top of page
physics to God logo


physics to God logo

3 Proofs of God from Science

Does God Exist?

At some point in life, almost everyone has considered the all-important question: Does God exist? While various avenues can provide us with direction for navigating this question, modern people often look to science as the gold standard for shedding light on life’s toughest and most important questions. Therefore, it’s only natural to wonder: Can science be used to determine if God exists?

Below is our best attempt to answer this question - to use science to help us determine whether God exists. Along the way, we'll cover:

For all of these points in more depth, listen to Physics to God on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Can Science Prove God?

To answer this question, we need to clarify what we mean by ‘prove’. If we mean an absolute proof, like a mathematical proof, then the answer is no. There is almost nothing other than mathematics that can be proven absolutely. 


However, another meaning of proof is a science-based argument that shows God exists. The argument must be able to convince a reasonable person that God is real. Using this more limited notion of proof, it’s conceivable that science is capable of proving God. That doesn’t mean that it’s easy to do - only that it’s possible. 


To determine whether such a proof exists, one must carefully evaluate whether the universe is self-explanatory or whether it points to the existence of a cause outside of itself. In this spirit, we will present three science-based proofs that convincingly show that there’s an intelligent cause - God - that’s responsible for our universe and the laws that govern it. To be clear, these are not scientific proofs of God, as they don't make any new testable predictions. Rather, they are convincing science-based philosophical proofs.

The Design Argument: A Precursor to Science Proving God

While there are different ways to use science to prove God, the design argument is one of the best. In its most basic form, this argument asserts that certain highly ordered or complex phenomena found in our universe point to the fact that they result from the action of an intelligent cause. While many people throughout the ages have shared this basic intuition, more rigorous forms of the design argument have been formulated by philosophers, theologians, and scientists.


Various forms of the design argument go back to ancient Greek philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. It was further developed in the Middle Ages by Jewish theologians like Bahya ibn Paquda, Christian theologians like Thomas Aquinas, and Islamic theologians like Al-Ghazali.


While philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant (both 18th century) famously critiqued all the classical proofs of God, Kant treated the design argument very differently than the other proofs. He writes that the design argument deserves to be treated with respect and that the argument succeeds in establishing an “architect of the world” (though not of creation from nothing).


In the modern era, this argument was most prominently formulated by William Paley in 1802 with his watchmaker analogy for the complexity and design of life. The design argument from biology reigned supreme until Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” (1859) showed that complex life could evolve from simpler forms through the processes of natural selection and survival of the fittest (what biologist Richard Dawkins dubbed the Blind Watchmaker).


Even though many people are under the assumption that Darwin’s theory of evolution and modern science have finally undermined this classical argument, we’ll soon see that the argument is alive and well - not from biology directly, but from modern physics (which underlies biology). Of all the different proofs of God - design or other - we think that the design argument from physics is far and away the most robust. 

Three Proofs of God from Science

We’ll now present what we believe to be the three best proofs of God from science. One way to see the substantial nature of these proofs is by considering scientists’ primary alternative - the multiverse. Since many modern-day scientists don’t accept the possibility of God, they reject the scientific indications of an intelligent cause and instead posit the existence of infinitely many unobservable parallel universes, each having different laws of nature. We’ll address the multiverse theory later.

Proof 1: The Fine Tuning Argument

The Relationship Between Fundamental Physics, The Constants of Nature, and a Theory of Everything

Three ideas lie at the heart of the fine tuning argument: (i) fundamental; (ii) constants of nature;  and (iii) theory of everything.


i) The term fundamental is used to describe the most basic entities that can’t be reduced to anything else. Specifically, fundamental physics is the study of the deepest principles of nature which are ultimately responsible for all the complexity and diversity in chemistry, biology, astronomy, and all the other sciences.


Modern physics conceives of the world as being composed of fundamental particles and fundamental laws. According to the Standard Model of particle physics, fundamental particles, such as electrons and quarks, are the basic indivisible building blocks from which everything else is made. The fundamental laws, such as quantum mechanics and general relativity, are the basic irreducible rules that govern how these particles behave and interact.


ii) The next notion is the constants of nature. Based on scientists’ observations and measurements, they have discovered fixed numbers that are built into the fundamental particles and laws of nature. These 25 or so unchanging numbers, known as the constants of nature, determine quantities regarding the particles and the laws. Two examples are the mass of an electron (a number that describes how heavy it is) and the fine structure constant (a number that describes the strength of the force between two electrons).


iii) The last concept is physicists' dream of finding a final theory of everything. To realize this dream, they were searching for an irreducible, beautiful, unified, and simple law that explains all the complexity and diversity in the universe.

The Mystery of The Constants And The Problem it Poses For A Theory of Everything

Throughout the 20th century, modern physics had been quite successful in partially realizing physicists' dream of finding a theory of everything. However, the specific values of the constants presented a unique challenge. Physicists did not want to posit that the constants - which appear to be an ugly list of data - are themselves uncaused ad hoc additions to an otherwise beautiful theory of everything. Rather, it seemed clear that the constants, like everything else, should be explained by a theory of everything. The problem is: How can a theory of everything, a master law of nature, determine numbers like 1/137.035999139? 


The problem emerged from the fact that the numbers seem completely arbitrary with no apparent reason for their values. From the perspective of theoretical physics, the constants could have taken on any value whatsoever. Richard Feynman called the problem of explaining these values “one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics.” In their pursuit of a master law that explains everything, physicists faced the immense challenge of explaining the precise values of the twenty-five constants lying at the heart of the laws of nature. 

How the Discovery of Fine Tuning Impacted the Pursuit of a Theory of Everything

The discovery of fine tuning provided the all-important clue which illustrated that the values of the constants are not as arbitrary as they had seemed. Beginning in the 1970s, scientists realized that while the values of the constants don’t matter in terms of fundamental physics, the fields of astronomy, chemistry, and biology (among others) demand that these values are precisely tuned. That is, if these numbers were slightly different, the universe would be devoid of atoms, molecules, planets, stars, galaxies, and life. As such, fine tuning is the reason that our universe contains order, structure, and complexity. 


In scientists' quest to explain the cause of the values for the constants, it became evident that the precision of the fine tuning is too great to be chalked up to a lucky coincidence, as the odds of getting all the values within the correct ranges is staggeringly low. It was clear that the discovery of fine tuning is too significant a clue to ignore.

Why Fine Tuning Demands a Paradigm Shift to Solve the Mystery of the Constants of Nature

While it can't be denied that fine tuning is a vital clue for explaining the constants, its discovery presents a new problem. This is based on the fact that modern science generally proceeds by explaining how the laws of nature cause complex phenomena in the universe. For example, the laws of physics cause atoms to interact in a way that brings about molecules. 


But fine tuning seems to indicate the exact opposite - that somehow the end result of having a complex universe with atoms and molecules caused the specific quantities for each constant. From the ordinary scientific perspective, this seems backward! Since the significance of fine tuning is undeniable, it is clear that solving the problem raised by fine tuning motivates a paradigm shift in how physicists understand the universe. In fact, this is one of the major motivations for some scientists’ belief in a multiverse – a topic that we’ll discuss later. 

How Physics Proves Intelligent Design from the Fine Tuned Constants of Nature

The solution to the problem of fine tuning contains the heart of this argument. The mystery of the constants emerged from trying to explain the specific values of the constants exclusively using a framework in which a past law causes a future effect. The solution to this mystery emerged once science showed that the discovery of fine tuning indicates a framework of causality in which a future purpose causes a selection in the past. In other words, fine tuning indicates that the cause of the specific values of the constants is the purpose of bringing about an ordered, structured, and complex universe. 


Of course, like everything that exists for a purpose, the constants also had a direct cause that set their specific values. Therefore, the cause responsible for purposely setting the values of the constants must be intelligent, insofar as it fine tuned their values in just the manner needed to bring about our complex universe. This follows from the definition of ‘intelligence’ as the ability to pick out one possibility from among many for the purpose of producing an intended goal. Clearly, the selection of the fine tuned values of the constants in just the right manner that results in a universe that is much greater than the sum of its parts is a direct indication of an intelligence cause - God.

Proof 2: The Design Argument from the Laws of Physics

The qualitative laws of physics, quantum mechanics and general relativity, furnish an independent argument for an intelligent cause of our universe. This argument naturally arises from scientific inquiry: “Why are these laws true and not some other laws?” 


Throughout the second half of the 20th century, physicists aspired to address this question by discovering a final theory of nature that not only accounted for everything but was also unique—the only possible theory of everything. Such a discovery would explain why our observed laws of nature are real - because there simply couldn’t be any other laws.


Despite physicists’ efforts to find a final theory, they eventually acknowledged that there is no logical reason why our laws are the only possibility. In fact, they were able to formulate many alternate “laws of nature” that were theoretically possible but simply weren’t true. Scientists realized that their dream of a unique final theory was unrealistic.


This led them to the first insight that gets this argument going: The qualitative laws of nature did not have to be quantum mechanics and general relativity but could have been any of the plethora of mathematically consistent set of laws. However, eliminating the dream of a unique final theory brings back the question: “Why are laws real and not some other laws?” 


The solution emerges from the recognition that these laws are not just any arbitrary set, but are very special. For all possible sets of laws that our universe could have had, the majority would lead to a universe lacking order, structure, and complexity. 

This leads to the second relevant insight: From the set of all possible laws of physics, only our observed laws have the potential to unfold and generate a universe with atoms, molecules, planets, stars, galaxies, and life. Our special laws are designed for the purpose of producing an ordered, structured, and complex universe.


With these two insights, we can now address physicists’ question: What caused our universe to have these particular laws, rather than some other possible set of laws?


Since the definition of ‘intelligence’ is the ability to select one possibility from many to achieve a goal, we can infer that the design inherent in the qualitative laws of physics indicates that our universe has an intelligent designer who selected quantum mechanics and general relativity from the set of all possible laws to create a universe containing galaxies, stars, planets, atoms, molecules, and life.

Proof 3: The Argument from the Ordered Initial Conditions of the Universe

(The following argument is a modified version of Aaron Zimmer’s essay in “Elevator Pitches for God”)


The remarkable initial conditions of our universe provide another independent argument for an intelligent cause of our universe. To see this, we need to first explore a physics concept called entropy. Any system, from a book to the universe, exists in a particular state with distinct emergent properties. An ordered state arises from a specific arrangement of components, creating an emergent property like the book’s meaning. A disordered state, however, occurs from a random arrangement that results in no meaningful emergent property. 


Entropy is a measure of this order. High entropy signifies a disordered state; low entropy, an ordered one. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, all closed systems evolve toward higher entropy, or disorder, over time. This means that if a system is in a state of low entropy now, it must have started with even lower entropy. 


When examining the universe, we might have expected it to be in a high entropy state, which after all, is its most likely state. If that were the case, we would see a universe filled with high entropy objects (like black holes). But instead, we observe the exact opposite! We see galaxies, stars, planets, life, etc. 


The Second Law of Thermodynamics suggests that the low entropy state of the universe today means that it began in an even more unlikely, lower entropy state. This shifts the focus to the highly ordered, extraordinarily unlikely, state with which our universe began. 


Renowned physicist Roger Penrose calculated that the chance of our universe beginning with such low entropy is about 1 in 10^10^123, an inconceivably low probability. This is much less likely than finding a needle in a haystack the size of the known universe. If our universe hadn’t started with these incredibly unlikely conditions, the subsequent evolution wouldn’t have resulted in the complex universe we observe today. Instead, it would have yielded an uninteresting black hole-ridden realm. 


This exceedingly improbable scenario directs us to the clear conclusion that the initial conditions of our universe were not a matter of random chance. Rather, they were purposely arranged to allow for the emergence of an ordered and complex universe, something that would have been impossible had the universe begun in a high entropy, disordered state. 

Just as a perfectly ordered book suggests the presence of an intelligent author, the universe’s highly ordered initial conditions suggest the existence of an intelligent orderer, as intelligence involves the ability to choose one possibility among many to achieve a specific goal. Therefore, considering the overwhelming odds against a random, low entropy beginning and the elegant order we observe today, it is compelling to conclude that our universe is not the product of chance but of an intelligent God.

What is the God of the Gaps Fallacy?

People often critique any design argument by suggesting that it doesn't truly point to God, but merely attempts to plug gaps in our current understanding of the universe by saying, "God did it." Before defending our three proofs from this charge, let’s discuss the fallacy known as “God of the Gaps,” and elaborate on three of its characteristic flaws.

   1. Argument from Ignorance

Since God of the gaps reasoning doesn’t follow from a direct inference to God, but merely from a lack of knowledge, it is an argument from ignorance. Instead of positing God to fill a gap in knowledge, a reasonable person should simply admit that they don’t know and that maybe they'll be able to pursue a deeper understanding of the phenomenon at hand when they gain more knowledge.

   2. Gaps are Details

A particular gap about a detail in a scientific explanation is likely due to our insufficient knowledge and is no indication of the failure of science or the hand of God. Positing divine intervention for each gap in our knowledge is a bad methodology and hinders the advancement of science. It's far more reasonable to say that the overall theory is sound and that science is only lacking knowledge of certain details - the small gaps.

   3. Explains Everything

A theory of the gaps posits something - whether it’s God, luck, or anything else - as a solution to every gap in knowledge. Any answer that can be used to explain anything, in truth explains nothing at all. This is because it would be an "explanation" no matter what the universe looked like and is therefore not really an explanation of our observed universe.

Why these 3 Proofs aren’t God of the Gaps

Let's now examine the three arguments from fine tuning, design, and order and see why they don't have any of these three problems.

   1. Arguments from Knowledge

The inference of intelligence from fine tuning, design, and order are not arguments from ignorance, but are based upon scientific knowledge. Let’s briefly see this by examining each proof, one at a time:


Proof 1: For years, the constants of nature presented a great mystery of how science could possibly explain seemingly arbitrary numbers. Then, scientists began to gain knowledge about these numbers and discovered that they not arbitrary, but that their fine tuned values are required for the universe to be ordered, complex, and structured. This knowledge pointed directly toward an intelligent cause that specifically selected the values for the purpose of bringing about our complex universe. This explanation only became possible once science had advanced to the point of understanding the fundamental laws of physics and the critical role that these specific quantities played in these laws. The fine tuning argument is therefore an argument from knowledge, not from ignorance.


Proof 2: Similarly, the laws of nature, general relativity and quantum mechanics, were another great mystery for scientists: Why are these laws true and not some other laws? Once science advanced to the point of understanding the fundamental laws of physics and the critical role they play in producing an ordered, complex, and structured universe, that knowledge pointed to an intelligent cause that selected these laws. The argument from the design of the laws is therefore an argument from knowledge, not from ignorance.


Proof 3: The argument from the ordered initial conditions of our universe is also based upon scientific knowledge. First, the second law of thermodynamics necessitates that we had low entropy initial conditions at the beginning of the universe. Then, based upon knowledge of black hole entropy, physicist Roger Penrose rigorously calculated that it would be highly improbable (1 out of 10^10^123) to get the initial conditions by chance alone. Furthermore, it’s scientifically known that our incredibly low entropy beginning was necessary for our universe to contain atoms, molecules, planets, stars, galaxies, and life as opposed to being only black holes. Based upon that knowledge, we inferred that an intelligent cause selected the initial conditions for the purpose of bringing about our complex universe. The argument from the initial conditions is therefore an argument from knowledge, not from ignorance.

   2. Foundational Issues, Not Just Details

A lack of understanding regarding the foundation of a subject is entirely different than a mere gap in the details of a subject whose foundations are well understood. While a gap in the details is likely to be filled upon gaining more knowledge, a problem with a foundation often demands a new type of explanation. The problems of explaining the fundamental laws, constants, and initial conditions of the origin of the universe are problems with the very foundations of physics, not with mere detailed phenomena. Therefore, these arguments don’t suffer from the characteristic flaw of a God of the Gaps argument that seeks to plug holes in the details of a theory that is built on a solid foundation.

   3. An Intelligent Cause Can’t Explain Everything

The theory of an intelligent cause doesn’t explain any possible universe we could’ve observed but is only a valid inference because we’ve observed an ordered, fine tuned, and designed universe. On the other hand, if the universe were to consist of disordered chaos with no design or fine tuning, then an intelligent cause would have been a very poor explanation. 


Furthermore, even given a universe with atoms, molecules, planets, stars, galaxies, and life, it would have been natural to assume that our universe, or some close variation of it, could have existed with a wide range of values for the constants. Had this been the case, there would have been no indication of an intelligent cause for our constants, and to posit an explanation based on purpose would have been ungrounded and entirely speculative. However, with the unexpected discovery that our complex universe is only possible because of its fine tuning, design, and order, the explanation of an intelligent cause naturally emerges as an explanation for our particular universe.


Putting these three points together, one can see that our three proofs do not suffer from any of the characteristic flaws of God of the Gaps reasoning.

Multiverse: Scientists’ Alternative to God

Scientists' primary response to these three proofs is to propose an alternative theory to an intelligent cause. They posit the existence of an infinite number of parallel universes, each with different laws and constants of nature - the multiverse.


If all these infinite universes truly exist, they argue that at least one of them will have apparently designed laws, fine tuned constants, and ordered initial conditions by chance alone. There is no genuine causal relationship between the complex universe and the laws of nature. There is only an illusory connection that results from an observer bias, as any intelligent observer seeking to explain these features will necessarily be in a universe that’s suitable for intelligent observers.


Every multiverse theory capable of explaining fine tuning, design, and order must justify the following three premises:


  1. There are an infinite number of universes;

  2. The laws, constants, and initial conditions vary between these different universes;

  3. Our universe is a typical universe with intelligent observers.


In the second season of the “Physics to God” podcast, we’ll clearly explain all three premises, show why they are all necessary for a multiverse to explain the appearance of fine tuning, design, and order without an intelligent cause, and discuss multiverse scientists' support for them. We’ll elaborate on the measure problem - one of the critical flaws of multiverse theory - and demonstrate why an unobservable multiverse is not a viable scientific explanation for fine tuning, design, and order.

Proving God: Physics vs. Biology

As discussed above, the design argument has a very long history of being used to prove God. Many people have formulated the argument using biology, attempting to show that complex life must have an intelligent designer. Because these attempts potentially run up against the scientific theory of evolution (the “blind watchmaker”), many people erroneously believe that the design argument contradicts established science and is therefore no longer valid in any form.


This mistake results from ignoring the significant relationship between biology and physics. Biology is conceptually built upon chemistry, which is in turn built on physics - the foundation of all sciences. The recognition of this hierarchical relationship has two important consequences regarding proofs of God from science: (i) it points to the advantages of the fine tuning and design arguments in physics over the design argument in biology; (ii) it reveals that design in biology is ultimately dependent upon design and fine tuning in physics. Let’s see each of these points in more detail.

Advantages of the Fine Tuning Argument in Physics Over the Design Argument in Biology

The major advantage of the argument from physics over biology results from the fact that physics is fundamental - it can’t be derived from anything else - while biology is not. Because the laws and constants of physics are fundamental, any attempt to explain their fine tuning must posit something beyond the observable universe. Therefore, it’s intuitively compelling to arrive at something like God (or the multiverse) as an explanation of this fine tuning.


However, because life isn’t fundamental, there’s nothing that intrinsically necessitates looking outside the universe for an explanation of the design in biology. Though it’s not simple to do, it’s theoretically possible for science to show that all the design in biology naturally emerges from blind processes in physics and chemistry.


There’s also a second advantage that follows from the fact that physics is fundamental while biology is not. Given that biology is not fundamental, it’s possible to formulate a scientific theory that explains the emergence of life without invoking an intelligent cause - and, crucially, to support this theory with empirical evidence from within the universe.

For example, biologists developed Darwin’s theory of evolution and supported it with empirical evidence from the fossil record. While this whole theory rests upon the prior existence of a complex replicator like DNA, this too can, at least in theory, be derived from chemistry. Although it can be argued that this is highly unlikely to occur by chance on our planet alone, the multiplanet solution can potentially solve the origin of life problem because scientists have actually observed many other planets in our galaxy. 


On the other hand, “scientific” explanations of fine tuning in physics (i.e. the multiverse) must make recourse to unobservable phenomena that are beyond our universe. Physicists haven’t observed other universes with different fundamental laws and constants - and they never will. To posit infinitely many parallel universes is a clear deviation from the scientific method that has proven so successful over the past few hundred years.


The two major advantages of the fine tuning argument in physics over the design argument in biology can be encapsulated by comparing the nature of the alternative theories proposed by scientists in their respective fields. In biology, the alternative is evolution, a scientific theory that has significant empirical support. Therefore, the intelligent design argument in biology must argue against many scientists regarding the success and comprehensiveness of evolution as a scientific theory. 


On the other hand, the alternative theory in physics is the multiverse - an unverified theory of an infinite number of unobservable universes. Since there is near scientific consensus that the constants are truly fine tuned, the fine tuning argument in physics does not argue with scientists about the science itself. Rather, it argues about the proper philosophical conclusion to infer from the accepted science - God or the multiverse.

Dependence of Life on Fine Tuning, Design, and Order in Physics

The relationship between biology and physics leads to one final point. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the design argument of biology is deemed a failure. In other words, let’s suppose that: (i) biologists can legitimately explain the origin of life (i.e. the emergence of DNA) by making recourse to chance and an enormous number of planets, and (ii) biologists could convincingly invoke the theory of natural selection to fully explain the subsequent evolution and diversity of life on Earth.


Even if this were all true, it’s a mistake to suggest that life on Earth is merely the result of blind chance. This erroneous conclusion is a consequence of viewing life in a vacuum, and not appreciating its critical dependence upon the physical structures that enable the emergence of the basic principles of biology.


Let’s develop this point in a bit more detail. Even if we grant the fortunate existence of an original replicator, the theory of evolution can only explain life after assuming the prior existence of the designed laws of physics, the fine tuned constants of nature, and the ordered initial conditions of our universe. This is because the living organisms of biology are built from the atoms and complex molecules of chemistry, such as carbon, oxygen, and water. 


But the very existence of atoms and molecules is based upon the designed and fine tuned laws of fundamental physics! If the constants of nature weren’t set just right, there would be no stable atoms, no complex molecules, no planets, no stars, and consequently, no life. And certainly, without the right qualitative laws of physics and an ordered universe, the emergence of life would be entirely impossible.


Based upon the amazing discoveries of the interconnections between the branches of modern science, we can appreciate that an intelligent cause didn't directly design cats, dogs, and chickens. Rather, it designed and fine tuned the fundamental laws of physics in a manner that atoms, molecules, stars, planets, and life would naturally emerge. To put it metaphorically, one of the deepest insights of modern science is that an intelligent cause fine tuned and designed the blind watchmaker in just the right manner that allows it to blindly make watches.


In summary, we began with the open question, “Does God exist?” To seek out an answer, we turned to science - our most reliable method for studying physical reality. We analyzed recent discoveries in modern physics to draw the best possible inference from the laws and properties of the universe. Our analysis led to three compelling arguments for God which emerged from:


  1. The fine tuning of the constants of nature;

  2. The design of the laws of nature;

  3. The ordered initial conditions of the universe.


While there is much more to be said about all three arguments, taken together they lead to a compelling conclusion: the universe and its laws result from an intelligent cause - God.

Comments (13)

10 abr

Very good work, thank you.


While most of above is based on laws of physics, I feel that fine tuning in biology too proves God. Borel's law states that anything less than 10 (-50) can not exist in our universe as a random occurrence. Hence, it gives a limit to 'natural occurrences'. If any probability is less than this, then it has to be due to a 'non natural cause' such as Intelligent Design. Prof Stephen Hawkins estimated that the critical density of the universe is so finely tuned at 10 (-60). There are 200 absolute parameters needed for life. The random probability is 10 (-99). Haemoglobin has got 574 amino acids. The random probability of this is 10 (-950). We have at least over 80,000 proteins in our bodies. Prof Wickremesinghe- Prof of Applied Mathematics, Astronomy and Astrobiology, University of Cardiff estimated that to have 2000 proteins in bacteria, the random probability is 10 (-40,000). That is only for a single cellular organism. The random probabilities for trillion cellular life as well as human brain is not calculable- may be infinite. As you see, Borel's law pales in to insignificant with such probabilities- and absolutely beyond 'natural' probabilities. Hence on biological parameters too, the design argument overwhelming proof.


03 abr

1. The attempt to avoid being a god of the gaps theory falls miserably. These proofs are 100% from ignorance, as demonstrated by the author's use of the word "mystery." 'What else but god could explain fine tuning' is an attempt to fill in a gap in science's ability to explain everything. Scientists will all say it's only a matter of time until this, like every single other challenge against science, is resolved.

2. Regardless, none of this proves a god that is in any way a personal god. All it does is suggest that there is a design element in the physical universe.

3. If God wanted to create a universe that did not project His existence, isn't it more impressive if the universe He created does His will as He created it without His need to tinker with the constants?

4. I am a believer in a personal God but I don't see any inconsistency with science.

09 abr
Contestando a

My point was that your choice to use the phrase "fine tuning" implies a tuner. Scientists say the opposite - the universe APPEARS fine tuned even though they do not believe it is. The apparent surprise of how unlikely it is for all these constants to be exactly what is needed is fundamentally no different than the apparent surprise of the existence of matter at all or of different species. These were major gaps that were used to price god for centuries before scientists found that matter pops into and out of existence all the time and that evolution, especially with the discovery of DNA, goes a long way to explaining species. And every secular scientist will tell you that one day we'll toss "fine-tuning" into the same bin. I'm not saying it's not compelling, it's just not possible to pretend it's not a gap in the mind of a scientist who believes science can explain everything, even if we don't yet know how.


Contestando a

We're not hiding that we're arguing with scientists who deny God and believe that a multiverse explains the appearance of fine-tuning.

You are mistaken in equating this argument with the question about "the existence of matter at all". Fine-tuning is a design argument that implies intelligence, but at most matter implies a prior cause. In fact, we would agree that the existence of matter on its own doesn't even do that as it's possible that matter just necessarily exists. After all, something must be first existence so why not matter?


03 abr

The acceptance, by the authors, of Darwin's THEORY of evolution is very unsettling. To say this theory has been accepted by the scientific world is wrong. Even many scientists of his time(Darwin's) laughed at entries in his "abstract"(his description) "The Origin of Species". These same scientists criticized his work for lack of any proof.

The authors state that the fossil record confirms Darwins observations. This is completely wrong; even Darwin acknowledged, to his dissappoinment that no such fossil had yet been discovered and that the "Cambrian Explosion", which was already known, was a major obstruction to his theory. Darwin promised a follow-up "big book" with all the proofs of what he said in his "abstract" but never got around to publishing it. Studies of the manuscript of the Big Book reveal that there were no such proofs and he knew it.

David Katz, MD

Contestando a

We're not trying to take sides in the debate between biologists and those that argue for intelligent design in biology. We know that there are many who argue that Darwin's theory is incomplete, even given the fossil record. Our two main points are to show the superiority of the fine tuning argument from physics, and to point out that even if someone did accept the claim that biologists can fully explain life, all of biology is still dependent on fine tuning, design, and order in physics.


18 mar


bottom of page