All right, we are looking at teleological arguments. And the last time we were together, we looked at a more, after we did a lot of, in terms of prologue and background and all of that stuff, we got into Thomas Aquinas' version of the argument at the very end. And so what we're gonna do here is we're gonna look at the most popular teleological argument there is. And you'll remember that as I introduced the teleological arguments, Telos means end or goal. So what is teleological is what is goal-oriented. And so a synonym for the teleological arguments are design arguments, or the design argument. And I gave you the illustration coming out of Aristotle, and I kind of tipped my hand as to where I was coming from when I gave you the analogy of Thomas living in this cave. And you all remember Thomas. has everything clogged up, is very limited in his senses. And the question is, could he know that God exists? And so during our second apologetic series, we kind of journeyed with Thomas in this cave from knowing God a priori, the ontological argument, argument from truth, all of that, to the Thomistic argument, knowing that he's a contingent being. Whether the universe had a beginning or not is irrelevant. We know he's contingent. We know that all contingent things need a current cause and that there cannot be an infinite regress of those contingent things and therefore there's an uncaused cause. Two, Thomas meeting some people. them letting him out of his chains. He's able to walk now. He's able to converse with them. And they tell him about time and the flow of history. And from there, the question becomes, is there another way to know that God exists? And it turns out that there is. You can show that the universe had a beginning, and therefore there must be a beginner of the universe. And we explored the Kalam argument. And that's how we ended the second apologetic series. And Aristotle speaks of the possibility of people living in a cave. of all of their lives. They've never seen the outside world. What would happen if they journey out of the cave? And the teleological argument addresses what would happen if Thomas were to walk out of that cave finally and actually see the world, the stars and the colors and all of the things that we experience in this world. Would he not have yet another reason to think that God exists? And I would say that the design and the complexity of the world order would certainly point to a designer of the universe. And so that's what these design arguments are doing. They are clearly the most popular argument It's really the reason why people who call themselves theists are theists. For the most part, if you ask the average person, why do you think God exists? Many of them will say, I just can't look at a sunset and not think that there has to be a God who designed that. You know, it's just too beautiful. Or they might say, I just think of the complexity of the the eye or the human brain or some creature that they're enamored with and they say there's no way that that could have just been the result of chance. And so that's a common theistic argument. Most theists are unaware of the distinction between the cosmological argument and the teleological argument. Most theists don't go beyond the teleological argument. But of course, having studied those other arguments, I think that the teleological argument not so much proves that God exists as it does confirms further that God exists, and also tells us something a little bit more about the God who does exist. So that's how I'm going to approach this argument. So for me, a whole lot is not really hanging on this argument in terms of trying to prove that God exists. There are people out there who think that this is what we're going to study today is the best argument for the existence of God. I think there's some other ones that are better. But having studied those, we're moving into more inductive proofs for God's existence. And so I think that this is a great argument for God. Unfortunately, for the past couple of months, we haven't met because You and I met, nobody else showed up, and then the next week no one showed up, and then I think I couldn't make it another week. And then we had the storms. A hurricane came through Albany, Georgia, and all of us were affected by that, and we had already been hit by a storm about a year and a half ago. So here we are, and then we're in the middle of cleanup. Our church, we couldn't really meet in our church on a regular basis, because it was not really safe to do so. And then, next thing you know, Thanksgiving is here. But I felt like we have to meet at least two or three times before Christmas comes and New Year comes. And so what I think we want to do is we want to meet now and two more Wednesdays, or at least one more Wednesday, and then break, and then come back in mid-January. So the direction that we're going is we're going to be looking at teleological arguments, and then after we look at those, we'll be looking at anthropological arguments. And then we're going to be looking at objections to classical theism. Now, that's going to be different than what we got in Velton Chong's Apologetics I series, because there we were looking at objections to minimal theism. But now that I've defended very clearly classical theism, it'll be appropriate for us to go back and question some of the things we've proven about God, and we're gonna look at basic atheistic arguments against the classical view of God, and then that'll end apologetics three. So hopefully by March, we'll be getting into Christian evidences. So that's the flow of this class as we're moving along. Do you guys have any questions or sonnets or poems or thoughts about what I just said? All right, well let's look at, we'll probably not go for the full two hours today as usual, but we'll probably go for a full hour. And if you just look at the first handout I gave you, I've given you two handouts, my own handout and then a section of Hugh Ross's book, The Fingerprint of God. And if you look at the handout that I wrote, I'm going to, just be giving you just sort of the basis of this first teleological argument that is inductive in character. And this is the argument from fine tuning. And you were here, you haven't come to our Sunday school, so I actually covered this a little bit in Sunday school. And I think you're reading, who are you reading these days? God's Crime Scene, J. Warner Wallace. I've touched on God's crime scene. I've read Colgate's Christianity, and that sounds more like it's going to tie into what we started in March. And right now I'm reading Jesus Among Secular Gods. Okay. So teleological arguments, the fine-tuning argument is sort of the first foot forward for most people doing teleological arguments. So me doing Thomas's argument first a couple months ago was unkosher in terms of this is usually the ones that they want to put forth first. And I'll just go ahead and start with the very first page. I point out that you have to appreciate the fact that given the physical laws of the universe, life-permitting universes and planets are far less likely to obtain than life-prohibiting universes and planets. So this is a very carefully worded sentence. Notice that the argument is based on the current laws of physics. So given these laws of physics, the question is, how probable would it be that you would have a life-permitting universe? And the answer is the probability is very, very low. And we're going to look at those numbers in just a minute. The reason we know this is because each law of nature has a specific value, which would include its strength or energy or force. And its value is such that if it were even slightly different than its current setting, quote-unquote, no life of any kind could exist anywhere in the cosmos. That's a fact. So here's some factors, and I'm taking this from one of Hiros' books, The Big Bang Model Refined by Fire. And I'm going to read all of these to you, but we're just going to read over a few of them. Take the strong nuclear force. This is one of our basic forces of physics. If it were larger, if the constant were larger, there would be no hydrogen. Nuclei essential for life would be unstable. And if it was smaller, there would be no elements other than hydrogen. Either way, you can't have life. The weak... Yeah, go ahead. It's the whole universe. So the strong nuclear force constant is a force governing the universe. So it's a law of physics. And if that were any larger or smaller, then you couldn't have life. OK. Weak nuclear force. If larger, too much hydrogen converted to helium in the Big Bang. Notice this is a Big Bang issue. This is at the beginning of the universe. The weak nuclear force constant has to be of a certain range at the beginning of the universe. So you'd have too much heavy element material made by star burning, resulting in no heavy element expulsion from stars. If it were smaller, there would be too little helium produced from the Big Bang, and therefore too little heavy element material made by star burning, resulting in no heavy elements from stars. Now, what is a heavy element? Carbon would be an example. And since you and I are carbon creatures, that's our basic, that's what we're made from, there would be no carbon-based life anywhere. Gravitational force constant. If larger stars would be too hot, and would burn up quickly and unevenly. The smaller stars would be too cool, so cool that nuclear fission would not ignite, resulting in no heavy element production. The electromagnetic force constant, if it were larger, there would be insufficient chemical bonding. Elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission, with smaller insufficient chemical bonding. Notice also that the ratio, so I'm just going to read one of these, the ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant. If it were larger, there would be no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short and uneven stellar burning. If smaller, no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production. So you'll notice that it's not just the This is amazing. It's not just the fact that the force of gravity has to have a certain value. It has to have a certain, its value has to be proportioned to the electromagnetic force constant. So they have to actually be even balanced with each other. So the ratios between these forces have to be fine-tuned. That's one of the amazing things about this insight. Let's look at the expansion rate of the universe. That's number eight. If larger, there would be no galaxy formation, but if smaller, the universe collapses prior to its star formation. In fact, if the expansion rate of the universe were off by one part in 100 million million, the universe would have collapsed into a hot fireball and there would have been no universe, therefore no life. The entropy level of the universe, if it were larger, no star condensation, within the proto-galaxies is smaller, no proto-galaxy formation, and therefore no life. Page two on the back of this page, the age of the universe and the velocity of light. Let's look at the velocity of light. If the velocity of light were faster, were larger, stars would be too luminous. If smaller, stars would not be luminous enough. The age of the universe, if our universe were any older than it is, there would be no solar type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy. And if it were younger, solar type stars in stable burning phase would not yet have been formed. So how old is our universe? is 14 billion years old. It has to be that age for us to have life in the here and now. If we were living in a, if we were living, quote unquote, in a younger period of the universe, we wouldn't be living. And we wouldn't be living in an older period of the universe either. Yes, that destroys young earth creationism immediately. The age of the universe is 14.5 billion years, and if the universe were any older than it is, there would be no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy. Why? Because eventually those stars in the galaxy are going to split apart. Okay? And if it were younger, you wouldn't have solar-type stars in stable burning phase. They wouldn't have been formed yet. See, our current stars itself, the production of other stars that have burned out, they exploded, they sent the heavy elements, and the gravity brought another star into existence. It formed, it existed for billions of years, it exploded, and you had to have that process for a couple of generations before you can have stars of the kind that we have right now. So the very first stars that exist are these gigantic stars and those are not conducive for life. You can't have a planet near such a star and expect life to survive there. So you have to have several generations of stars. You also have to have those generations of stars to be able to spit out the heavy elements that are necessary for life. So, you know, you and I are star dust. We were cooked in the interiors of stars for millions of years. That's basically where our elements come from. That's where you and I come from. So you have to have the universe at a certain age for it to be conducive for life. Now, some people would say, well, can't God just snap his fingers and create a universe and humans exist on that universe five seconds after he creates it? Well, of course God can. But we're talking about what has actually happened, right? And how do we reconcile that with Genesis? Very good question. The question is, how do you reconcile it with Genesis? In the Sunday school, actually, I gave some options. The only thing the young earth creations can do is say, insist that the days are 24 hours and they're consecutive. And he just has to simply say that there's an appearance of age. that our universe manifests, and that the astronomers are literally wrong by a factor of several billion. I personally think that the days of creation are long periods of time. Yeah, that would be, and I think there are good exegetical reasons to think that. But in natural theology, the natural theologian just isn't really concerned with at this point reconciling it with the Bible. So what you do in natural theology is you build up your case for theism, and then you go to the Bible and you do the best you can without thinking about natural theology, and you do the best you can in exegeting the scriptures. And then you integrate once the exegesis and once the philosophical scientific reasoning is done. That's how systematic theology is supposed to work. So the systematic theologian takes what the biblical theologian has concluded, what the philosophers and the scientists concluded, and he integrates that into an overarching worldview. Now, if you want the person to read on this, one of the persons is Hugh Ross. And one of the things you can do is you can get a book called Three Views on Genesis. And in that book, you have a debate between three different schools of thought. I think I've seen that. Yeah. Yeah, it's it's it's Hugh Ross and Gleason Archer versus Meredith Klein and it's actually his student that wrote the wrote the actual essay and then Ligon Duncan I believe was in he and his partner those three those three sets of guys debate each other in the book on who has the more plausible view and To be honest with you, it was my last flirtation with Young Earth Creationism. I think I saw it back there on that DVD that's up against the wall. Okay, now that DVD is not the same as the book, but it's... It was a conference, right? Yeah, and so... And Hugh Ross is in it. Hugh Ross is in it, yeah. Somebody who answers from Genesis. Yes, Terry Morgenson. And someone else in it. How does the Presbyterian Church view the Old Earth and... There's no official position. There are four interpretations of Genesis 1 that are acceptable in the Presbyterian Church. And interesting, Ken Samples has a new podcast out now where he actually looks at Westminster Seminary's assessment of Genesis 1 and the Westminster Divines. And the Westminster Seminary did a full-on assessment of the Westminster Confession. Because the Westminster Confession says that God made the universe in the space of six days. And so they went into exactly what they meant by that. One of the things that the Westminster Divines are doing is they are opposing Augustine's view that God created everything in an instant, and that the six days of creation are just a metaphor. And they're saying, no, no, no, in real time, God did create. So that's what they're opposing. And so one of the things that the theologians at Westminster Seminary point out is that given this historical background, even if every single Westminster divine was a six consecutive day creationist, we call this the solar day view of Genesis 1, the days are six consecutive 24 hour time periods, even if the Westminster divines to a person was a solar day advocate, that doesn't mean that that's being taught in the Westminster Confession. Because what's being taught in the Westminster Confession is that God created over the space of time, namely six days. And the day-age theorist, the person who thinks that the days are long periods of time, can agree with that insofar as it agrees with the biblical language. That's the biblical language, six days. The denomination says that the views that are acceptable are the solar day view, the day age view, the framework view, and the revelatory day view. The framework view says that the days of creation are parallel, they're topically arranged, and therefore they're not giving you consecutive days, they're giving you a topical arrangement of how God created. And then the revelatory day view basically says that this is not the number of days that God created, these are the number of days that it took for God to reveal these things to Moses. And those are the views that are acceptable. Yeah, in the end, only one can be right, right? Truth by definition is exclusive. We happen to be living at a time where we can't agree on who's right. But these are views that are just consistent with Christian profession and so on. Any other questions? No, that one's always stuck out to me, though, since we've been talking about it. All right, well, let's move forward in some of these. How about number 16, the average distance between stars? If the distance were larger, heavy element density would be too thin for rocky planets to form, and if smaller, planetary orbits would become destabilized. How about the decay of the proton, number 18? If it were greater, life would be exterminated by the release of radiation, and if it were smaller, there would be insufficient matter in the universe for life. Let's see, let's flip the page over to number three. The polarity of the water molecule. If it were greater, the heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist. If smaller, the heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life. Liquid water would be too inferior of solvent for life chemistry to proceed. Ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze up. Supernovae eruptions, if too close, radiation would exterminate life. If too far, no enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets. If too infrequent, not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets. If too frequent, life on the planet would be exterminated. If too soon, not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets. If too late, life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation. Are y'all getting the picture here? We're balanced on a razor's edge. We're like a surfer just on that wave and if you tip the balance of your surfboard just so, you're gonna fall over. There's not gonna be life. Now I point out this, these 29 factors all finely tuned with a remarkable precision refer to the fine-tuning of the universe. They are, if you will, the cosmic factors serving as the necessary preconditions for life. But the student, those of you that are reading along with me, you got to appreciate the fact that even if all of these factors obtain in any given universe, such would not entail the existence of life on any given planet. Why? Because it is not only necessary that there is a just right universe before life can exist, there must also be a just right galaxy, a just right star, a just right moon, even a just right gas giant, as well as a just right earth before life can exist. So the fine-tuning goes all the way down from the broad, the universe, to the very narrow, our galaxy, our solar system, our star, our moon, our planet. So you go from broad to narrow very quickly, from the general to the particular. So take our galaxy size. If it were too large, infusion of gas and stars would disturb the sun's orbit around the galaxy and ignite too many galactic eruptions. It's a typo there. If too small, insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for long enough time. Let's see. Number 10, the parent star age. If older luminosity of star would change too quickly, if younger luminosity of star would change too quickly. The size of the moon, number 14. If larger, tidal forces would be too great. If smaller, axial tilt would be too unstable. Axial tilt of the live planet, if greater, surface temperature differences would be too great. If less, surface temperature differences would be too great. distance of life planet from the parent star. If farther, planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle. If closer, the planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle. In other words, what would happen is if our planet were any closer to its star, then the water would just, there would be a runaway greenhouse effect. All of the water in our planet would basically just become gaseous and we wouldn't be able to have liquid water. But if we were too far away, if we were any further away, we would be like Mars. All the water would collect somewhere and would freeze and you couldn't have a stable water cycle. Liquid water is sort of the thing that they look for when they look for the possibility of a planet sustaining life. And so there's certain things that exobiologists sort of rule out. Exobiologists being these guys that are looking for life on other planets, right? And so how far is this planet from its parent star? It can be too close or too far away. If it's either, they say, OK, there's no way. There's no way that you can have a stable water cycle, even if there is water on that planet. There's no way you can have life on that planet. I've always looked at people and said, you know, like to an atheist, I say, does it disturb you at all that if our planet were any closer or further away, we couldn't have life in our planet? I guess if I was looking for a one-liner, that would be. So they're talking about not just water, but methane gas and the moons on Jupiter. Sure. I think it's those lakes that they have. They aren't able to study what's in the liquid. They're wondering if there's microorganisms that are in that gas. Well, there is a general consensus that you're going to have water possibly on the moon. You're going to have water definitely on Mars. And of course, the InSight probe just landed a few days ago. So we'll know soon exactly what's going on on the planet, hopefully, a little bit more than we discovered already. Europa, one of Jupiter's moons, is going to have probably some water in it, we think. But what all of these factors are teaching us is that there's more to life than just add water, as Jay Richards says. Water is a necessary condition for life, but it's certainly not a sufficient one. And so, but the point I was giving when I was talking about water and the closeness of the Earth and all that is the exobiologists easily just rule out a lot of these planets. We've discovered well over 80 or so planets outside the solar system. None of them are good candidates for life and the few There have only been a handful out of those 80, two or three, that they say, hey, maybe this might have life on it. Well, the reason there's only a handful is because all the others don't fit these parameters. They're too far away or too close to their stars. But would it confirm that they could find other planets with water and evolution? This is what you would have to have. You'd have to have a rocky planet. It couldn't be a gas giant. Okay, so it's got to be a rocky planet where you have a stable crust. and tectonic plate activity, you also have to have, it has to be close enough to just the right distance from its star to have a stable water cycle. Now once you have a lot of these factors in place, and we're going to go over a few more, then there's going to be a genuine conversation of whether evolution took place on that planet, but not a day sooner. So they're not going to have any serious conversations about that if these other factors are not met. So for example, the surface gravity, the escape velocity of the planet, that's 22. If it were stronger, the planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane. If weaker, the planet's atmosphere would lose too much water. You have to have a strong magnetic field. However, the magnetic field has to be finely tuned because if it were stronger, the electromagnetic storms would be too severe. But if it were weaker, the ozone shield would be inadequately protected from hard stellar and solar radiation. Think about this. You also have to have the crust. The crust of the Earth has to be finely tuned. If it were any thicker, too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust, and if it were any thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great for life. If our crust were any thinner than it currently is, our species wouldn't be able to handle volcanic activity. So is it like, is it Jupiter that has the crazy storms or something like that? Like there's just nothing but storm on there? Or is one of them I think that the great storm going... Well, there is a storm going through Jupiter, and it's that big eye, that big spot that's going through, and I think you can fit five Earths in that storm alone. It's something like 400 miles per hour winds. Oh, yeah, yeah. It's ridiculous. You're not going to survive that thing. Albany would have been hit really bad if an Earth-sized tornado just came ripping through Albany. And the other thing to think about is If it weren't for Jupiter, we wouldn't exist. In the 1990s, nine comets were on their way to Earth. And Jupiter swallowed them whole. And those nine comets created, each of those nine comets created Earth-sized bruises on the planet's surface. Earth-sized bruises. So Jupiter is like this great vacuum cleaner that goes through. But see, if you had too many Jupiters, you couldn't allow comets to come in and land on the Earth's surface and replenish our water supply. So you got to allow some of that stuff to come in so that we can actually have help with our water cycle. So again, it all has to sort of balance itself out. Let's see. How about the water, this is 31. The water vapor level in the atmosphere, if it were greater, runaway greenhouse effect would develop. If less, rainfall would be too meager for advanced life. Ozone level in the atmosphere, if greater, surface temperatures would be too low. If less, surface temperatures would be too high, and there would be too much ultraviolet radiation at the surface. Transparency of the atmosphere, this is number 35. If too thick, radiation essential for life will not get to the Earth's surface. If too thin, radiation harmful to life would get to the Earth's surface. Volcanic activity. If you go down, well, let's look at 36 first. Seismic activity, earthquakes. If greater, too many life forms would be destroyed. If less, nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled to the continents through tectonics. and there would not be enough carbon dioxide released from the carbonates. In other words, you need earthquakes for life. Volcanic activity. If greater, too many life forms would be destroyed. If less, not enough carbon dioxide and water would be released into the atmosphere. How about 43? Jupiter. If greater, if Jupiter's distance from the Earth were greater, too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth. If less, Earth's orbit would become unstable. Jupiter's mass, if it were any greater, Earth's orbit would become unstable. If smaller, too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth. Drift in major planet distances, if greater, Earth's orbit would become unstable. If less, too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth. Both lists of these factors, so now we're at number 45, right? We had 45 factors, global factors, and we had 29 universal factors. Both lists of factors, the cosmic factors and the global factors, 74 total, are incomplete. We're not even beginning. By the way, in the 1950s, there were about three factors. In the 1970s, that three increased to about 15. When Hugh Ross wrote his first book, there were under 100. His first book, meaning The Creator and the Cosmos, his first edition, when it came out, I think there were under 100. He just came out with the newest edition of The Creator and the Cosmos, and there were over 200 factors. So what happens is, this is really the argument that Reasons to Believe, which is a ministry that I've worked with, this is what they really do. Hugh Ross has a blog article or blog entry called Today's New Reason to Believe. And what is it? It's a new factor. And almost every single article he puts out is to exploit a new, finely tuned factor. We are discovering about one every couple of months. that is either further proof of design, or it's something that is extremely consistent with the idea that God exists. So how do the finely-tuned factors prove that there's design? I know that there's, so in other words, that's the question the atheist is gonna ask. Okay, very good. How do the finely-tuned factors prove? Okay, so the question is, how do these finely-tuned factors give us evidence for design? And so let's keep reading, because I'm gonna answer that question in just a minute. On page seven, I make this point. Reasons to Believe is a ministry that has given yet another important insight. Not only is Reasons to Believe involved in cataloging these factors, and so you can go on their website and read their blog entries, and Hugh Ross is one of the main ones. He's the astronomer who's cataloging these factors. But they give another insight which further clenches the case for cosmic and global design. Namely, that these factors necessary for life are also necessary, they are the necessary preconditions for scientific discovery. This provocative thesis has also been defended in the book, The Privileged Planet, by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards. A DVD of the same title was released a few years after their book was published. To give just two illustrations of this point, the reader will recall that the size of the moon and its distance from the Earth have to be what they are before there can be life on this planet. But it also turns out that the size and distance of our moon are perfectly suited for observing lunar eclipses. Observations which have allowed us to make some of the most important discoveries ever made in the history of science. For example, that the sun is a ball of hot gas, that the element helium exists, which happens to be the second most abundant element in the cosmos, and that Einstein's theory of relativity is true, are all discoveries that were made possible by lunar eclipses. Can lunar eclipses be observed from other planets? No. As Gonzales and Richards point out, compared with the other moons in the solar system, the Moon gives us eclipses that are more than perfect, since the Sun appears larger from the Earth than from any other planet with the Moon. So an Earth-bound observer can discern finer details in the Sun's chromosphere in Corona than from any other planet. The reader will also recall that our atmosphere is necessary for life. If any thicker or thinner, there would be no life on this planet. And yet remarkably, our atmosphere is also transparent, allowing us to observe the stars. This is true of no other planet in the solar system. So think about that. Why is our universe, and in particular our planet, such that the very factors that are necessary for life to exist on this planet or also those very factors that make scientific discovery possible. Isn't that a surprise? Isn't that strange? It seems to be more than a coincidence. So I ask the question, why is the universe such that many of the very conditions necessary for life are also necessary for scientific discovery? Could it be that we are here by design, and that the designer of the cosmos designed the universe and the solar system in such a way that intelligent life on one of its planets could explore the cosmos? We think that the answer to this question is clearly in the affirmative, and those who deny our conclusion must face a rather formidable argument in favor of design. So here's the argument. So to your question, why believe in design? So atheists would say, that doesn't prove it's design. Well, what are your options? And so here's the argument. The fine-tuning of the cosmos is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. But the fine-tuning of the cosmos is not due to either physical necessity or chance. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the cosmos is due to design. This is an argument that William Lane Craig has given many times in debates with atheists. So let's break this down a little bit. Premise one is not question-begging as long as fine-tuning is understood in the sense given by most cosmologists. That is, fine-tuning does not mean anything like designed or deliberately adjusted to high specification. Rather, by fine-tuning means something more neutral like the constants and quantities of the physical laws governing our universe are just right for the existence of intelligent life. And once that definition of fine-tuning or something like it is understood, then it should be obvious that physical necessity, chance, and design logically exhaust our options as explanations for the phenomenon of the fine-tuning of the cosmos. The question remains, which possible explanation is more plausible? So notice this is an inductive argument of sorts. I'm not saying do I know that we're designed with certainty. I don't know that we're designed with certainty. I'm saying which view is more plausible or more probable. So it's a probabilistic type of argument. Does that make sense? Is the fine-tuning of the cosmos due to physical necessity? If so, then we would have to conclude that life-prohibiting universes are virtually physically impossible. Now think about that. Are you willing to say that? That life-prohibiting universes are virtually physically impossible? You're saying that there's no possible universe that could exist which would prohibit life from existing. It would mean that the universe simply cannot be other than what it is. That's what that would mean. If the fine-tuning of the universe is the result of physical necessity, that means that our universe cannot be other than what it is. Are you prepared to say that? Do you really believe that our universe just can't be any other way? Now I say, surely the universe could have been different than it is. If the primordial matter and antimatter had been differently proportioned, if the universe had expanded just a little more slowly, if the entropy of the universe were marginally greater, any of these adjustments and more would have prevented a life-permitting universe, yet all seem perfectly possible physically. That's what Greg says, and I agree with him. I can imagine our universe with these very laws of physics being such that any of these factors are different, in which case there would be no life. So the idea that physical necessity is the cause of this fine-tuning just seems improbable in the extreme. Craig goes on to say that the person who maintains that the universe must be life-permitting is taking a radical line which requires strong proof. But there is none. This alternative is simply put forward as a bare possibility. And possibilities come cheap. There are all kinds of things that are possible. But we're not talking ontological argument anymore. We're not talking cosmological argument anymore. We're talking about design arguments, and they are almost always probabilistic in character. Yeah, I thought you have a question. Physicist Paul Davies says this. He says, even if the laws of physics were unique, in other words, even if these are the only laws of physics that could possibly exist, it doesn't follow that the physical universe itself is unique. The laws of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions. There is nothing in present ideas about laws of initial conditions remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics would imply uniqueness. Far from it. It seems then that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is. It could have been otherwise. So that's that rules out physical necessity. Do you have any questions about that? Okay. Oh, it just means that that's just the way it is. There's no alternative. The universe just couldn't have been any other way. When we say necessity in this case, we're not suggesting design. So you can't do a logical critique of the atheist at this point and say, for what, as if to say, aha, you're saying necessity, suggesting that there's a design plan behind it. That's not what they mean by necessity. They just mean the physical laws are such that they could not have been different. And that's why we're here. You know, given these laws of physics, it was just automatic that we would arrive. We have to be here. Okay. And given what Craig says on the one hand and Paul Davies, and I could give you a lot more other quotes, I just don't have any reason to think, it just seems to be mind boggling that anyone would think that our universe has to be the way it is. There's nothing about this universe that has to be the way it is. questions? Is the fine-tuning of the cosmos due to chance? We just got lucky. We won the cosmic lottery. The reader needs to appreciate the pill he must swallow in order to accept this hypothesis. He must accept the idea that by pure chance Every law of physics just happens to have the value it does. And he must accept the idea that by pure chance, the ratios of these values with respect to one another just happen to fall out the way they did. And he must accept the idea that by pure chance, for no reason whatsoever, the same conditions necessary for intelligent life just happen to be the same conditions for scientific discovery. Hugh Ross has calculated the probability for the occurrence of just 55 of our 74 parameters, giving us a number that is inconceivably small. The number is 10 to the negative 69. In comparison, note that the maximum possible number of planets in our universe is 10 to the 22nd power. Hence, Ross concludes that much less than one chance in 100 billion, trillion, trillion, trillion exists that even one such life-permitting planet would occur anywhere in the universe. Those are the chances that we would get here by pure chance. I'll give that number again. Less than one chance in 100 billion, trillion, trillion, trillion. Alright, so let's think about that for just a second. Do you think it's reasonable to think that we're here by chance? I do. What about you? I do not think it's reasonable. It doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Ah, but the rational person always goes with what's reasonable. That's right. Right? That's with the rational person. Yeah, it could have happened. Here's the question, and this is what a lot of atheists I don't think seem to grasp. When we're giving the fine-tuning argument, we're not giving a deductive proof. We're giving probabilistic evidence. So could the universe be the result of chance? Yes. Could the fine-tuning be the result of physical necessity? Yes. The chances that even one planet would occur anywhere in the universe that has life in it. So it's one chance in 100 billion, trillion, trillion, trillion. Those are the chances that any planet in our universe would exist. And he's doing the comparison. He's assuming that there's 10 to the 22 planets in our universe, right? No, these calculations are common. In fact, that's actually conservative calculation. So like Roger Penrose, he thinks that the chances of us existing is 10 to the 100 to the 123 power. I'll go back and look that up again to get the right figure for next time we meet. But that's inconceivable. I mean, 10 to the 100 to the 123rd power. It's 10 to the 100 to the 123rd power. What in the hell, man? So that's the pill you have to swallow. Now, you can liberally swallow it, but spare me any sense of responsibility to think that you're acting rationally. That is not rational for you to go, oh, yeah. You make all kinds of daily decisions with far less odds. I mean, don't you? And you would say to anybody, that would choose not to do X, Y, or Z, if there was a 70% chance that I'm going to die in an airplane if I get on it, do you think that I'm being irrational in getting on the plane? Well, we're saying that the chances of us being here by pure chance is one chance in 100 billion, trillion, trillion, trillion. I mean, I don't see why you would, why isn't that number far more compelling than the 70% that I would die if I get on that plane? Do you remember the movie Dumb and Dumber? Have you all seen that movie? Well, there's a scene in the movie, in Dumb and Dumber, where, I mean, there's a whole plot to this, but Jim Carrey's character and his stupid friend played by Jeff Daniels, they go out to Colorado and they're going to return this money to this beautiful woman that she actually left it for the mob and they saw it and they picked it up and he's going to Colorado to give it to her. Anyways, he makes it all the way out there and he looks at her and he says, I've come a long way. I've come a long way to be with you. And I was just wondering, I think you owe it to me to tell me the truth. Just hit me with the truth. What are the chances of you and I, you know, being together? And she says, not good. He goes, so you're talking about like one in 10, one in 100? She goes, more like one in a million. And he stops for a second and he goes, So you're saying there's a chance. Yeah. Yeah. And so she of course looks at him, now why do we laugh at that? Because that's stupid for him to even harbor the idea that she's ever going to want him in her life. Especially after all that he's done. And yet, we're not talking about one chance in a million. The atheist is looking at one chance in 100 billion, trillion, trillion, trillion, and going, so you're saying there's a chance? Let's go through this. So, what do you say to the atheist who says it's like winning the lottery? This is what the atheists say. They go, it's like winning the lottery. While it's highly unlikely that any given person who enters his name in the pot will win, someone has to win. And this is why we're not surprised when someone walks away with a lot of money. Nor should the winner of the lottery conclude that the lottery was rigged just because he won. That's what the atheist says. Somebody had to win. Somebody had to win the lucky pot. Now, by the way, I will say this. The atheist who glibly says this doesn't understand where we are in this argument. When you say someone had to win, that's almost like saying that we're here by physical necessity. And so that's not a rational response to this anyway, but let's go forward. The analogy would be that it's unlikely that our universe would exist before the Big Bang, but some universe had to, and so we should not be surprised that we live in a life-permitting universe, nor should we conclude that the universe is rigged. To be sure, this kind of reasoning fails to appreciate the fact that before the Big Bang, nothing at all existed. No space, time, matter, and energy. And if atheism is true, there is no chance for any kind of universe to exist in the first place, life permitting or otherwise. So you'll see the problem with atheism. If you combine the fine-tuning argument with the Kalam argument, this is what the atheist has to say. The universe popped into being, uncaused, out of nothing. And when it popped into being on Cause Out of Nothing, it just happened to have all these factors in play that allowed life to exist when the universe could have easily been different and there would have been no life. But let all that pass. Let's just let that pass. The kind of figures Ross and others have given us cannot permit us to allow atheists to glibly offer lame lottery analogies to get out of the tight spot they're in. Of course, if they want to offer such an analogy, that's fine, as long as they're fair with the kinds of probabilities we're dealing with. Hence, I recently heard a talk by Ross where he answers the atheistic lottery. And this is what Ross said, if you want to use that analogy, it would be like someone winning the lottery eight times in a row without even entering his name. Think about that. That's the kind of analogy that you need to use. If you're going to use a lottery analogy, then fine. It's like winning the lottery. In fact, the real story is this. Ross gave a talk, and he said, to say that we're here by chance is the equivalent of winning the lottery eight times in a row. And a non-theistic scientist said to him later, he said, given the numbers you were putting out, It's actually worse than that. It's like winning the lottery eight times in a row without entering your name. Here's another analogy given by Craig. This is what Craig says. This is what Craig says. Thus, the proper lottery analogy to the fine-tuning of the universe, huh? You can't win with it. I understand that. And think about it. Nothing existed before the universe, so you couldn't win without a designer of the universe to begin with. Before the universe existed, nothing existed. And so that's like winning the lottery without putting in your name. If you think that's stupid, then it's stupid to believe that we're here by chance. Yes, right. At least that's how I read it. So Craig says this, he goes, the proper analogy to the fine-tuning of the universe is a lottery in which a single white ball is mixed into a billion, billion, billion black balls, and a ball is then selected randomly from the collection. True, any ball that rolls down the chute will be fantastically and equally improbable. Nevertheless, it is overwhelmingly more probable that whichever ball rolls down the chute, it will be black rather than white. Similarly, the existence of any particular universe is equally improbable, but it is incomprehensibly more probable that whichever universe exists will be life-prohibiting rather than life-permitting. It is the enormous specified improbability of a life-permitting universe that presents the hurdle for the chance hypothesis. Still, some have offered the so-called anthropic principle. This is another principle that people have offered to get around this argument. to shore up the chance hypothesis. This principle states that human observers can only observe those physical constants, or laws possessing the values they do, that are compatible with human existence. For if the constants were not compatible with human existence, then there would be no human observers to be surprised about the fact that such constants exist. Hence, we should not be surprised about the fact that we live in a life-permitting universe. I'm going to read that over with you one more time because it can get confusing. This principle states, this is the anthropic principle, on page nine, it states that human observers can only observe those physical constants, and by physical constants we mean laws possessing the values they do, so human observers can only observe those physical constants that are compatible with human existence. For if the constants were not compatible with human existence, then there would be no human observers to be surprised about the fact that such constants exist. Now, this is how Craig responds to this. Craig says that this hypothesis will not do. Why? Because proponents of the anthropic principle have confused the true claim that A, if observers existing within the universe have observed its constants and quantities, it is highly probable that they will observe them to be fine-tuned for their existence. That's a true statement. So let me give it to you again. This is a true statement. If observers existing within the universe have observed its constants and quantities, it is highly probable that they will observe them to be fine-tuned for their existence. They've confused that true claim with the false claim that it is highly probable that a universe exists which is fine-tuned for the evolution of observers within it. Those are not the same claim. Y'all see how those are not the same claim. It's a lot different to say that if you're observing the universe and its constants and quantities, you're going to observe that they're fine-tuned. That's not the same thing as saying it's highly probable that a universe exists which is fine-tuned. Those are two different statements. Now, what I would like to do is I would like you to turn with me to Hugh Ross's section in his book, The Fingerprint of God. And I want to read over some of the things that he says about the anthropic principle and things like that. On the second column, the very first page that I've given to you, it's titled Man, the Creator? Are you all looking at that? Here's what Ross says, he says, the growing evidence of design would seem to provide further convincing support for the belief that the God of the Bible, the God who lives beyond the limits of time and space, personally shaped the universe and earth. Paul Davies concedes that the impression of design is overwhelming. A designer must exist, yet, for whatever reasons, a few astrophysicists suggest that perhaps the designer is not God, but if the designer is not God, who is? The alternative, some suggest, is man himself. No, this is really interesting. The evidence proffered for man as the creator comes from an analogy to delayed choice experiments in quantum mechanics, where it appears that the observer can influence the outcome of quantum mechanical events. With every quantum particle, there is an associated wave. This wave represents the probability of finding the particle at a particular point in space. Before the particle is detected, there is no specific knowledge of its location, only a probability of where it might be. But once the particle has been detected, its exact location is known. In this sense, the act of observation is said by some to give reality to the particle. What is true for a quantum particle, they continue, may be true for the universe as a whole. American physicist John Wheeler sees the universe as a gigantic feedback loop. The universe, capitalized in this text, says Ross, that's Ross's commentary, so the universe starts small at the Big Bang, grows in size, gives rise to life and observers and observing equipment. The observing equipment in turn, through the elementary quantum processes that terminate on it, takes part in giving tangible reality to events that occurred long before there was any life anywhere. In other words, he says on the next page, the universe creates man, but man, through his observations of the universe, brings the universe into reality. George Greenstein is more direct in positing that the universe brought forth life in order to exist, that the very cosmos does not exist unless observed. Here we find a reflection of the question debated in freshman philosophy classes across the land. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see it or hear it, does it really fall? Quantum mechanics merely shows us that in the micro world of particle physics, man is limited in his ability to measure quantum effects. Since quantum entities at any moment have the potential or possibility of behaving either as particles or waves, it is impossible, for example, to accurately measure both the position and the momentum of a quantum entity. This is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. By choosing to determine the position of the entity, the human observer has thereby lost information about its momentum. It's not that the observer gives reality to the entity, but rather the observer chooses what aspect of the reality of the entity he wishes to discern. It is not that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle disproves the principle of causality, but simply that the causality is hidden from human investigation. The cause of the quantum effect is not lacking, nor is it mysteriously linked to the human observation of the effect after the fact. This misapplication of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is but one defect in but one version of the new observer as creator propositions derived from quantum mechanics or physics. Some other rejoinders are presented here. And this is some, here's some of the things that Ross points out. Quantum mechanical limitations apply only to micro, not to macro systems. The relative uncertainty approaches zero as the number of quantum particles in the system increases. Therefore, what is true for a quantum particle would not be true for the universe as a whole, assuming no coherent amplification. Another point to make is that the time separation between a quantum event and its observed result is always a relatively short one, at least for the analogies under discussion. A multi-billion year time separation is far too long. You see what he's saying there? Since we're separated by the creation event by billions of years, that's too long of a time for us to have any effect on the beginning of the universe. By the way, this is all New Age philosophy. This is pantheism. This is us as creator. And so what Ross is pointing out is that the New Agers have misapplied science. Oh sure everything even my interactions with you there's a time delay So yeah, I mean, it's a very short one But as things grow further apart the more you have a time delay So it takes eight minutes for the light of the Sun to get to us Yeah Exactly, exactly, precisely. So the distance of the stars is actually the reason why we're not observing the present when we observe stars, we're observing the past. So astronomers are unique among the scientists because they're the only scientists who directly observe the past. The arrow of time has never been observed to reverse. This is another point against this quantum mechanics point. Nor do we see any traces of a reversal beyond the scope of our observations. Time and causality move inexorably forward. Therefore, to suggest that human activity today can affect events billions of years ago is nothing short of absurd. Intelligence or personality, this is another point, is not a factor in the observation of quantum mechanical events. Photographic plates, for example, are perfectly capable of performing observations. And then finally, Both relativity and gauge theory of quantum mechanics now established beyond reasonable question by experimental evidence state that the correct description of nature is that in which the human observer is irrelevant. Science, says Ross, has yet to produce a shred of evidence to support the notion that we created the universe. All right, so there goes your pantheistic new age alternative. Yeah Yeah, they're recording the observation Right. Yes precisely Is the universe God this takes us back to the anthropic cosmological principle British astronomer who wrote a book called The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, John Barrow, this is a British astronomer, John Barrow, who wrote this book, and his partner, Frank Tipler, begin by reviewing evidences for design of the universe and then go on to address several radical versions of the Anthropic Principle. Now, you'll remember the Anthropic Principle that I just explained to you is this idea that we shouldn't be surprised that we live in a universe that is finely tuned, because if it weren't finely tuned, we wouldn't be here to be surprised by it. And he says they actually look at various versions of this anthropic principle. There's a feedback loop connection between mankind and the universe, says one version of the anthropic principle. And referring to such theories as PAP, participatory anthropic principle, they propose instead FAP, a final anthropic principle. In their final anthropic principle, short FAP, in their FAP, the life that is now in the universe, and according to PAP, participatory anthropic principle, created the universe, will continue to evolve until it reaches a state of totality they call the omega point. At the omega point, and this is a quote, life will have gained control of all matter and forces, not only in a single universe, but in all universes whose existence is logically possible. Life will have spread into all spatial regions and all universes which could logically exist, and will have stored an infinite amount of information, including all bits of knowledge which is logically possible to know." Did you all see the movie Star Trek, the movie, the motion picture? Yeah, the very first one, the most boring movie you'll ever see? All right, well, in that story, Voyager collects over hundreds of years so much data that it's like this big booming thing and it's just like omniscient. And it's literally become sort of like a god. Well, that's kind of what they're suggesting. And there are people who are promoting a philosophy called transhumanism, where they think that we can integrate with our technology in such a way that A, we can gain immortality, and B, we will grow into such a state that we will eventually be the ones that create the universe. And so there are theories like, There are theories that we actually evolve into deity and then we go back in time and reveal the Bible to our primitive selves. So you have all kinds of theories like that. In a footnote, they declare that the totality of life at the omega point is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Let me translate, says Ross. He says the universe created man, man created the universe, and together the universe and man in the end will become the almighty God. Martin Gardner, a physicist, gives this evaluation of their idea. What should one make of this quartet of WAP, SAP, PAP, and FAP? In my not-so-humble opinion, I think the last principle is best called CRAP, the completely ridiculous anthropic principle. In the persistent rejection of an eternal transcendent creator, cosmologists seem to be resorting to more and more ludicrous alternatives. An exhortation from the Bible is appropriate. At this point, see to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy. So that's Ross's take on the anthropic principle. So let's get back to my notes, and let me just say one or two more things about the anthropic principle in general. This is the idea we shouldn't be surprised about observing all this fine-tuning. I mean, if we didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to be surprised by it, right? Well, here's what John Leslie and Richard Swinburne say. This is summarized by Craig. And the analogy is this. Imagine that you are in a third-world country, and through trumped-up charges, you're thrown in prison. They charge you for something, dealing drugs or whatever, and you're thrown in prison. And they take you out to be shot by a firing squad. And you hear the command, ready, aim, fire. And you hear the roar of the guns. And you notice that you're still alive. What should you conclude? And Craig writes, I really shouldn't be surprised at the improbability that they're all missing, because if they hadn't all missed, then I wouldn't be here to be surprised by it. Since I am here, there's nothing to be explained. Would you conclude that? Somebody takes you out to a firing squad, all these trans marksmen aim their guns at you and they all miss. Is that what you would conclude? Well, there's nothing to explain. If they hadn't all missed, I wouldn't be here to be surprised by it. You wouldn't conclude that at all. You would conclude that somebody designed their having missed. They either all collectively decided to miss on purpose, or someone put blanks in the gun, or what? Yeah, 100 trained marksmen, yeah. So 100 trained marksmen look at you and fire. And notice, that's 100. Your chances are 1 in 100, I guess, that you would die. Because at least if one of them hits you, those odds are far less than we're here by chance. Right? Are you a trained marksman? Oh, yeah. I'm just a family effort. All right, so that's the anthropic principle. That's how unreasonable it is, I think. And I love that Martin Gardner quotation about crap. So page 10, we only have one more thing to do. And Lance, this is the big kahuna, the multiverse hypothesis. This is the great alternative to design for the fine tuning of the universe. So what do we do with the many worlds hypothesis or the multiverse hypothesis? This is an attempt to increase one's probabilistic resources in such a way that a life-permitting universe becomes inevitable. To wit, what if there is an infinity, or at least trillions upon trillions, of concrete world ensembles existing with a wide range of physical values? Well, such would entail that there's a high probability that at least one of those universes exists with life in it. And it just so happens that we're in that one universe. Now, one of the things that Hugh Ross did early in his ministry is he said, as the evidence for fine tuning increases, and Reasons to Believe staked its reputation on this, Reasons to Believe started the very year that we measured the universe. So when we measured the universe, he knew that he could start a ministry where science and faith are wedded together. And he knew that over time, the evidence for fine-tuning would increase. And he said, as fine-tuning, as the evidence for it increases, the naturalistic community is going to search for more and more radical hypotheses, and their only option really is going to be this multiverse hypothesis. to get out of this tight spot. Because you can't just glibly say, we're here by chance. And so you got to go back to the physical necessity hypothesis. But how do you do that? Well, you say that there's more than one universe. There's a near infinite number of universes, trillions upon trillions, at least. With no proof. But here's what they would say. Well, you have no proof for God. So my hypothesis is just as good as yours. Well, here are the problems with the multiverse hypothesis. I give you six. The first problem is this. The multiverse hypothesis is ad hoc. There's no real proof for the existence of these many worlds. It's just offered as a way of avoiding the conclusion that a cosmic designer exists. But even then, it fails to remove God as an explanation for the universe. For even if we conceded the multi-world hypothesis and thereby forfeited the fine-tuning argument to wit that it is a weak inference to a designer, in other words, the multi-verse hypothesis would force us to give up this argument for God, right? Possibly. Well, I'm just playing hypothetical, but I'm saying, you asked a really good question. I mean, that's a great question, because maybe fine-tuning can still exist somewhere, and maybe the multiverse doesn't really get you around fine-tuning. It just puts it at another place. But let's just say that the multiverse hypothesis did the very thing that our naturalist friends wanted it to do, and that is get rid of this fine-tuning argument. Would that get rid of God? Well, no. There's a big difference between God and an argument for God. And so, at most, it would just make us give up this argument for God. You're still facing a cosmic beginning, after all, and the multi-world hypothesis doesn't get you around the cosmic beginning. Alexander Vilenkin has pointed that out, and when we studied the Klom argument, we showed that Vilenkin has shown that even if the multi-world hypothesis is true, the multiverse itself must have had an absolute beginning. So you've not gotten around that point, and therefore, the Big Bang is still there staring you in the face. You have to explain how something came from nothing. To put it this way, even if our design argument fails, the Klom argument is still standing. Because that's the first problem. Two, even if we conceded that the multi-world hypothesis could explain the fine-tuning of our universe, we would still be stuck with two possible explanations for fine-tuning. The multi-verse hypothesis and God. So how do we decide between these alternatives? Our answer is that the God hypothesis is clearly preferable, since there are independent lines of evidence for his existence, while there are no independent lines of evidence for the multi-world hypothesis. Third, the multi-world hypothesis is no less metaphysical than the God hypothesis. This should be troubling for atheists who have traditionally eschewed metaphysics, proudly opining that theirs is the scientific and thus rational worldview. What we actually have are atheists who insist that, in the words of Carl Sagan, the cosmos is all there ever is, or was, or will be, now appealing to something beyond our universe to get out of a tight spot. I mean, think of it. Carl Sagan, so many years ago, gave that famous quotation, the cosmos is all there ever is. And now those who follow in his train are having to say what? The cosmos isn't all there ever is. There are many cosmoses. There are many universes. Indeed, the multiverse cannot, in principle, ever be detected, scientifically or otherwise. Hence, we are faced with the humorous fact that the atheists, after all of their bluster about their reason versus our faith, have a religious kind of faith after all. They're believing in something for which there is no evidence. Fourth, the multi-world hypothesis lacks simplicity. Indeed, the existence of one simple and all-powerful creator is a much simpler explanation for design than the existence of an infinite number of world ensembles. Thus, as per Occam's razor, the God hypothesis is to be preferred over and against the multi-world hypothesis. Fifth, every single inductive inference ever made becomes weak if the multi-world hypothesis is true. For on the multi-world hypothesis, our extremely improbable universe becomes probable, since there exists an infinite number of randomly varied universes. Thus, imagine that you win the lottery eight times in a row without ever entering once. If someone accuses you of cheating, you now have the right to say, well, I know what my recent victories look like, but you have to understand that we live in a reality where an infinite number of universes have obtained And in some of those universes, highly improbable events, like eight lottery winnings in a row, are quite probable. And it just so happens that we're living in that universe. So no matter what your calculators say, you've got to trust me. I didn't cheat. Your fingerprints are found on the weapon. It's highly probable that you're the killer, right? all things being equal. Well, I know that those are my fingerprints, but there's someone else on the planet with fingerprints just like mine. That's highly improbable. I know. But in this infinite universe that we live in, the highly improbable now becomes probable. And therefore, go look for the killer, man. He ain't me. You can literally get rid of any inductive inference with the multiverse hypothesis. So how does that work if the highly improbable becomes probable and there's a God? Well, it becomes a feedback loop, doesn't it? Because... What if I get a... What if I come a... The highly improbable becomes probable that God exists. The highly improbable becomes probable that God exists? Exactly. So, the atheist will look at you and say, Richard Dawkins looks at me and says, it's almost certain that there is no God. And I'm like, oh yeah, but in this infinite universe we live in, the highly improbable is probable, therefore it's highly probable that there is a God. So, nanny nanny boo boo on you. You see the problem with all this? The sixth argument against the multiverse is this. There is no plausible mechanism for generating the multi-world ensemble, the multi-world hypothesis ensemble. Also, if the multiverse were true, if there was a multiverse, then it is far more probable that we would live in a universe much smaller than the one in which we live. Hence, we simply reject the idea that the multi-world hypothesis is a plausible substitute for God. So we leave you guys with one more fact. Roger Penrose has calculated the odds. Here's the number. So I got the number here. And I did give you a false number, but I'm glad I get to correct it right here. Roger Penrose has calculated that the odds of our universe's low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone is 1 in 10 to the 10th power to the 123. All right? So that's the 75th factor. finely tuned factor. And this one single factor is staggering. The atheist wants us to believe that chance is responsible for this, and yet the same atheist laughs when Jim Carrey tells the woman of his dreams that you're saying there's a chance. I'll simply put it to you, which person, the theist or the atheist, is being rational? The one who sees design in these odds, since after all, we all see design in odds of a much lower magnitude than the values written into the laws of physics, or the one who gets around the design implications by appealing to anthropic principles and multiverses? I, for one, can't see anything rational in atheism. If I were to be an atheist, I would have to not only believe that something popped into being uncaused out of nothing, which is just stupid, I would also have to believe that by pure chance that something that popped into being was an entire universe that has less than one chance and 10 to the 10th of the 123rd power. of even existing wholly apart from physical necessity or design. In short, I simply don't have enough faith to be an atheist. And so with that, I will end this lesson.