#13: Why the Fine-Tuning of the Universe Unquestionably Demonstrates the Existence of God

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

This is a new (90% new content) and clearly-written explanation of why the fine-tuning of the universe (and of a hypothetical multiverse) unquestionably demonstrates the existence of a Creator God—beyond any reasonable doubt! (There are no other realistic or reasonable options.)

God of the gaps versus inference to the best explanation

In other words, this scientifically-substantiated proof for God’s existence demolishes atheism to the uttermost—since this is an exceedingly-highly-probable inference to the best explanation; it’s not God-of-the-gaps reasoning. (And the multiverse as an alternative explanation is nullified by the fact that it requires extreme fine-tuning. Thus, whether it’s for our universe OR for a multiverse, a Fine-Tuner/intelligent Designer, AKA God, is required.)

“God of the gaps” reasoning is presumptive reasoning from ignorance; one says, “We don’t know how this phenomenon occurred, so God must have done it.” By contrast, an inference to the best explanation offers positive evidence for the likelihood or probability of a given explanation as being the best explanation (that’s most-consistent with every evidence) for a particular phenomenon. An inference to the best explanation is therefore an integral part of the scientific method.

Dr. Stephen Meyer (philosopher of science with a doctorate from the University of Cambridge, and the Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute) 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, right here on this page:

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

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

What I wanted

I simply wanted a blog post that would directly explain the fine-tuning argument for God’s existence apart from (undistracted by) other considerations. Why? The fine-tuning argument is a very cogent logical argument in itself.

Post #11 explains the fine-tuning as the information I needed to overcome depression and suicidal thoughts, here. This current post (#13) delves a bit more into the scientific reasons for why the fine-tuning is necessary for any life to exist in the universe—and thus a bit more into why the fine-tuning points directly to the activity of a Fine-Tuner/intelligent Designer.

An Outline

Here’s an outline of the main sections in this post:

Eric Metaxis: this is exciting, but most of us don’t know it
What is the fine-tuning of the universe?
Scientists speak out about the fine-tuning
Why is the fine-tuning astounding?
Fine-tuning of the expansion rate
The critical question
Why the multiverse alternative won’t work
Why should we believe Dr. Meyer?
Animated videos demonstrating why God exists
Following my blog
What is a personal relationship with God?
Other videos pointing to God’s existence

1. Eric Metaxis: this is exciting, but most of us don’t know it

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 here: click or tap on the center of the following YouTube block to play it on this page:

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)

2. What is the fine-tuning of the universe?

This is my favorite scientific evidence and argument that, realistically and incontrovertibly, proves God’s existence. Though I more-specifically believe in the evidence for the biblical God, this proof can serve as a firm foundation for anyone who believes in a Creator God. I hope that you’re as excited about this as I am! For those without a technical background, I’ve explained the fine-tuning in layman’s terms and with a few quotes from Dr. Meyer.

Dr. Stephen Meyer (philosopher of science with a doctorate from the University of Cambridge, and the Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute) defined the fine-tuning of the universe in this way: it’s “…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.” (From his book, Return of the God Hypothesis, HarperOne, 2021, Chapter 7, p. 165, Kindle Locations 2358-2359)

In other words, many properties, features, or characteristics of the universe—such as its expansion rate—have been apparently set or fixed at just the right values (“within extremely narrow and improbable ranges”) in order to allow “complex chemistry, and thus any conceivable form of life, to exist” on a life-friendly planet!

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

3. 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.)

3A. 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.)

3B. 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)

4. Why is the fine-tuning astounding?

Why is the fine-tuning astounding? As we shall see, without this fine-tuning, no life could ever exist within our universe at ANY time in its history—the fine-tuning is THAT vital and necessary for life’s existence! (Cf. Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapters 7, 8, & 13.)

Why? Dr. Meyer explained: “Physicists have determined that, if the matter at the beginning of the universe had been configured even slightly differently, there would be either an extreme clumping of matter, resulting in a universe in which only black holes would exist or, alternately, a highly diffuse arrangement of matter without any large-scale structures at all. Both of these alternatives would have prevented the formation of stable galaxies and stars in which life-friendly solar systems might later emerge. … Only the extreme fine tuning of that initial configuration enabled galaxies, stars, and planetary systems to form.” (Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 8, p. 185; Kindle Locations 2661-2671)

In other words, without the fine-tuning, no stable galaxies, no stable stars, and no stable planets could ever have formed within our universe: either matter would have been dispersed too-thinly throughout the universe (with no large-scale structures at all) OR only black holes would have formed, and no chemistry nor life could ever exist on or in a black hole! (The gravitational force would be millions or billions of times greater than Earth’s gravity; this would crush and kill ANY type of life.)

4A. Matter dispersed too thinly, no stars, and unstable stars

As to the option of matter being dispersed too-thinly: within this scenario, no stable stars would be able to form, yet a Sun-like, stable star is necessary to produce consistently-moderate temperatures on an orbiting planet, so that life can be sustained over a long period of time.

Thus, (1) if there were no stars, the temperature of the universe would be near absolute zero or minus 459.67 degrees on the Fahrenheit scale— much too cold for life’s chemistry to occur.

(2) As to unstable stars: “…a life-support planet must be maintained by a star of very specific mass. A star more massive than the Sun will burn too quickly and too erratically for life on the planet to be sustained. But the star cannot be any less massive either. Smaller mass stars experience more frequent and violent flares.” (Dr. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, RTB Press, 2018, Chapter 17, in the section “The Right Star,” Kindle Locations 3406-3408)

5. Fine-tuning of the expansion rate

Dr. Meyer also explained that, in order for galaxies to form at all, the expansion rate of the universe had to have been fine-tuned to within one part in a trillion times a trillion (10 to the 24th power)—at a minimum! (Cf. Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 8, p. 190; Kindle Location 2753-2757) This is a conservative estimate; other estimates have ranged down to within one part in 10 to the 55th power!

Why is the expansion rate important? In order for every life-essential element—like oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon—to form and thus to be available for life on Earth, our Sun and solar system must have formed within a stable spiral galaxy like ours; i.e. the Milky Way. Thereby, different types of stars are available which synthesize the various life-essential elements, some of which are expelled into space, and, over time, have been distributed in the Sun’s vicinity and on Earth. (Cf. Ross, Chapter 17.)

However, if the universe had expanded too quickly, particles of matter would have spread out too thinly before galaxies had a chance to form. Or, if the universe had expanded too slowly, the gravitational force attracting one particle of matter to another would have pulled numerous particles together, forming black holes in the universe—again, before galaxies had a chance to form. Either way, there would be no galaxies, no stable stars, negligible life-essential elements, and no stable planetary systems. The expansion rate of the universe is critically important! (I’m summarizing a lot of information here; cf. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, Chapters 15 & 17.)

The only way for galaxies, stable stars, life-essential elements, and stable planetary systems to be available (in order to provide a life-friendly planet, like Earth, as a life site) is for the expansion rate of the universe to be not too fast nor too slow, within a narrow range—which it apparently is, since there ARE galaxies, stable stars, life-essential elements, and stable planetary systems!

5A. What’s astounding here

The astounding thing is that this expansion rate must be precisely correct—to within one part in a trillion times a trillion (i.e. one part in 10 to the 24th power), which, again, is a conservative estimate. (Cf. Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 8, p. 190; Kindle Location 2753-2757)

More-plainly stated (and since 10 to the 24th is a million times a million, times a million, times a million), if we expected this expansion rate value to occur by random chance—so that galaxies could form and thus make life-essential elements and life-friendly planets possible—the odds would be one chance in a million times a million, times a million, times a million!

Why is this astounding? We can now reasonably infer, strictly by definition (from the remote odds), that the expansion rate of the universe was probably not set at its current value by random chance alone! Since the odds are so remote, another factor was likely involved! As we shall see, most people favor the additional factor of either intelligent design or a multiverse, but a multiverse won’t work; see section 7 below, on this page. (Cf. Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 8, p. 190; Kindle Location 2753-2757; Chapter 16, on why the multiverse won’t work.)

5B. No fine-tuning results in no life site

From this it’s obvious that, without the fine-tuning, there would have been no site for ANY kind of life to exist. Life requires a Sun-like star (that’s stable in its burning or fusion, and that’s not too hot & bright, nor too cool & dim) as an energy source, along with a rocky planet with a breathable atmosphere, like Earth, as a life site. (Most planets don’t have the right mass and gravity, along with a breathable atmosphere, for multicellular plants, animals, and humans to survive. Plants intake carbon dioxide and release oxygen into the atmosphere; animals and humans intake oxygen and release carbon dioxide.)

Nothing like our Sun and Earth would have arisen if the initial configuration of matter or if the expansion rate of the universe had been significantly altered! Dr. Meyer stated this above, about the matter configuration; cf. Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 8, p. 185. And the odds of the expansion rate being correctly set (for life to exist) are very remote, to say the least!

6. The critical question

The critical question to ask is this: How did our universe get this way? – How was our universe so exquisitely fine-tuned in order for ANY form of life to exist within it?

Two ways to produce a fine-tuned universe have been proposed: either a very-powerful intelligent Designer/Fine-Tuner (i.e. Creator God) produced it OR a hypothetical, special type of multiverse (predicated on string theory and inflationary cosmology) produced it.

This hypothetical multiverse is the presumed array of a vast number (trillions of trillions of trillions) of other universes in other dimensions outside of our universe, though no scientist knows if any of these other universes actually exist! Our universe may be the only one in existence!

Why? This multiverse hypothesis is an unconfirmed guess, predicated on hypothetical possibilities that might or might not occur within string theory and inflationary cosmology. If all eleven of these possibilities don’t line up to allow for the existence of a string-inflationary multiverse, realistically, our universe could be the only one that exists. (Cf. Dr. Stephen Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, HarperOne, 2021, Chapter 16, pp. 396-400.)

6A. The theory skeptics use to explain the fine-tuning

This theory (put forward by skeptics of God’s existence) is that, if a multiverse exists, and if the universes (within this hypothetical multiverse) vary from one another in their physical features or characteristics (which they may or may not do; we don’t know), THEN our universe could—very, very hypothetically—end up being fine-tuned purely as a random-chance-selection effect.

In other words, within this hypothetical scenario, we would “happen” to live in the lucky universe that had all of its characteristics set at the correct values (for life to exist) by random chance—while virtually all other universes in the multiverse would have their characteristics randomly selected at incorrect values; hence, they would be lifeless. So we would just “happen” to live in the lucky universe that’s fine-tuned for life, and random chance (supposedly) explains it all!

But it’s not that simple. One big problem is that these skeptics just assume that these trillions of trillions of other universes exist WITHOUT ANY PROOF AT ALL FOR THEIR EXISTENCE! But there’s another, more-formidable problem.

7. Why the multiverse alternative won’t work

We now know that this multiverse theory won’t work (to explain the fine-tuning of our universe as a supposed result of natural processes). Our universe is not only fine-tuned, but also, any relevant multiverse (predicated on string theory and inflationary cosmology) would have to be exquisitely fine-tuned as well!

Why does this matter? Whether it’s to account for the fine-tuning of our universe OR for the more-extreme fine-tuning of a string-inflationary multiverse (the only kind that skeptics can reasonably propose), a very-powerful intelligent Designer/Fine-Tuner (i.e. Creator God) would have to exist!

By way of explanation: skeptics have to propose the existence of a multiverse predicated on string theory and inflationary cosmology because any other type of multiverse couldn’t begin to account for the fine-tuning of our universe; only a string-inflationary multiverse begins to do this.

But now, since we know that a string-inflationary multiverse would have to be fine-tuned—even more-extremely than our own universe is—therefore, an intelligent Designer/Fine-Tuner (i.e. Creator God) must exist in order to account for either set of fine-tuning—for the fine-tuning of our universe OR for that of a string-inflationary multiverse—and there’s no third option! (Cf. Dr. Stephen Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 16: One God or Many Universes?)

In other words, we now know that a Creator God DOES exist! He exists bnecause EITHER our universe was fine-tuned by Him OR a multiverse was—there’s no third option! He MUST exist in order to account for either set of fine-tuning!

7A. Dr. Meyer comments

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, if a multiverse exists, its existence would support rather than undermine the existence of an intelligent Designer/Fine-Tuner (!) because the very existence of a string-inflationary multiverse (the only kind that skeptics can reasonably propose) depends upon “specific features of universe-generating mechanisms that invariably require prior and otherwise unexplained fine tuning.”

So it all boils down to what I observed above: Whether it’s to account for the fine-tuning of our universe OR for the more-extreme fine-tuning of a string-inflationary multiverse, a very-powerful intelligent Designer/Fine-Tuner (i.e. Creator God) must exist!

7B. Another good video

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

If this video doesn’t appear in your browser, the link is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ7GBZm087Y.

7C. The ONLY rational and realistic explanation for the fine-tuning

Thus, an intelligent Designer/Fine-Tuner is the ONLY rational and realistic explanation for EITHER the fine-tuning of our universe OR for the fine-tuning that a hypothetical, relevant multiverse would absolutely (“invariably”) require! (The only hypothetical relevant multiverse to this issue is the string-inflationary multiverse. And according to Dr. Meyer, such a multiverse’s fine-tuning would have to be even more extreme than the fine-tuning of our own universe, which already points directly to the existence of a Creator God! Cf. Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 16.)

I know that atheists would like a third option here, to avoid the inescapable conclusion that a Creator God exists. But there isn’t any, because the fine-tuning (of either our universe or of a hypothetical multiverse) must be explained, and there’s only one rational and realistic explanation: a Creator God as the Fine-Tuner! There’s no logical “wiggle room” here to rationally wiggle or squirm out of this conclusion—which means that the fine-tuning is a logical and reasonable proof for God’s existence!

7D. ETs can’t explain it

By the way, the reason we know that a theistic—not deistic—God exists is that He acts within the universe well after its creation, as in the infusion of massive amounts of new biological information into the genomes of organisms, as in the Cambrian Explosion—which the Neo-Darwinian mechanism cannot account for, yet which intelligent design superbly does. (See the partially-animated documentary: Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record: the Cambrian animals were animated. Also see Dr. Stephen Meyer’s book, Darwin’s Doubt, particularly chapters 17 and 18; HarperOne publishers, 2013, and his recent book, Return of the God Hypothesis, chapters 9, 10, 14, and 15.)

Neo-Darwinism is particularly inadequate in accounting for the presence of large amounts of specified, complex, algorithmic information (numerous sets of step-by-step instructions in the developmental regime of complex multicellular organisms, such as mammals, especially humans)—the presence of such information strongly argues for the existence of a theistic God (one who intervenes in the universe He has made).

Why? In all of our experience, large amounts of specified information of this sort (step-by-step instructions) only come from an intelligent source! Hence, it’s an inference to the best explanation (not God-of-the-gaps reasoning) to conclude that this large amount of specified algorithmic information (in the developmental regime of multicellular organisms) probably came from an intelligent Designer; i.e. a theistic God! (Cf. Dr. Stephen Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, chapters 9, 10, 14, 15, & 20; Dr. Fazale Rana, biochemist, author of Chapter 12 of Thinking About Evolution, RTB Press. 2020; Does Information Come from a Mind? Too Good to Be True: Evolution and the Origin of Bioinformation.)

Some skeptics acknowledge that the Neo-Darwinian mechanism can’t explain biological information in the first life on Earth. But they claim that, “Extraterrestrial aliens seeded life on Earth and they put the biological information into those primitive life forms.” (This is called the panspermia hypothesis.)

Nevertheless, 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 intelligent Designer (a theistic God) 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. 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.

Dr. Meyer makes another point concerning this “space alien” (panspermia) hypothesis, along with the fine-tuning of the universe: “…panspermia certainly does not explain the origin of the cosmological fine tuning. Since the fine tuning of the laws and constants of physics and the initial conditions of the universe date from the very origin of the universe itself, if intelligent design best explains the fine tuning, then the designing intelligence responsible for the fine tuning must have had the capability of setting the fine-tuning parameters and initial conditions from the moment of creation. Yet, clearly, no intelligent being within the cosmos that arose after the beginning of the cosmos could be responsible for the fine tuning … It follows that an immanent intelligence (an extraterrestrial alien, for instance) fails to qualify as a causally adequate explanation for the origin of the cosmic fine tuning.” (Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 13, p. 322)

7E. Another outstanding video

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. He also explains why space aliens can’t account for the origin of specified biological information.) 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. 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.

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.

9A. In addition

I 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 illusion 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.

• Especially for those trained in science: Dr. Stephen Meyer’s Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe (HarperOne, 2021). Dr. Meyer does a superb job of explaining the fine-tuning evidence (chapters 7, 8, 13, & 16) and the evidence for the extreme inadequacy of the explanatory power of Neo-Darwinism – which reputable biologists have also now acknowledged; they say they need a new theory but haven’t agreed on one yet (chapters 9, 10, 14, 15, & 20).

9B. Total solar eclipses imply what?

In the following Image Block is a copy of the featured image on this webpage (at the top of the page). It’s a photo of a near-total solar eclipse. Theoretically, an additional way (beyond the now-standard ways) that our solar system is fine-tuned is that our Moon perfectly fits over our Sun’s disk in a total solar eclipse, which allows astronomers to easily view the Sun’s corona and its frequent prominences. During an eclipse, they can also measure the effect of the Sun’s gravity on starlight as it passes near the Sun, according to general relativity.

Therefore, Drs. Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, in their 2004 book, The Privileged Planet, proposed that the Earth-Sun-Moon system, and other aspects of the cosmos, are fine-tuned to promote scientific discovery! If so, this photo (below and also at the top of the page) is a picture of a fine-tuned system!

10. Following my blog

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

11. What is a personal relationship with God?

One might ask, “What’s a personal relationship with God?” John, one of Christ’s earliest disciples, wrote in First John 1:1-3: “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— ²and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— ³what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.” (New American Standard Bible)

A personal relationship with God consists of fellowship—of our praying to God and of our listening to hear Him speak to us, particularly out of His Word or revealed message; i.e. the Bible. I don’t mean to sound spooky here, but there are times, when I read the Bible, that I can dwell in His Presence and ask Him questions—and be guided to precisely the right answers.

11A. An outstanding testimony from a former atheist

It’s a bit like the critical point of change in this story, in the following video, which is an outstanding testimony from a former atheist. This is one of the best testimonies I’ve ever heard! Click or tap on the center of the following YouTube block to play the video:

If this video doesn’t appear in your browser, the link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXWR5UL9BKo.

11B. How to begin a personal relationship with God

One might ask, “How do I begin a personal relationship with God?” Again, according to the prophet Jeremiah, God said: “Call to me and I will answer you, and will tell you great and hidden things that you have not known.” (Jeremiah 33:3, ESV) Call to Him—and I recommend using the name of Jesus, as the woman did in the above video. In the Gospel of John, Jesus said: “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. ¹⁴If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.” (John 14:13-14, New American Standard Bible) Of course, such passages must be harmonized with First John 5:14-15.

What will also assist you is reading the Bible; I recommend starting in the New Testament with the Gospel of John – that’s where I started and where many others start as well. The Gospel of John makes the Gospel message perfectly understandable. Bible translations I recommend are: the King James Version (KJV), unless you have difficulty with the old English vocabulary and syntax – in which case, I recommend the New King James Version (NKJV) or the English Standard Version (ESV) or the New American Standard Bible (NASB). Those who are eager to learn may want to buy several of these translations and compare them when you read. (That’s what I’ve done for years.) Also, my favorite Bible commentary—by far—is the Believer’s Bible Commentary by theologian William MacDonald (Thomas Nelson, 2016).

12. Other videos pointing to God’s existence

The following short, animated video displays some of the convincing evidence that Jesus rose from the dead; it includes quotes from reputable scholars. It was made in association with Reasonable Faith, the organization founded by Dr. William Lane Craig. Click or tap on the center of the following YouTube block to play this video right on this page:

If this video doesn’t appear in your browser, the link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qhQRMhUK1o.

A second short, animated video (Part 2 of the above) is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SbJ4p6WiZE.

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

#13: Why the Fine-Tuning of the Universe Unquestionably Demonstrates the Existence of God