of competing metaphysical hypotheses and to present theism as an inference to the best explanation, not an argument from ignorance.” (Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 20, p. 484, Kindle Locations 7498-7502) Theism, of course, is the belief in a personal Creator God who intervenes in the universe He has made.

6F. A logical argument for intelligent design

Dr. Meyer also presented a logical argument for intelligent design as the best explanation for biological information. He offered: “Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no materialistic causes have been discovered with the power to produce large amounts of specified information necessary to produce the first cell.” (Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 20, pp. 481-482, Kindle Locations 7463-7464) “Specified information” is information that has a specific meaning; it’s not gibberish.

“Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.” (Ibid, p. 482, Kindle Location 7465) Elsewhere in the book, Dr. Meyer states this more definitively: “Experience shows that large amounts of specified information invariably originate from an intelligent source.” (Ibid, Chapter 9, p. 230, Kindle Locations 3378-3379)

“Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified information in the cell.” (Ibid, Chapter 20, p. 482, Kindle Locations 7466-7467)

He added: “Clearly, in addition to a premise about how materialistic causes lack causal adequacy, this argument affirms the demonstrated causal adequacy of an alternate cause, namely, intelligent agency. The argument as stated does not fail to provide a premise affirming positive evidence for an alternate cause. The argument specifically includes such a premise. Therefore, it does not appeal to ignorance or commit a ‘gaps’ fallacy …” (Ibid, p. 482, Kindle Locations 7468-7471)

As was made clear in sections 5, 5A, and 5B of this post (i.e. on this blog page), the gist of this argument can also apply to the fine-tuning of the universe—because normally (and arguably universally), fine-tuned systems require an intelligent Designer. Recall that Dr. Meyer had defined fine-tuning as “a set of improbable parameters [i.e. properties, features, characteristics] that work jointly to establish some discernable function or outcome. And the examples of things that are finely-tuned are things like a French recipe or an internal combustion engine or a section of digital code. So whenever we see a fine-tuned system, those systems always have one thing in common, and that is that they were intelligently designed.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHIotPuNysk; the bracketed expression is mine.)

Dr. Meyer discusses “God of the gaps” reasoning in this short video. Click or tap on the center of the following YouTube block to watch the embedded video:

Stephen Meyer debunks the “God of the gaps” objection.

The link for this video is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGqzCA1mnyM.

7. Why should we believe Dr. Meyer?

Much of what I’ve written here about the fine-tuning is supported by the statements of Dr. Stephen Meyer. I regard him as a knowledgeable and respected authority on the fine-tuning and on other evidences for God’s existence. Why?

To a fair degree, I think Dr. Meyer’s qualifications are obvious, but for the skeptic, I’ll specify that Dr. Meyer received his PhD from the University of Cambridge, a very prominent and reputable institution. In fact, it’s often viewed as one of the finest universities in the world! (It’s ranked #3 in the world at https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/university-cambridge .)

In addition, Dr. Meyer is the Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, USA. Dr. Meyer’s latest book, Return of the God Hypothesis, is appreciated by other, objectively-minded scientists (i.e. those who don’t have a preconceived agenda or bias towards atheism).

A good example is Dr. Michael Denton, former Senior Research Fellow in Biochemistry at the University of Otago (in New Zealand). He wrote about Return of the God Hypothesis in glowing terms, as follows: “Reviewing all relevant evidence from cosmology to molecular biology, Meyer builds an irrefutable ‘case for God’ while delivering an unanswerable set of logical and scientific broadsides against the currently fashionable materialistic/atheistic worldview. Meyer builds his argument relentlessly, omitting no significant area of debate. The logic throughout is compelling and the book is almost impossible to put down.”

Continuing: “Meyer is a master of clarifying complex issues, making the text accessible to the widest possible audience. Readers will be struck by Meyer’s extraordinary depth of knowledge in every relevant area. The book is a masterpiece and will be widely cited in years to come. The best, most lucid, comprehensive defense of the ‘God hypothesis’ in print. No other publication comes close. A unique tour de force.”

This and positive statements from other scientists are found in Return of the God Hypothesis, under “Advance praise for Return of the God Hypothesis,” pp. 721-723, Kindle Locations 12532-12569.

Furthermore, according to Dr. Meyer (here), Dr. Brian Josephson, Professor Emeritus of physics at the University of Cambridge and a Nobel Laureate (a winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, in this case, in 1973) has endorsed Return of the God Hypothesis! A book should be considered outstandingly valuable if it’s endorsed by a Nobel Laureate.

Dr. Meyer discusses evidence for the identity of the intelligent Designer in the following 8-minute video: Who is Nature’s Designer? In this video, he astutely explains exactly WHY all of the evidence demonstrates that a theistic God exists. (He includes in his talk evidence from the fine-tuning, from biological information, and from the beginning of the universe.) Click or tap on the center of this YouTube block to play the video:

Who is Nature’s Designer? By Dr. Stephen Meyer

If this video doesn’t appear in your browser, the link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRtT21zgPbs.

8. The Judeo-Christian worldview fits or matches up with reality

Here’s another reason why Judeo-Christian theism triumphs over suicide: compared with other worldviews, the Judeo-Christian worldview harmonizes with and explains three scientific evidences AND the historical evidences BETTER than any other worldview. In other words, the Judeo-Christian worldview fits or matches with reality BETTER than any other worldview. Therefore, we can have confidence in it—that it’s true to reality—and this confidence will help us to have victory over suicidal thoughts; this confidence has certainly done this for me since March of 2004.

To understand this clearly, it helps to think in terms of explanatory power—which is the ability of a theory or worldview to explain reality or (in science) the data collected, the observations, or the experimental results. When different hypotheses are proposed to explain a phenomenon, the hypothesis having the greatest explanatory power is inferred to be the best explanation.

Dr. Meyer explains inference to the best explanation thusly: “In this method of reasoning, the explanatory power of a potential hypothesis determines which among a competing set of possible explanations is the best. Scientists infer the hypothesis among a competing group that would, if true, provide the best explanation of some set of relevant data.” (Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 11, p. 279, Kindle Locations 4037-4039)

And which hypothesis did we see as the best at explaining the fine-tuning? In section 5B, I quoted Dr. Meyer affirming that, “…even if a multiverse hypothesis is true [i.e. even if a multiverse exists], it would support, rather than undermine, the intelligent design hypothesis, since the multiverse hypothesis depends upon the specific features of universe-generating mechanisms that invariably require prior and otherwise unexplained fine tuning.” (Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 16, p. 406, Kindle Locations 6159-6161; the bracketed expression is mine.)

As I summarized this and concluded in section 5B, in order for life to exist in our universe, either there’s one universe and God fine-tuned it OR there’s a multiverse and God fine-tuned that. Either way, God exists—very definitively, in order to account for either set of fine-tuning.

8A. An excellent video by Dr. Meyer and the five-fold fine-tuning for carbon

On the following video, Dr. Meyer similarly explains (1) why three scientific evidences point to theism, under which Judeo-Christian theism is subsumed or categorized. (I and many other Christians have argued for specifically Judeo-Christian theism on the basis of numerous, compelling historical evidences, in light of the New Testament’s obvious historical reliability. Cf. Dr. Craig Blomberg’s scholarly book, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament, B&H Academic, 2016; also, Drs. Norman Geisler & Frank Turek’s informative, lay-friendly book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Crossway Books, 2004; section #4 of Post #8.)

(2) At around 14 to 16 minutes into the video, Dr, Meyer explains the five-fold fine-tuning that’s required to make carbon in the universe. Of course, carbon is required for all life forms; not even silicon can be used to build the long chain-like molecules of DNA, RNA, and proteins that are necessary for life. (Cf. Return of the God Hypothesis, p. 166, Kindle Locations 2376-2384)

The five-fold fine-tuning that’s required to make carbon in the universe is as follows. (I’ve supplemented Dr. Meyer’s statements from the video with information from Dr. Hugh Ross’s book, The Creator and the Cosmos, RTB Press, 2018, Chapter 15 & Appendix A: Evidence for the Fine-Tuning of the Universe.)

The force of gravity must be not too strong, nor too weak to permit nucleosynthesis at the right rate (as in a beryllium nucleus plus a helium nucleus producing a carbon nucleus) inside of stars. If the force of gravity were stronger, stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly (for the right amount of heavy elements to be produced and to be expelled from stars, so that a sufficient amount of heavy elements arrives on Earth; life requires both light and heavy elements.) If the force of gravity were weaker, stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite; hence, no heavy elements would be produced inside of stars and, without heavy elements, no life could ever form in the universe!
The force of electromagnetism must be not too strong, nor too weak. If it were too strong, there would be insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron (including carbon and oxygen) would be unstable in forming molecules. [Hence, there would be insufficient chemical bonding for life, because life requires long chain-like molecules of DNA, RNA, and protein. These would not be able to form if the electromagnetic force were too strong.] If it were too weak, there would again be insufficient chemical bonding; there would be inadequate quantities of carbon and oxygen.
The strong nuclear force must be not too strong, nor too weak, within a very narrow range. If it were just four percent stronger, protons and neutrons would have such an affinity for one another that not one would remain alone. Thus, there would be no hydrogen in the universe, and hydrogen is essential for life. If it were ten percent weaker, carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen nuclei would be unstable [and unable to continue in existence], and again physical life would be impossible! Dr. Ross added: “Does this just apply to life as we know it? No, this holds true for any conceivable kind of life chemistry throughout the cosmos.” (The Creator and the Cosmos, Chapter 15, Kindle Locations 2736-2737)
The weak nuclear force must be not too strong, nor too weak, within a very narrow range (to within one part in ten thousand). If it were stronger, too much hydrogen would have been converted to helium; hence, there would be too much heavy element production by star burning and no expulsion of heavy elements (that life requires) from stars. Thus, there would be no heavy elements on Earth! If it were weaker, too little helium would have been produced. Hence, there would be too little heavy element production by star burning and again, there would be no expulsion of heavy elements from stars [which requires a balance in the amount of heavy element production] and again, no heavy elements on Earth. (Life requires both light and heavy elements.)
Quark masses must have very precise values in order for the right nuclear reactions to occur, in order to produce the right elements for life, such as carbon and oxygen.

Dr. Meyer also explains (3) why theism is the BEST explanation scientifically, in contrast to the four other seemingly-feasible alternatives; namely, deism, pantheism, materialism (or essentially atheism), and the Panspermia Hypothesis. We delve into these distinctions below, in section 8C.

8B. The link starts at the 43-minute, 9-seond mark of the video

I think that it’s best to start at the 43-minute, 9-second mark of the video—where I’ve set (in the link) the video to begin at—and where Dr. Meyer sums up his lecture. Then you can watch his entire talk. He’s extremely informative, plus he’s balanced in that he makes statements that are reasonably and soundly conclusive, yet he doesn’t state them arrogantly or in an overblown fashion—he doesn’t go beyond what the evidence demonstrates.

Click or tap on the center of the following YouTube block to play this video. It will start at his summing up, at the 43-minute, 9-second mark. To watch the video from the beginning, after the video starts, use the horizontal slider to scroll back to the beginning OR click the second link below.

One God or many universes? Stephen Meyer explores how fine-tuning points to intelligent design.

If this video doesn’t appear in your browser, the link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwa6LfZlGN8&t=2589s. To easily watch the video from the beginning, click here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwa6LfZlGN8.

8C. Five possible worldviews

On the video, Dr. Meyer mentions five possible worldviews that have been proposed to explain the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe and of the laws & constants of physics, and the specified information that’s present in the DNA of living organisms. These five possible worldviews are:

1. Theism is the belief in a Creator God who intervenes in the universe He has made. The three best-known theistic religions are Christianity or Christian theism, Judaism, and Islam. Theism perfectly explains the origin of the universe (this implies the existence of a transcendent causal Agent), the intelligent design of the fine-tuning of the universe (this implies the existence of a transcendent intelligent Designer), and the intelligent design of the specified information in DNA (this implies the existence of an imminent intelligent Designer).

2. Deism is the belief in a God who created the universe, but who then left it alone; he did not intervene in the universe after its creation. A deistic God can’t explain the intelligent design of the specified information in DNA, as we saw in sub-section 4A of this post (which implies the existence of an imminent—present and intervening in the universe—intelligent Designer).

3. Pantheism is the belief in a god that’s supposed to be the universe itself, which, of course, consists of matter and energy. The pantheistic god is therefore not personal; it has no mind and cannot make choices. Hence, this god can’t be responsible for the intelligent design of the fine-tuning of the universe, nor of the specified information in DNA. It also can’t be responsible for its own origin (i.e. the beginning of the universe), because then it would have to exist before it existed (in order to hypothetically create itself or cause its own existence), but this is logically absurd. Nothing can exist before it exists! (Most scientists today do believe that the universe probably had its origin or beginning at some point in the finite past. Cf. Return of the God Hypothesis, chapters 12, 17, 18, & 19.)

4. Materialism is the belief that only physical matter and its manifestations are real, and that everything that exists or occurs, including the mind, will, and emotions, can (supposedly) be explained in terms of matter and in terms of the manifestations or functions of matter. This is a similar or companion worldview to atheism, which is the belief that God doesn’t or probably doesn’t exist. However, materialism OR atheism can’t explain the origin of the universe (matter can’t create itself; it can’t exist before it exists; this origin implies the existence of a transcendent causal Agent), nor can it explain the intelligent design of the fine-tuning of the universe (this implies the existence of a transcendent intelligent Designer), nor can it explain the intelligent design of the specified information in DNA (this implies the existence of an imminent intelligent Designer).

5. The Panspermia Hypothesis is that space aliens supposedly seeded or brought simple life forms to the Earth, early in its history. The life forms that are present on Earth today supposedly evolved from those primitive organisms that the aliens brought here. However, this cannot explain the origin of the universe, nor the intelligent design of the fine-tuning of the universe, nor does it explain the biological information that was needed in the first life forms that arose in the universe. Why? Well, who put the biological information into the genomes of the extraterrestrial aliens to get them going? Some skeptics say, “Other extraterrestrial aliens!” But then, who put the information into the FIRST extraterrestrial aliens in our universe? Only an imminent intelligent Designer could, because neo-Darwinism can’t explain it, yet intelligent Design explains it very well.

Neo-Darwinism can’t explain the first life forms because it doesn’t address the origin-of-life problem. Random mutations and natural selection act on life that already exists, yet the latest evidence shows that they don’t go beyond the biological classification level of family, according to Professor Michael Behe. All of this is an inference to the best explanation, plus we have independent evidence from the fine-tuning that God exists and therefore, may well be responsible for biological information. In addition, we have the inference that, since we observe that large amounts of specified, complex information always come from an intelligent source; therefore, large amounts of DNA’s biological information—which is specified and complex—most-probably come from an intelligent Source as well. Cf. Webinar with Dr. Michael Behe; Return of the God Hypothesis, chapters 9, 10, 14, & 15; Darwin Devolves: The New Science about DNA that Challenges Evolution by Professor Michael Behe, HarperOne, 2019.

And in regards to the universe’s initial fine-tuning: since the multiverse explanation has been nullified, and since some parameters or properties were fine-tuned from the very beginning of the universe (in order to allow for life to exist on a life-friendly planet), the Fine-Tuner has to be an intelligent Agent transcendent to (or existing beyond) the universe, not an extraterrestrial alien merely living on a planet within the universe.

9. Animated videos demonstrating why God exists

Here are links to other videos – many of them animated videos – that feature logical arguments for God, based on evidence, from Reasonable Faith, the organization founded by Dr. William Lane Craig:

Five arguments for God’s existence: this is a one-hour video made in 2019 by Dr. Craig, which includes five of these animated videos.
The Evidence for Christianity by Dr. Craig: this video, while not animated, is an excellent summary of scholarly perspectives on certain evidences.

A photo of a man wearing a "Faith and Reason" jacket, which implies that faith is compatible with reason. — **Man wearing “Faith and Reason” jacket, implying that faith is compatible with reason.** **Photo credit: Jon Tyson, Unsplash.com.**

10. Recommended books

In my opinion, everyone who is tempted to commit suicide should be encouraged to investigate Judeo-Christian theism (i.e. belief in the Judeo-Christian God), for two reasons:

1. Judeo-Christian theism is supported by logically-cogent and compelling evidences that can be investigated and studied.

2. The truths of Judeo-Christian theism work powerfully in a person’s mind and heart to dissuade him/her from committing suicide.

Here are some books that provide cogent evidences for Judeo-Christian theism:

10A. A good book describing evidence for God

As to books focusing on evidence for God, I recommend Is Atheism Dead? By New York Times bestselling author, Eric Metaxas. (Salem Books, 2021)

Metaxas clearly recognizes the fact that, because of the recent increase in scientific evidences for God’s existence and in archeological evidences supporting the Bible’s text, more people are turning from atheism to theism (i.e. minimally, belief in the Creator God who intervenes in the universe He has made).

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has commented that, “With great oratorical skill and irrepressible humor, Metaxas engages lay readers with the story of how recent discoveries have made atheism scientifically, historically, and philosophically untenable.” (Is Atheism Dead? P. 1, Kindle Locations 8-10)

Metaxas makes a powerful statement at the very beginning of the book: “We are living in unprecedentedly exciting times. But most of us don’t know it yet. That’s essentially the point of this book, to share the news that what many people have dreamt of—and others have believed could never happen—has happened, or at any rate is happening this very minute and has been happening for some time. By this I mean the emergence of inescapably compelling evidence for God’s existence.” (Is Atheism Dead? Introduction, p. 3, Kindle Locations 64-67)

Topics in this book include the scientific evidence that points to God’s existence from the Big Bang, the fine-tuned Earth, the fine-tuned universe. planetary fine-tuning, and the origin of life; corroborating discoveries from biblical archeology, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the New Testament manuscripts; three atheists who found God; the boundaries of science; the impossible bleakness of materialistic atheism; the founding myth of atheism; Christianity begat science, and great scientists who were also devout Christians.

Here’s possibly the most-positive and encouraging video I’ve ever seen about God’s existence! It’s by Eric Metaxas, as he speaks at Calvary Church in Albuquerque, New Mexico, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo7jjVajISI.

10B. In addition

I also recommend reading:

• The lay-friendly (easy to read) book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek (Crossway Books, 2004). This makes the scientific evidence for God easily understandable; it also has very cogent perspectives on why the New Testament is historically reliable.

• The Case for Christ: Solving the Biggest Mystery of All Time by journalist, former atheist, and New York Times Bestselling Author, Lee Strobel (Zondervan, 2017). This is also available in a previous edition: The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Zondervan, 2016). The author, Lee Strobel, interviews top scholars in order to ascertain the historical authenticity and credibility of the New Testament and of Jesus himself.

• Dr. William Lane Craig’s On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (David C. Cook, 2010), and the student edition: On Guard for Students: A Thinker’s Guide to the Christian Faith (David C. Cook, 2015). Both of these versions present philosophical (i.e. validly logical), scientific, and historical reasons for Judeo-Christian theism—reasons that are recognized as cogent by reputable scholars, of whom Dr. Craig is one. I was particularly impressed with the depth and cogency of his explanations of why atheism offers minimal meaning and value for our lives now, and no real hope for the future—while Judeo-Christian theism, by contrast, offers vital and vibrant meaning and value for our lives now, and tremendous hope for the future!

• The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith, edited by William Dembski, Casey Luskin, and Joseph Holden (Harvest House Publishers, 2021). This book is an anthology, featuring contributions by thirty-one scholars and scientists, many of whom are experts in their field. They promote the perspective that there is no real conflict between science and faith—only the appearance of a conflict—and that there is scientific evidence that supports theistic and Judeo-Christian beliefs. I’d say that the evidences, from various scholarly and scientific disciplines, are overwhelming in their cumulative effect.

11. Following my blog

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox, within minutes after a new post is online.

12. Other videos pointing to God’s existence

Here’s an extremely-informative video of Dr. William Lane Craig, sharing about the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Fine-Tuning Argument, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMn0RvVq4oY&t=148s

This “Paradigm Project” video shows scholars and scientists explaining, step by step, the Intelligent Design paradigm. What is it and what does it mean? It’s at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jxaF36arB4.

Dr. William Lane Craig explains on this podcast why skeptics are mistaken about the Christian Faith supposedly being blind faith; instead, it’s the exact opposite; the Christian Faith is normally BASED on evidence and reason! (“The Nature of Faith” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zwsp8s7Odzo) Cf. Exodus 4:1-5; 14:26-31; 1Kings 18:36-39; Psalm 19:1-2; Mark 2:5-12; John 2:1-11, 23; 10:37-38; 14:11; 20:24-31; Acts 1:3; 2:22-41; 3:11—4:4; 8:4-13, 26-38; 9:1-22, 32-42; 14:15-17; 17:1-4, 10-12, 22-34; 22:1-16; 26:9-20; Romans 1:19-20; 1Peter 3:15.

Eric Metaxas, New York Times bestselling author, fully agrees with the Intelligent Design paradigm. Watch him explain his new book, Is Atheism Dead? It’s in this video: “God’s Not Dead, but with New Scientific Findings, Atheism Sure Is” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyjSULrMPzI.

The best reply to an atheist, evolutionist, and agnostic by Ravi Zacharias, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDn9_7VmmRc

“One God or Many Universes? Stephen Meyer Explores How Fine-Tuning Points to Intelligent Design” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwa6LfZlGN8)

The miracle of the Human Heart by biologist Michael Denton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52JfcJvP-Sk

Stephen Meyer answers questions about the Judeo-Christian origins of science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBwRC8qJSoI

Adrienne Johnson: Why I an no longer an atheist, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnOTuHgXJfs

“Is Science Turning Back to God?” by Dr. Stephen Meyer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5iVRIWtIcA

Darwin’s Nightmare (Basics of Intelligent Design Biology, Ep. 1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3B8KkSZp_E

Why the Cambrian Explosion contradicts neo-Darwinism:

(1) The partially-animated documentary: Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record

(2) Darwin’s Nightmare: Basics of Intelligent Design Biology, Episode 1

(3) Still NO fossils? Basics of Intelligent Design Biology, Episode 2

Science Uprising video: Dr. James Tour: Why the Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y

The Unique Origins of Humanity in the Fossil Record by Dr. Casey Luskin

Why God allows suffering – Dr. Hugh Ross, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEJboUJVk4Y

Science and Christianity – a discussion with astrophysicist Hugh Ross, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J1LcaRKxnw

“Debunking the Hallucination Hypothesis: Leading Doctors Speak on Jesus” with Dr. Sean McDowell, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT12FnjJLKI

Is it possible to know God? An animated video by Dr. William Lane Craig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjbeqL_qBl8

Eric Metaxas explains in detail his book, Is Atheism Dead? It’s in this video: “God’s Not Dead, but with New Scientific Findings, Atheism Sure Is” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyjSULrMPzI.

Drs. Sean MacDowell & Titus Kennedy on the archeological evidence for Jesus at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXN6E3MeMbk