Let’s Explore the Truth Together
I’m a follower of Jesus who is passionate about sharing the greatest news ever told. For me, faith isn't just a feeling—it’s backed by the incredible world we see around us. As a christian, I love showing how the world we live in perfectly matches the story told in the Bible.
In the realm of modern science and atheistic determinism, a startling proclamation is gaining ground: “Free will is an illusion.” Prominent figures like Sam Harris argue that human beings are nothing more than “biological puppets,” dancing to the tune of physical laws and chemical reactions.
But are we truly just pre-programmed biological machines, or is there something more to the human experience? Let’s dive into the logic behind these claims and why the “death of free will” might be greatly exaggerated.
1. The 0.5-Second Gap: Libet’s Famous Experiment
The “smoking gun” for those who deny free will is often an experiment conducted by Benjamin Libet in the 1980s.
The Finding: Libet discovered that a specific brain signal (known as the “Readiness Potential”) occurs about 0.3 to 0.5 seconds before a person consciously decides to move their finger.
The Conclusion (by Determinists): They argue that since the brain starts the process before the mind is even aware of it, the “choice” is just an afterthought—a trick played by the brain to make us feel in control.
2. The Scientific Rebuttal: The Power of the “Free Won’t”
However, this interpretation ignores a crucial part of Libet’s own findings. Libet himself did not believe his experiment disproved free will. He observed that even after the brain prepares for an action, the conscious mind retains the power to veto that action in the final milliseconds.
In the English-speaking scientific community, this is often called “Free Won’t.” While our biology might suggest a path, our conscious mind holds the final “signing authority” to approve or reject that impulse. Preparation is not the same as a final command.
3. The Dangerous World Without Choice
If we accept that free will is non-existent, the pillars of our society begin to crumble:
The Collapse of Morality: If a criminal is merely a “meat computer” following a program, can we truly hold them responsible? If there is no choice, there is no guilt, and if there is no guilt, the entire concept of justice becomes meaningless.
The Death of Reason: Scientist J.B.S. Haldane famously noted a logical paradox: If my thoughts are merely the result of chemical reactions in my brain, then my belief that “determinism is true” is also just a chemical reaction. Why should I trust a chemical reaction to tell me the truth? Materialism, in denying free will, accidentally denies the validity of its own logic.
4. More Than Just “Meat Computers”
Reducing the human experience to mere matter and motion ignores the profound reality of our existence. We deliberate, we sacrifice, and we often act against our basic biological instincts for the sake of higher values.
Free will is not a “glitch” in our neural wiring; it is the very foundation of human dignity, love, and responsibility. We are not just spectators watching a movie of our lives; we are the directors.
Curious for more? Let’s dive deep with the button below!
“In the Beginning…” — The Scientific Accuracy of the Bible’s First Words
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)
The Hebrew word for “In the beginning,” Bereshit (בראשית), does not merely signify a start in time. It declares the simultaneous origin of time, space, and matter. Today, modern science is finally catching up to the profound truth hidden in this single sentence written thousands of years ago.
1. Science Once Scoffed at the Bible
Just 100 years ago, the mainstream scientific community believed the “Steady State Theory”—the idea that the universe was eternal, with no beginning and no end. They mocked the biblical account of a “beginning” as unscientific.
Einstein’s “Biggest Blunder”: When Einstein’s equations suggested an expanding universe, he was so uncomfortable with the implication of a beginning that he inserted a “Cosmological Constant” to force the universe into a static state.
The Turning Point: Later, the Hubble Telescope confirmed that galaxies are moving away from us. In 1965, the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation effectively ended the debate: the universe definitely had a beginning.
[!NOTE]
Key Insight: The Bible declared a beginning for the universe long before human instruments could prove it.
2. Can “Something” Come from “Nothing”?
Modern atheistic scientists often claim the universe arose “from nothing” to bypass the need for a Creator. However, there is a catch in their definition of “nothing.”
A Redefined “Nothing”: When these scientists say “nothing,” they usually mean a Quantum Vacuum—a field fluctuating with energy.
The Debt Analogy: Claiming a universe came from nothing because the total energy sums to zero is like saying a person with $1 billion in assets and $1 billion in debt has “nothing.” In reality, both the assets and the debt exist.
The Verdict: True “nothingness” (the absence of anything) cannot produce “something.” Only a transcendent cause outside of time and space can explain the transition from non-existence to existence.
3. Probability vs. Chaos: Can an Explosion Create Order?
The Big Bang is often described as a massive explosion. Common sense tells us that explosions result in chaos and destruction, not complex architecture.
The Law of Entropy: Thermodynamics dictates that systems move toward disorder over time. The odds of an explosion resulting in a functional, beautiful skyscraper are zero.
The Fine-Tuned Universe: Physicist Roger Penrose calculated the probability of our orderly universe occurring by chance as 1 in 10(10^123). This number is so large that it is mathematically equivalent to “impossible.”
Evidence of Design: The universe is not a byproduct of a random accident; it is a masterpiece of precision, fine-tuned to an unimaginable degree.
4. Returning to Common Sense
Many scientists observe the undeniable “appearance of design” in the cosmos but dismiss it as an “illusion of design.” They enter their labs with a pre-existing bias: that a supernatural Creator must be ruled out at all costs.
However, if we return to basic logic and common sense, the conclusion is clear:
The Universe had a beginning.
Something cannot come from nothing.
Complex order requires an Intelligent Designer.
The fact that Genesis accurately recorded the origin of the universe millennia ago is powerful evidence that the Bible is indeed the Word of God.
Recent research has announced that the first life on Earth appeared 4.3 billion years ago. [^1] Though not mentioned in the article, this finding must be deeply unsettling for the scientific community, which has yet to establish a convincing scientific theory for the spontaneous emergence of life. This is because their hypotheses, which rely on astronomically low probabilities, lose persuasive power the shorter the time between Earth’s formation and the emergence of life.
Meanwhile, NASA captured widespread public attention with its announcement that seven Earth-like planets had been discovered just 39 light-years away. [^2]
Professor Ignas Snellen, who participated in the peer review of the paper on these Earth-like planets, stated that while it remains unknown whether life exists on these planets, he added the following:
“One thing is certain: the small dwarf star TRAPPIST-1 burns hydrogen so slowly that its lifespan is expected to reach 10 trillion years… That is a long enough time for life to evolve.” [^2]
For humans, who live at most around 100 years, 10 trillion years is certainly a long time. But whether 10 trillion years is long enough for life to spontaneously arise is an entirely different question. In this article, I would like to discuss just how scientifically absurd the notion of the spontaneous generation of life truly is — a claim that is often spoken of as though it were a mere matter of common sense.
The Experiment on Spontaneous Generation of Life and Its Significance
In the 1950s, when understanding of life was still quite limited, Stanley Miller filled a glass tube with methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor — the conditions then believed to represent early Earth’s atmosphere — applied electrical shocks, and discovered that amino acids were produced inside. This finding led many people to leave the church, and atheism began to quietly raise its head. The thinking was: if life can arise on its own, then there is no need for God. However, by the 1960s, knowledge of early Earth’s environment had advanced, and it became clear that the early Earth could not have been the same environment Miller had used. Miller then applied electrical shocks under the newly understood conditions of early Earth, but the amino acids that had previously formed did not appear.
Of course, even if Miller’s experiment had succeeded in showing that amino acids could form naturally, that would be an entirely different conclusion from saying that life itself can arise spontaneously. The fact that soil can form naturally under certain conditions is no more an argument that an apartment building can assemble itself out of nothing. In fact, even if scientists were to place every molecule necessary for a living organism into a single test tube and wait, those molecules would not gather together and become a living creature. It is the same logic as putting every single component needed to build a smartphone into a container and shaking it — no matter how long or how hard you shake, they will not assemble themselves into a working phone.
So then, what is the probability of amino acids coming together to form a living organism?
The Odds of Amino Acids Becoming a Functional Protein
First, let us calculate the probability of a single protein forming by chance, since proteins are necessary for life to exist. If you have studied biology, you will know that there are 20 amino acids that help form proteins. Amino acids are made from groups of three DNA base pairs, and the type of amino acid is determined by the sequence and length of those base pairs. Some smaller proteins may contain fewer than 100 amino acids, while in some cases tens of thousands of amino acids are used. Though not precise, many scientists estimate that an average protein requires around 300 to 400 amino acids.
The critical question, then, is what the probability is that any given sequence of amino acids would fold into a functional protein. On this topic, molecular biologist Douglas Axe published a paper concluding that the probability of a protein 150 amino acids in length being functional is 1 in 10⁷⁷. [^3] But that is not all. There are additional conditions required for protein formation. The first is that each amino acid must be connected by a peptide bond. Peptide bonds form with roughly a 50% probability, so the chance that all 150 amino acids are connected by peptide bonds is 2⁻¹⁴⁹, approximately 10⁻⁴⁵. The second condition is that only L-type amino acids can be used, not D-type. Since the probability of an amino acid being L-type versus D-type is also around 50%, the probability that all amino acids are L-type is likewise 2⁻¹⁵⁰, approximately 10⁻⁴⁵.
If even a single D-type amino acid is mixed in, or if even one non-peptide bond is present between amino acids, the entire combination collapses and fails to form a protein. Therefore, the probability of a random combination of amino acids accidentally forming even a single protein — not a living organism, just one protein — is 10⁻⁷⁷ × 10⁻⁴⁵ × 10⁻⁴⁵ = 10⁻¹⁶⁷.
The spontaneous emergence of life over 10 trillion years is impossible.
This probability is also consistent with calculations previously made by evolutionary scientists. Carl Sagan, a scientist admired by many, calculated the probability of a protein 100 amino acids in length forming at 1 in 10¹³⁰. [^4] Professor Gerald Schroeder of MIT similarly calculated the probability of a protein 130 amino acids in length forming at 1 in 10¹⁷⁰. [^5]
Professor Snellen stated earlier that 10 trillion years would be sufficient time for life to evolve — but 10 trillion years is not even enough time for a single protein to form. For one protein to come into existence within 10 trillion years (10¹³ years), there would need to be approximately 10¹⁴⁷ protein-formation attempts every single second.
The critical point here is that everything we have been discussing so far concerns not a living organism, but a single protein. So what would be the probability of a living organism arising by chance?
The Minimum Conditions for the Simplest Life Form
In 2016, Craig Venter’s research team published findings on the simplest possible cell. [^6][^7] In 2010, they had first created a synthetic cell called Syn 1.0, which was a copy of an existing genome sequence. [^8] The team then attempted to build a cell entirely from scratch on their own, designing a cell with 480,000 base pairs and 471 genes — but they failed. Eventually, the team succeeded in creating the simplest cell yet, Syn 3.0, composed of 530,000 base pairs and 473 genes.
The team had tried to identify the genes essential for life by eliminating from Syn 1.0 all genes thought to be unnecessary for cell survival. At the outset of this research, they believed that as few as 256 genes would be sufficient to sustain life. [^9] But after decades of research, they identified 473 genes that could not be reduced any further, proving their initial prediction wrong. Interestingly, around 150 of those genes were clearly essential for survival, yet their specific functions remained completely unknown.
In any case, we do not know exactly how many proteins are encoded by each gene in the cell the team created, but to make the conditions as generous as possible, let us assume there is just one protein per gene. That means the minimum number of proteins required for life is 473. The fact that there were 531,000 base pairs implies an average of 374 amino acids per gene — but again, we will use the 150-amino-acid probability for our calculation.
The probability of an organism with 473 proteins arising by chance is 10⁻¹⁶⁷ × 473 = 10⁻⁷⁸,⁹⁹¹. Of course, this calculation already rests on the unrealistic assumption that simply having functional proteins is sufficient for life, without even accounting for the specific sequences those proteins must have. And a probability of this magnitude is one that simply cannot occur within the entire history of the universe.
This is why Craig Venter, the lead researcher of the team, stated: “We have shown how complex even the simplest life forms are. And these discoveries have humbled us.” [^9]
These kinds of findings and calculations are also entirely consistent with those of other scientists who have made similar estimates.
People Who Came to Believe in a Creator After Calculating the Probability of Life Arising
Sir Fred Hoyle was an astronomer who was active in the mid-20th century and one of the most prominent atheists of his time. However, together with his colleague Wickramasinghe, he calculated the probability of life arising naturally at 10⁻⁴⁰’⁰⁰⁰ — and became a theist. He stated: “If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing arrayed complexities were the products of an intelligence. I find no other way to come to this conclusion.” [^10]
Anthony Flew, the defining atheist of the 20th century who served as an idol to Richard Dawkins and many other atheists, similarly announced in 2004 that he had become a theist. In 1950, he had published a paper titled Theology and Falsification, which became the most widely cited philosophical publication of the following half-century.
In that paper, Flew argued three main positions: that the universe is eternal, has always existed, and will always exist; that life is the product of random chemical reactions; and that the existence of God is self-contradictory, and that evil and God cannot coexist. Yet he ultimately acknowledged that the immense complexity revealed through the advance of science could not be explained within an atheistic worldview, and came to accept that this world has a Creator.
Dean Kenyon, who led the field of chemistry in the 1970s, similarly set out to scientifically demonstrate that life had arisen naturally — and believed he could do so. But as science advanced, he found it increasingly impossible, and eventually abandoned evolutionary theory to become a creationist.
He had been one of the leading scientists in the field during the 1960s and 70s, but as he came to understand just how complex and intricate even the smallest cells and proteins are, he kept in mind two possible ways of explaining the origin of life through natural science: either explaining where the genetic binding originated, or demonstrating that proteins in a primordial ocean could combine amino acids into the correct sequence — with or without DNA, whether precisely or by chance.
Kenyon realized he could do neither. In the late 1970s, he abandoned all of his research that had sought to explain the origin of life through chemical evolution. And as subsequent findings continued to emerge about the importance of DNA, he came to recognize the absolute necessity of genetic information — and grew ever more convinced that his late change of position had been the right one.
How Do Evolutionists Explain the Origin of the First Life?
Despite all of this, many evolutionists still hold to an unsubstantiated belief that life arose naturally. So how do they explain the origin of the first life?
Many scientists openly admit that they cannot explain it. Richard Dawkins himself said in one interview: “Nobody knows how the first living matter came into existence!” [^11] They simply refuse to acknowledge a Creator on the grounds of the “God of the gaps” argument — the claim that just because I cannot explain something does not mean God did it.
Some scientists have also attempted to explain the origin of life through the multiverse. The prominent evolutionary biologist Eugene Koonin wrote a highly unusual paper in 2007. [^12]
In it, he calculated the probability of a single RNA replicase enzyme composed of 500 nucleotides forming by chance at 10⁻¹⁰¹⁸, and argued that a probability this low could never occur within the history of our universe. Yet Koonin then abruptly pivoted to argue that if there exists an infinite multiverse produced by eternal inflation, then even an astronomically improbable event like this would be not merely possible but inevitable — and on this basis proceeded to discuss the possibility of life arising naturally.
If an infinite multiverse is real, then events of unimaginable improbability must occur countless times.
Honestly, reading this paper, the only thought that came to mind was: how desperate must these people be to avoid acknowledging God, that such nonsensical reasoning could find its way into a published paper?
Of course, if an infinite multiverse exists, then any event of any probability — no matter how low — must inevitably occur somewhere. That much is logically true. But humans have never observed an infinite multiverse, nor can we ever observe one. What was shocking was that a paper in a biology journal could treat the multiverse as an established fact and build an argument upon it. The second problem is even more serious. Humans have never observed an event with a probability even as low as 10⁻⁵⁰ — which, while extraordinarily small, is still vastly higher than the probability of life arising. If one wishes to argue that a multiverse allows events of staggeringly low probability to occur, then at the very least there should be some observed instance of a comparably improbable event. All manner of seemingly impossible things that defy common sense should be occurring around us constantly.
And yet, the foremost evolutionary theorists make the claim — without any such observation whatsoever — that in an infinite multiverse, anything and everything must inevitably happen. I consider this to be deeply irresponsible propaganda.
I believe these individuals are fully aware of just how flawed and incoherent their own logic is. So why would such intelligent people insist on making arguments this untenable?
The True Motives of Atheists Who Refuse to Acknowledge God
In a debate with creationist Fuz Rana [^13], prominent evolutionary biologist Michael Ruse offered these closing remarks:
“I agree with Dr. Rana that the origin of life is a desperately difficult problem. I don’t think anyone is going to deny that. I agree with Dr. Rana that scientists today don’t have a full answer, or even an adequate answer. I agree with Dr. Rana that there are a lot of ‘bad boys’ in the field, as it were. There’s a lot of what Stephen Jay Gould used to call ‘just-so stories’ floating around.
Of course, at first it seemed like it would be easy. But as ten, fifteen, twenty years have gone by, it’s become clear that it’s much, much harder than anyone thought. Much harder — and I don’t think anyone would deny that today. So the question we have to ask is: what do we do now? Surrender and take a Biblical perspective… I always say — if you want to take a Biblical perspective, I can’t stop you. But you’re not doing science. The question we have to ask is: does science, at some point — what Dr. Rana calls a hybrid, though he might call it something different — does science point to miracles? I want to say no. No…
I would rather be a fool than surrender to the Bible.”
In these remarks, I believe the true inner motives of those who hold an atheistic worldview are laid completely bare. They are not seeking truth — they simply do not want to surrender before God.
No matter how clearly atheists observe that living organisms appear to be designed, they refuse to draw the conclusion that they were designed. Because they do not want to surrender to the Bible. Science as a discipline demands that we set aside our subjective views and preferences when interpreting observations — and yet these scientists are violating even that most foundational principle, denying the obvious conclusion that their own data points toward.
I can only marvel at the remarkable insight of Scripture — why the Bible says that acknowledging God is the beginning of knowledge, and why it says that those who deny God, though they declare themselves to be wise, have become fools.
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.” — Romans 1:20–22
To observe with your own eyes just how complex even the simplest living organism is — to see that it bears every appearance not of something that accumulated by random chance, but of something that was painstakingly and deliberately designed — and then to deny the very conclusions of your own observations: that is the work of a fool. And the complexity of life that science continues to reveal, the more it advances, is the most powerful evidence we have that the God who created this world is alive — that He made everything for us, and that He made us.
References
[^1]:Yonhap News, “Earth’s earliest life forms dated back to 4.3 billion years ago,” March 02, 2017.
[^2]:Maeil Business Newspaper, “Cluster of Earth-like planets discovered relatively close to the Sun,” February 23, 2017.
[^3]:Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology (JMB), June 18, 2004.
[^4]:Carl Sagan, Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI), MIT Press, 1973.
[^5]:Gerald L. Schroeder, The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom, 1997.
[^6]:Clyde A. Hutchison III et al., “Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome,” Science, March 25, 2016.
[^7]:Nature News, “Minimal cell raises stakes in race to harness synthetic life,” March 24, 2016.
[^8]:Gibson, D. G. et al., “Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome,” Science 329, 52–56, 2010.
[^10]:Fred Hoyle, “Evolution from Space,” Omni Lecture, Royal Institution, London, January 12, 1982.
[^11]:Richard Dawkins, Interview with Ben Stein, in the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, 2008.
[^12]:Eugene V. Koonin, “The Cosmological Model of Eternal Inflation and the Transition from Chance to Biological Evolution in the History of Life,” Biology Direct, May 31, 2007.
[^13]:Fuz Rana vs. Michael Ruse, “Debate on the Origin of Life,” May 16, 2013.
Ten Trillion Years — Is That Really Enough? | white.org.nz
Scientific Evidence
Ten Trillion Years — is that enough?
Scientists say it’s plenty of time for life to evolve by chance.
Is it really?
Quick Read6 minwhite.org.nz
Scroll to read
When NASA announced the discovery of seven Earth-like planets just 39 light-years away, one astronomy professor added: “TRAPPIST-1’s lifespan is expected to reach ten trillion years. That is a long enough time for life to evolve.” For us — who live, at most, around a hundred years — ten trillion is genuinely long. But is it long enough for life to arise on its own? That’s an entirely different question.
01Will shaking the box build a smartphone?
In 1953, Stanley Miller filled a glass tube with methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapour and ran an electric current through it. Amino acids appeared. The result spread fast, and many people walked away from church, persuaded that life — like everything else — could simply assemble itself.
Two things happened afterward, though. First, geologists realised the early Earth’s atmosphere wasn’t what Miller had assumed. Second — and this is the bigger point — making amino acids and making life are not the same thing at all.
Analogy
Soil forming in nature does not mean an apartment building can assemble itself out of nothing. Take every part needed to build a smartphone, drop them into a container, and shake — no matter how long, the parts will not assemble themselves into a working phone.
So what would the odds actually be of amino acids coming together to form a living organism? Let’s walk through it step by step.
02The odds of just one protein
Life requires proteins. An average protein is built from 300 to 400 amino acids — but they can’t just be strung together randomly. The sequence has to be just right for the protein to fold into something functional.
Molecular biologist Douglas Axe calculated the probability that a 150-amino-acid sequence would fold into a working protein at 1 in 1077. And that’s not the end of it. Every amino acid has to be joined by a peptide bond (about a 50% chance per bond) and every one has to be the L-form rather than the D-form (also 50%). Multiply it all together:
Odds of a single functional protein arising by chance
1 in 10167
That’s 1 followed by 167 zeros. The number of attempts required is far greater than the total number of atoms in the entire observable universe.
And that’s just one protein — not a living organism. Even ten trillion years is not enough time for one protein to form by chance. To produce a single protein within that span, roughly 10147 attempts would have to occur every second.
03But one protein isn’t enough
In 2016, J. Craig Venter’s team unveiled the simplest possible synthetic cell, Syn 3.0. It contains 473 genes. The team had originally expected that 256 genes would be enough — but after decades of work, they couldn’t reduce the count below 473.
Even more striking: roughly 150 of those genes are essential for survival, but no one yet knows what they do.
Venter himself put it like this:
We have shown how complex even the simplest life forms are. And these discoveries have humbled us.
The probability of all 473 proteins forming together by chance works out to roughly 1 in 1078,991. That is a number that simply cannot occur within the entire history of the universe.
04The atheists who changed their minds
The math has been startling enough that several prominent thinkers — having done the calculations themselves — moved from atheism toward belief in a Creator.
Sir Fred Hoyle
Astronomer
One of the leading atheists of his generation. After calculating the probability of life emerging by chance at 1 in 1040,000, he became a theist.
Antony Flew
Philosopher
The defining atheist philosopher of the twentieth century — an idol to Richard Dawkins. In 2004, he announced his belief in a Creator.
Dean Kenyon
Biochemist
A pioneer of chemical evolution research in the 1970s. As he came to grasp the complexity of life, he abandoned his earlier work and became a creationist.
05What do evolutionists actually say?
The honest ones admit they don’t know. Even Richard Dawkins has said in an interview, “Nobody knows how the first living matter came into existence.” But they refuse to acknowledge a Creator on the grounds of the “God of the gaps” objection — that not knowing isn’t a license to invoke God.
Some have gone further and proposed an infinite multiverse: if there are unlimited universes, then any improbable event must occur somewhere. The trouble is — we have never observed a multiverse, and we cannot. They are treating it as fact in order to rescue chance.
The evolutionary biologist Michael Ruse put it more bluntly than most. After conceding that the origin of life is “desperately difficult,” he closed a debate with these words:
I would rather be a fool than surrender to the Bible.
There it is. The real motive on the table. They are not searching for truth — they simply do not want to surrender before God.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
— Romans 1:20
To look with one’s own eyes at how intricately even the simplest life is designed — and then to deny the obvious conclusion of that observation — is, the Bible says, the work of those who “professed to be wise” and “became fools.”
The complexity that science keeps unveiling, the more it advances, points clearly to one conclusion. The God who made this world is alive. He made everything for us — and He made us.
— Want to go deeper? —
The full case, with all the math
Eugene Koonin’s multiverse paper, James Tour’s chemical critique, Stephen Meyer’s information argument, and the full text of Michael Ruse’s surrender — every piece of evidence for why ten trillion years is nowhere near enough.
Before we present the evidence in earnest, we must first be able to see our reality. And what that reality is comes down to this: we need to clarify what it means to know something.
You probably think you know many facts.
For example, you know who your parents are, you know where your home is. And you know, as a matter of complete obviousness, that you are a person — and that people typically have two eyes, one nose, one mouth, and ten fingers.
But is that truly knowing?
If we apply a genuinely rigorous definition of “knowing,” there are almost no facts we can claim to truly know.
In the movie The Matrix, the protagonist Neo lives in what he believes to be reality, working as a programmer. But after taking the red pill that reveals the truth, he discovers that the world he had been living in was actually a virtual reality, and that a separate, real world exists.
Can you prove that this world is a real, physical reality and not a virtual simulation inside a computer program?
Likewise, in the movie Inception, the protagonist Cobb crosses back and forth between reality and dreams using a dream machine, and we see people who cannot distinguish between dreams and reality — or who cannot escape from them.
Can you be certain that right now, as you read this book, you are living in the real world and not a dream?
You might think I am being unreasonable, but this is an extraordinarily well-known topic among philosophers.
We will explore it in more detail in the next chapter, but scientists actually research, hold seminars, and write papers on the possibility that this world is a virtual reality.
Furthermore, in attempting to solve the problem of the multiverse — a topic we will address later — what was discovered is that the probability of this world being an illusion created by a brain floating somewhere in space is infinitely greater than the probability of this world actually existing.
Of course, I myself am convinced that the world we live in is real and physical. But my conviction does not make it fact.
In that sense, I believe that what I see exists — I do not know it. Because I cannot prove that what I perceive is not an illusion fabricated by my brain, or an impossibly vivid dream.
Therefore, just as believing that God is alive is a matter of faith — since I have never seen Him with my own eyes — believing that my friends, my parents, and my teachers are real is equally a matter of faith. Indeed, even the fact that I have eyes at all is something I cannot prove; it too is belief.
So there is only one thing we can know without requiring any faith whatsoever.
That is the fact that there exists a “self” — a being capable of thinking about whether or not it exists.
Not the human “I” with two eyes, a nose, a mouth, and ten fingers — but the “I” that can wonder and think, whether it is a brain floating in some unknown space, or a soul existing not in any physical space but in a spiritual realm.
And so the philosopher René Descartes, who set out to negate everything that could possibly be negated, discovered the one thing he could never deny, and left us these famous words:
“I think, therefore I am.”
Many people respond to this problem by saying they are agnostic. But if one truly cannot rationally know whether God exists, then one must also say that we cannot know whether this world is a real, physical space-time. That is what genuine rational thinking, free from all presuppositions, actually demands.
Apologetics is a discipline that already begins from the assumption that all things are, at some level, unknowable. This is precisely why agnosticism cannot stand between the debate of atheism and theism. We simply assume the world of theism or the world of atheism, and proceed from there — determining which is more rational and reasonable given what we understand about the world.
As you read this book, you cannot take the position of “I don’t know whether God exists or not.” You need only decide: in a hypothetical world where God exists, or in one where He does not, which version of reality makes more rational and coherent sense to you — and then determine whether that world aligns with how you understand things to be.
What is the most central doctrine of Christianity? It is, without a doubt, the Cross and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is no exaggeration to say that every word in the Bible serves as an explanation of these two events; they are the very heartbeat of Christian theology. However, whether they are believers or non-believers, many people seem to lack a clear understanding of the actual “saving principle” embedded within them.
Many skeptics view Christian doctrine as unfair or even nonsensical. They ask: “How can a heinous murderer go to Heaven simply because they believed in Jesus, while someone who lived a virtuous life goes to Hell just because they didn’t?” From a purely human perspective, I find this to be a perfectly understandable objection. However, I believe that if one grasps the overarching framework of Christian doctrine, they will discover that Christianity is more logical and legally sound than the teachings of any other religion in the world.
Today, I want to share the significance and the spiritual principles behind the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus.
The Common Teaching of All Religions – Humanity Sins.
Fundamentally, all the world’s religions teach that humanity is sinful. Even Mencius, who most extremely advocated for Seongseonseol (the theory that human nature is fundamentally good), presupposed the question of why humans commit evil. He believed that human wrongdoing stems from the defilement of our original good nature and taught that we must preserve that innate goodness through learning.
What about other religions? Buddhism teaches that one’s sins become “karma,” leading to reincarnation based on that karma; one must attain enlightenment to escape the cycle of Samsara and reach Nirvana. Hinduism shares a similar view of salvation, emphasizing the fulfillment of caste duties to escape the cycle of rebirth. In Islam, it is taught that a person’s good and evil deeds are weighed on a scale—if evil is heavier, one goes to Hell; if good is heavier, one goes to Heaven (though martyrdom for Allah can grant automatic entry).
If my good deeds outweigh my sins, am I a good person?
Is this view of salvation truly rational? In our world, are you exempt from punishment for a crime just because your good deeds outnumber your bad ones? Suppose someone saves 100 lives but then murders one of them. Does the fact that they saved 99 people negate the crime of murder? Most world religions teach that while you have sinned, you can achieve salvation by performing an equivalent or greater amount of “good.”
Consider someone who has never committed murder, robbery, or theft, but has been imprisoned for fraud. Is this person not a lawbreaker? A lawbreaker is not someone who breaks every law; breaking just one law makes you a criminal. The Bible faithfully explains this concept:
“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘Do not murder.’ If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.” (James 2:10–11)
While other religious doctrines contradict our common understanding of law, Christianity speaks clearly. Even without debating their specific definitions of “sin” and “goodness,” their logic deviates from general justice, whereas the logic of Christianity is remarkably legal and consistent.
The Christian Principle of Salvation – Jesus Christ
While all other religions claim that one can save oneself, Christianity asserts that humanity can absolutely never achieve self-salvation.
“As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.'” (Romans 3:10–12)
“Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.” (Romans 3:20)
The Bible tells us that no one in this world can be righteous in God’s sight—in fact, we cannot even realize what true righteousness is on our own. Therefore, God sent Jesus to this earth to save us. So, what exactly did Jesus come to this earth to do?
How the Cross and Resurrection Save Us
“Even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:28)
Jesus stated that He came to this earth to give His life as a “ransom.” What exactly is a ransom? Let me explain this through a simple analogy.
Imagine someone accidentally drops a cigarette butt, which ends up burning down a high-rise building worth $10 million. However, this person is unemployed and has no money at all. What happens then? He is legally obligated to compensate for the $10 million loss, but since he has no ability to pay, he must face imprisonment.
Similarly, every person in this world sins. And the “wages” of that sin is death. Because of their sins, all people are destined for Hell. Humans lack the capacity to pay the price for their own sins; in fact, the longer we live, the more debt (sin) we accumulate. Thus, humanity was left without hope, facing eternal judgment.
But then, a miraculous event occurs. A wealthy benefactor pities the man facing prison and steps forward to pay the $10 million on his behalf. The benefactor asks for the man’s account number to transfer the funds. What should the man do? He simply needs to provide his account information to receive the gift. But what if he thinks, “I don’t need to pay this back,” or suspects the benefactor is a fraud and refuses to give his information? He will remain unable to pay the debt and will go to prison as scheduled.
Likewise, a miracle has happened for us. God, the Creator of this world, took pity on humanity headed for Hell and sent His Son—the only one capable of paying the price for the sins of mankind. He is sinless and possesses the power to overcome death, the very penalty that sends us to Hell. Therefore, if we can only receive His life, we do not have to go to Hell.
However, if someone thinks, “I don’t need to be saved from Hell,” or “The Son of God cannot rescue me,” and refuses to receive His life, that person must fall into eternal Hell to pay for their own sins.
Jesus Bore the Punishment of My Sin on the Cross
Instead of us paying for our sins, Jesus paid the price in our place. I do not believe that the “price of sin” refers only to the physical suffering Jesus endured on the Roman cross. While the Roman execution was brutal, I don’t believe Jesus prayed for the “cup to be removed” simply because He feared physical torture and nails.
As the Sinless One, He had to endure the actual punishment of Hell on our behalf, which meant being completely severed from His relationship with God the Father. This separation was the most excruciating agony for Jesus. In that darkness, He cried out, feeling the weight of being forsaken by God.
God did not let us bear the penalty; instead, He laid the entire cost of our sin upon His only begotten Son. This was a plan ordained by God from long ago:
“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:4–5)
Just before Jesus died on the cross, He cried out, “It is finished!” At that moment, the veil in the Temple was torn in two. What does this signify? It means Jesus took away the sins of humanity. Because He took that sin upon Himself, the relationship between God and man was restored, and Jesus fulfilled the payment for the debt we owed.
The Meaning of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
How do we know that Jesus truly bore all our sins?
Technically, any human could hang on a cross and claim they are dying for the sins of others. But how can we distinguish between someone merely performing a self-sacrificial “show” and someone who has actually, legally satisfied the debt of humanity’s sin?
How can we be certain that Jesus successfully paid the full price for our transgressions?
We know this because Jesus Christ conquered the power of death and rose again. His Resurrection is the absolute proof that the “wages of sin” has been paid in full. The Apostle Paul explains the necessity of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:
“And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” (1 Corinthians 15:17–19)
It is true: if Jesus had not been raised, it would mean that despite His sacrifice on the Cross, we would still be headed for Hell. In that case, Christians—who endure suffering in this world only to face eternal judgment after death—would be the most pathetic people, clinging to a hollow hope.
But we know that Jesus has risen.
We know that He has fully discharged our debt of sin. We know that He has shattered the authority of death and emerged victorious.
“The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” (1 Corinthians 15:26)
The Resurrection of Jesus is the definitive evidence that death has been defeated. It is the guaranteed assurance that every believer in Christ will also overcome death and rise again, just as He did.
How to Enter into Jesus Christ?
Even if Jesus conquered death and rose again, that news remains meaningless to us unless we personally participate in that resurrection. How, then, can we transfer our sins to Jesus?
“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” (Galatians 2:20)
First, we must acknowledge that the Cross Jesus bore was due to my sins. In other words, we must admit that the Cross Jesus carried actually belonged to us. The Bible describes this as being “crucified with Christ.”
Second, we must acknowledge that since Jesus purchased us with His blood, we are no longer our own masters; Jesus Christ is our Lord.
When we make that confession, it is not by our own imperfect faith, but by the faith of Jesus—His perfect life, which fulfilled every requirement of the Law that we could never meet—that His righteousness is imputed (transferred) to us. In this way, through Jesus, we are declared righteous before God.
The Cross and Resurrection: A Legal Reality, Not Just an Event
Contrary to common misunderstanding, the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus carry profound legal significance. Jesus received the punishment in place of all humanity. God declared that “anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse.” Jesus, who was sinless and had no reason to be cursed, took that gruesome curse upon Himself for our sake.
“His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 21:23)
This was a substitutionary punishment with a clear legal purpose. Because Jesus possesses infinite holiness—sufficient to pay for all the sins of mankind—He had no reason to remain in Hell and was able to rise again. We describe this as “conquering death.”
The Cross and Resurrection were not mere “events” for show; they were God’s legal and logical plan for salvation. All we must do is receive that victory as our own through faith. Will you not accept this incredible love of God today?
In 2016, some of the world’s greatest scientists gathered at the American Museum of Natural History to debate a single question: “Are we living in a simulated universe?”
This wasn’t a fringe discussion. It was the official theme of the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, moderated by Neil deGrasse Tyson, with professors from Harvard and MIT arguing in complete seriousness. The same topic surfaced at the 2009 World Science Festival with Oxford’s Nick Bostrom and inflation theorist Alan Guth. A Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist gave a TED talk on it. Academic papers have been published.
Why would the world’s most brilliant minds arrive at such a conclusion? They have their reasons.
1The Secret of Mathematics
In 2013, the Higgs boson — the “God Particle” — was finally confirmed in the lab. The astonishing detail: physicist Peter Higgs had predicted its existence through mathematics alone, fifty years before the experiment confirmed it. Einstein’s gravitational waves were predicted in 1916 and detected a century later. The math always comes first; reality follows.
Nobel laureate Sir Paul Nurse asked his fellow scientists directly: “How and why can the world be described by mathematics?” He called it the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” and admitted he found it deeply puzzling.
“Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.”
— Galileo Galilei
The universe is written in mathematics. But why?
Christian apologist William Lane Craig offers the most rational answer: an Intelligent Creator designed the universe using mathematics as His medium. When atheist cognitive scientist Marvin Minsky was pressed on this, he replied — by his own admission, strangely — that since we couldn’t exist without a mathematical structure, there’s no need to explain it. That is not an explanation. It is a deflection.
2The Atheist’s Creator
Unable to explain the universe’s “impossible coincidences” through an infinite multiverse, some scientists landed on a startling new hypothesis: we do not live in physical reality at all. Like Neo in The Matrix, this universe is a computer simulation.
Oxford’s Nick Bostrom and MIT’s Max Tegmark are among the credentialed professors who advocate this seriously. University of Maryland theoretical physicist James Gates Jr. claims that while studying Supersymmetry theory equations, he found mathematical structures identical to computer error-correcting codes embedded within them.
The irony is striking. Scientists who reject God have arrived at the concept of a creator who built this universe — they’ve simply replaced “God” with “an advanced civilization running a simulation.”
3The Boltzmann Brain: Are We Just a Dream?
Could this all be a hallucination of a lone brain floating in empty space?
The multiverse theory carries a devastating built-in problem. A random quantum fluctuation is infinitely more likely to produce one lone brain — capable of imagining an orderly universe — than to produce an actual orderly universe. Creating a single brain is far simpler than generating an entire cosmos.
The implication? If an infinite multiverse truly exists, we are almost certainly Boltzmann Brains: isolated consciousnesses that flickered briefly from chaos, experiencing nothing but hallucination. Papers on the subject state: “A typical observer in the multiverse is a Boltzmann Brain. The probability of being a Boltzmann Brain is infinitely higher than the probability of being a regular human.”
This paradox threatens the foundations of modern cosmology — including the Big Bang itself. Proposed solutions have all created new problems just as severe.
4The One Answer
The simulation universe, the Boltzmann Brain, cosmic fine-tuning, the mathematical structure of reality, the origin of life — solving every one of these paradoxes is remarkably simple:
Acknowledge that there is a Creator.
If this world was crafted through Intelligent Design, every paradox dissolves instantly. These paradoxes are not obstacles to faith — they are evidence pointing directly to the Creator.
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”
Psalm 14:1
At some point humanity began using reason as a weapon against God — and excluded the supernatural from science by assumption, not by evidence. The results are telling: a world too ordered to be real, so perhaps it’s a simulation; mathematics that can’t be explained, so perhaps we are Boltzmann Brains. Deny God through knowledge, and you end up denying reality itself.
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
Proverbs 1:7
Go Deeper
Want scientists, papers, and the full argument?
The Deep Dive covers every argument with scholar cards, citations, and extended analysis.
The universe runs on math it never invented. Scientists call this “unreasonably effective.” But what if it’s not unreasonable at all?
⏱ ~5 min read · Fingerofthomas · white.org.nz
When someone says “the universe has order because of gravity,” they’ve answered a question nobody asked—and quietly skipped the one that matters most: Where did gravity come from? Why does any law exist at all?
Scientists do a brilliant job of explaining how the universe works. But the deeper question—why physical reality can be described by mathematics at all—is one science assumes without ever answering.
Invented or Discovered?
Ask whether mathematics was invented or discovered, and most people say “invented.” It sounds obvious. We invented the symbols, the notation, the names.
But here’s a problem. Five hundred million years ago, a single trilobite swam alone in the Cambrian sea. No humans. No symbols. How many trilobites were there in that moment?
The Key Insight
The Arabic numeral “1” is a symbol humans created. But the concept it points to—the mathematical reality of oneness—was there before any human existed to name it. Mathematics isn’t invented by minds. It’s discovered by them. And it was true before the universe even began.
G. H. Hardy, one of the 20th century’s greatest mathematicians, spent his career certain that his “pure” mathematics would never touch the real world. He even bragged about it. He was famously, spectacularly wrong—his formulas ended up foundational to nuclear physics and population genetics.
At the end of his life, this committed atheist made an extraordinary confession:
“I believe that mathematical reality lies outside us, that our function is to discover or observe it, and that the theorems which we prove are simply our notes of our observations.”
— G. H. Hardy, A Mathematician’s Apology (1940)
When Equations See the Future
Here is the strangest part. Mathematics doesn’t just describe what we already know. Again and again, abstract equations developed in isolation—with zero connection to physical experiments—have predicted discoveries that wouldn’t be confirmed for decades.
Mathematical precision appears at every scale of the universe—from quantum particles to galaxy clusters.
🪐
Neptune
1 year later
Le Verrier calculated Neptune’s exact position using only equations—never looking through a telescope. Astronomers pointed there and found it immediately.
⚛️
Antimatter
4 years later
Dirac’s equation had a mysterious second solution. He predicted a “mirror electron” must exist. Carl Anderson discovered it—the positron—exactly as the math described.
🔬
Higgs Boson
48 years later
Peter Higgs used math to predict a particle giving others mass. CERN’s Large Hadron Collider found it in 2012, nearly half a century later.
🌊
Gravitational Waves
99 years later
Einstein’s equations predicted ripples in spacetime in 1916. LIGO confirmed them in 2015—detecting a distortion smaller than a proton’s diameter.
Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner was so struck by this pattern that he wrote a famous paper calling it “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics.” Abstract thought kept describing physical facts that hadn’t been seen yet. He called it a miracle.
It’s Not Just Physics
The same mathematical patterns appear throughout the natural world—without any “instruction” to do so.
Mathematics found in nature
🌻 Sunflower spirals (34/55 Fibonacci)🐚 Nautilus shell (golden ratio φ)🧬 DNA width/height (21/34 Ångströms ≈ φ)🌀 Galaxy arms (logarithmic spiral)🦗 Cicadas (13- and 17-year cycles — both prime)🌲 Pine cones (8/13 spirals)
North American cicadas emerge every 13 or 17 years—both prime numbers—minimizing overlap with predators on shorter cycles. The insects “solved” a number theory problem. And the DNA molecule that carries life’s blueprint has proportions matching consecutive Fibonacci numbers.
No physical law forces these different scales to share the same mathematics. Yet they do.
Five of mathematics’ most fundamental constants—discovered centuries apart, for completely different reasons—combine into one perfect equation:
eiπ + 1 = 0
Richard Feynman called it “the most remarkable formula in mathematics.” It unites e (compound growth), i (imaginary numbers), π (circles), 1, and 0—five different worlds of mathematics, one perfect relationship. Who arranged for them to fit together?
You Can’t Write a Book in a Language You Don’t Know
Here is perhaps the simplest way to state what all of this evidence implies.
No one who doesn’t know English can write an English novel. No one who doesn’t know Chinese characters can write a book in classical Chinese. The output always requires the knowledge behind it. A library doesn’t assemble itself from an explosion in a paper factory.
The Logical Conclusion
The universe is written in the language of mathematics—precisely, consistently, at every scale. An explosion has no mathematical knowledge. A mindless process has no mathematical ability. And yet the universe it supposedly produced is fluent in mathematics that took humanity millennia to partially decode. A book written in a language requires an author who speaks that language.
This is not a leap of faith. It is the same logic we apply everywhere else. When archaeologists find geometric patterns carved into stone, they don’t conclude the wind made them. When scientists find a radio signal encoding prime numbers from space, they will immediately conclude it came from an intelligent source. The conclusion follows from the evidence.
The universe isn’t just compatible with mathematics. It is saturated with it—in structures no mindless process would have any reason to produce. The only adequate explanation for a mathematically written universe is an author who speaks mathematics.
The Only Two Explanations
Mathematics was not designed for physics. Yet it describes physics with impossible precision. Equations developed in abstract isolation predict physical discoveries decades later. The same constants appear in DNA, in galaxies, in insect biology.
There are only two conclusions available to a rational mind. Either this is a staggering, ongoing coincidence with no explanation. Or the universe is built on mathematics because it was designed by a Mind for whom mathematics is not a human invention—but a native language.
Einstein asked how mathematics could possibly fit reality so well. Wigner called it a miracle. Hardy confessed that mathematical reality exists outside of human minds. The most rational response to all of this evidence is not a shrug. It is wonder—and a question about who wrote the equations.
How Can We Understand the Fine-Tuned Universe? | white.org.nz
Scientific Evidence
How Can We Understand the Fine-Tuned Universe?
The cosmos is calibrated to a precision that defies all chance. Here’s what the numbers actually say.
white.org.nz·5 min read·Cosmology · Fine-Tuning
Imagine a loaded revolver with a single bullet in six chambers. You pull the trigger against your head. Your odds of survival: 5 in 6. Now picture that same game — but with 10120 chambers, and only one safe outcome. That’s the universe we live in.
This isn’t a dramatic metaphor. It’s the actual mathematics of cosmic fine-tuning — the discovery that our universe’s physical constants sit within a razor-thin range that makes life possible. Shift any one of them by a fraction, and the stars go dark, atoms dissolve, and nothing alive ever forms.
What Is Fine-Tuning?
Since the 1950s, scientists have discovered that for life to be possible anywhere in the universe, multiple physical constants must fall within extraordinarily narrow ranges. This isn’t about whether Earth happens to have liquid water or whether our Sun is stable. This is a deeper question: could life — any life larger than a pea — exist anywhere in the cosmos?
The answer appears to be: only if the universe were built almost exactly as it is. And the precision required is staggering.
The Scale of Fine-Tuning
1 in 10120
If the cosmological constant — the energy of empty space — differed by even this fraction from its observed value, the universe would either have instantly collapsed or flung itself apart. No stars. No planets. No life. This single number, said Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, is “disturbing.”
A Few Numbers That Keep Scientists Up at Night
Fine-tuning isn’t a single curious coincidence. It’s a cascade of them. Consider just four:
Cosmological Constant
1 in 10120
The energy density of empty space must be almost — but not quite — zero. The observed value is 10120 times smaller than quantum theory predicts. This single fact baffles physicists.
Gravity & Initial Density
1 in 1060
If the universe’s initial matter density had varied by even 1 part in 1060, gravity would have either crushed everything immediately or scattered matter too thin for stars to form.
Strong Nuclear Force
~2%
If the strong force were just 2% stronger, all hydrogen would have fused into helium in the Big Bang — no water, no long-lived stars. Just 2% weaker and atoms heavier than hydrogen fall apart.
Initial Entropy
1 in 1010123
Physicist Roger Penrose calculated the odds of the universe beginning in its precise low-entropy state. His figure is so large that writing the zeros would take more space than the observable universe.
And this is just four constants. There are dozens more — each requiring its own improbable precision.
What Scientists Say
The reality of fine-tuning is not seriously disputed. These are not believers saying the universe points to God — these are researchers across the spectrum of belief, simply reporting what the physics reveals:
Amazing fine-tuning occurs in the laws that make this possible. Realizing the complexity of the events that have happened, it is hard not to use the word ‘miracle.’
George EllisAstrophysicist · University of Cape Town · Templeton Prize Laureate
How surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. If any one of several physical constants had even slightly different values, life would not have emerged.
Steven WeinbergNobel Laureate in Physics · Atheist
The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge. Even if you dismiss man as a chance accident, the fact remains that the universe is fit for habitation in a way that is self-evidently not ‘reasonable.’
Paul DaviesPhysicist & Cosmologist · Arizona State University · Templeton Prize Laureate
If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely.
David DeutschPhysicist · University of Oxford
Three Ways to Explain It
When faced with these numbers, science offers only three possible responses:
1
Chance
We simply got lucky. But with probabilities like 1 in 10120, this isn’t a scientific position — it’s a leap of faith. No other field of science would accept odds this extreme as meaningful evidence of anything. Renowned theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind has stated that even the cosmological constant alone makes chance an untenable explanation.
2
Necessity
Perhaps the constants couldn’t have been otherwise — they had to be exactly as they are. But physicists don’t support this. Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg explicitly rejected this interpretation when Richard Dawkins suggested it. The constants could, as far as we know, have taken any value.
3
A Creator
No one looks at a spacecraft and assumes it assembled itself by chance. We recognise intelligent design from its hallmarks — precision, purpose, complexity. The fine-tuned universe bears all the same marks. Many scientists and philosophers argue this is not merely a religious conclusion, but the most rational one available.
Because these are the only three options, many people — including some who began as committed atheists — have found themselves logically compelled toward the third. Cosmologist Frank Tipler puts it plainly: “I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”
And Fred Hoyle — the astronomer who so disliked the idea of God that he tried to deny the Big Bang itself — spent his career studying the nuclear resonance of carbon-12, a resonance he had predicted must exist for life to be possible. When experiments confirmed it exactly, he wrote:
Fred Hoyle · Astronomer
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
By the end of his career, his worldview had shifted toward acknowledging an Intelligent Designer — a remarkable journey for a man who began as a vocal atheist.
“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.”
Romans 1:20
Want to go deeper?
The Full Case — 7 Constants, the Math, and the Multiverse Problem
The Deep Dive walks through every major fine-tuned constant in detail, examines the multiverse response and its fatal flaws, and profiles the scientists whose research changed their worldview.
The Bible unhesitatingly declares that this world had a beginning through the Hebrew word ‘Bereshit (בראשית)’, meaning ‘In the beginning.’ It proclaims that there was a beginning of time, that space was formed, and that matter came into existence. Through this, the Bible informs us that God created something out of nothing (Ex nihilo).
A century ago, scientists did not agree with this biblical verse. At that time, the scientific mainstream claimed that the universe was static and eternal, and they ridiculed the Bible for speaking of a beginning to the world. They made such claims without any scientific basis, simply because they felt uncomfortable with the concept of the world having a beginning.
When Albert Einstein released his General Theory of Relativity, he discovered theoretically that the universe must be expanding. However, simply because he did not like that idea, he inserted a “cosmological constant” into his mathematical equations to force a model of a static universe.
Nevertheless, the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître used those same equations to argue that the universe is expanding and is not eternal. About a decade later, through the discoveries of the Hubble telescope, evidence was found that stars are moving further away from each other—proving that the universe does indeed have a beginning.
Even then, many scientists refused to acknowledge a beginning for the universe. Fred Hoyle, who eventually turned toward theism later in life, continued to insist on a steady-state universe. In a 1959 survey by Scientific American regarding views on the age of the universe, two-thirds of American scientists still answered that the universe was eternal and had no beginning. [^1]
However, in 1965, when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, the controversy finally came to an end. Today, the mainstream cosmological view is that the universe had a beginning, and that time and space came into existence at that very moment.
How could the Bible have known this concept of a beginning—specifically the beginning of time as explained by the word ‘In the beginning’—long before it became the common knowledge we take for granted today?
The Universe That Began from Nothing (Ex Nihilo)
Scientists are observing an expanding universe. They believe that if we reverse the flow of time, this vast universe would converge into a single point, eventually leading back to a state of “nothingness.” Consequently, scientists are striving to explain how the universe could have emerged from this “nothing.” One of the most prominent scientists in this field is Lawrence Krauss.
Krauss, who is often cited alongside Richard Dawkins as a leading anti-religious scientist, authored the book A Universe from Nothing and travels extensively giving lectures on the subject. However, he—along with many other scientists—is passionately misleading the public.
Many of these scientists claim that “something” can arise from “nothing.” Yet, they have distorted the very definition of “nothing.” They begin their arguments by defining “nothing” as a state of quantum vacuum within a given space. However, in physics, a quantum vacuum is not “nothing.” [^2]
The “nothing” they speak of is actually a state where matter and antimatter exist in equal amounts. In other words, even though you and I exist, they claim it is a state of “nothing” as long as there is an equal amount of antimatter to counteract the matter that composes us. Thus, some scientists even suggest that the universe we live in today might simply be a very strange form of “nothing.” [^3]
This is an absurd claim. It is no different from someone claiming they possess “nothing” simply because they own a 1-million-dollar apartment but also have 1 million dollars in debt.
What Physicists Call “Nothing” is Not Nothing
Krauss’s claims have faced criticism even from fellow scientists. David Albert, for instance, remarked, “Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right.” [^4]
Dr. Krauss himself is aware of this fallacy. He admitted the reality of the scientific community’s stance by stating, “Nothing isn’t nothing anymore in physics.” [^5]
Their argument is based on the observation that when energy is converted into particles in a vacuum, they are always created in pairs (pair production) and destroyed in pairs (pair annihilation). Building on this, they claim that virtual particles were created by vacuum fluctuations in a quantum vacuum, and then the universe was formed through the quantum tunneling effect.
While Lawrence Krauss and many other scientists argue that a universe could arise from a quantum vacuum through quantum tunneling, they cannot answer the more fundamental question: “How did the quantum vacuum itself come to exist?”
For example, Dr. Alexander Vilenkin, one of the authors of the BGV Theorem, claimed in an interview with Robert Kuhn that a universe could arise from “nothing” in a closed universe where the total energy is zero. [^6] He further asserts that this can be proven through mathematical formulas.
If the Laws of Physics Exist, It is Not “Nothing”
However, even the mathematical formulas Dr. Vilenkin speaks of cannot exist in a state of true “nothingness.” When Robert Kuhn asks him a follow-up question, “Do those laws of physics exist if there is no universe?” Vilenkin answers, “Yes.”
This leads us to a crucial realization. If the laws of physics or mathematical principles must exist for the universe to be created, then that state is not truly “nothing.” It means that even before the creation of space, time, and matter, there was an “Intelligent Governing Principle” or “Law” that preceded the universe.
As Dr. Vilenkin himself admits, even if the total energy of the universe is zero, the “laws” that allow the universe to manifest must exist beforehand. This inevitably points to the existence of a Transcendent Being who established those laws.
The Validity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument
In fact, when William Lane Craig, one of the world’s leading Christian apologists, is asked for the most definitive evidence for the existence of God, he presents the Kalam Cosmological Argument along with the fact that the universe began from nothing. [^8]
The argument is simple:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
First, the logic of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is simple yet perfect. It is a representative example of what we commonly call a syllogism. Therefore, no one objects to the logic itself; rather, we must examine whether the premises are valid.
Let us examine the first premise: Does everything that begins to exist have a cause? To put it another way, when a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, do you truly believe that the magician created that rabbit out of nothing? Once we reach a certain age, while we may find magic amazing, we wonder about the cause—how the magician managed to deceive us.
Even if someone believed the magician literally “created” the rabbit, there is still a cause for the rabbit’s existence: the magician is the cause. None of us has ever witnessed something appearing before us without any cause. It has never been proven scientifically, nor does it make sense common-sensically. Therefore, the first premise is both rational and valid.
Now, let us look at the second premise: Did the universe have a beginning? As explained earlier, even 100 years ago, mainstream science claimed the universe was eternal. However, based on various observational evidences, scientists now believe the universe had a beginning.
The BGV Theorem, developed by Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, proved that any universe which has been expanding on average throughout its history cannot have existed eternally into the past and must have had a beginning. [^9] Alan Guth, the founder of Inflation Theory, states in his paper through rational evidence that while the universe may be eternal into the future, it could not have been eternal in the past. [^10]
Therefore, the fact that the universe had a beginning is currently the most rational and scientific inference. This remains true even if one argues for a multiverse.
If that is the case, we logically arrive at the conclusion that the universe must have a cause.
In the Beginning, God Created the Heavens and the Earth
Both the Bible and science agree that time had a beginning and that there was a point when this world began to exist. However, while the Bible asserts that God brought about that beginning “in the beginning,” science merely states that the cause remains a mystery.
Then, why must the cause of that beginning be God?
First, the cause of the universe cannot be contained within the universe itself. Therefore, it must transcend Time (“In the beginning”), Space (“the heavens”), and Matter (“the earth”), all of which began with the universe. In other words, the cause must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.
Furthermore, if that cause had a beginning of its own, it would require yet another cause. Therefore, the ultimate cause must be an uncaused being, possessing the incredible wisdom and power to bring forth this vast and beautiful universe. And we call such a being “God.”
The Kalam Cosmological Argument may not, by itself, serve as definitive proof that the God of the Bible specifically created the world. However, at the very least, it refutes atheism and proves that it is far more rational to believe there is an omnipotent and benevolent Creator, whoever He may be.
If so, is there any scientific evidence that this world was not an accident of nature but was purposefully designed by a Creator?
[^1] Quoted by Gerald Schroeder, The Age of the Universe, October 2013.
[^2] Alexander Vilenkin, The Kalam Cosmological Argument.
[^3]New Scientist, “How the Universe Was Created from Nothing?”, July 2012.
[^4] David Albert, “On the Origin of Everything” (Review of A Universe from Nothing), The New York Times, March 23, 2012.
[^5] Fingerofthomas, “Richard Dawkins Has No Knowledge of ‘Nothing'” (리처드 도킨스는 없음에 대한 지식이 없음), February 25, 2014.
[^6]Closer to Truth, “Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? – Alexander Vilenkin,” December 23, 2015.
[^7]Closer to Truth, “Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? – Sean Carroll,” May 16, 2016.
[^8] Reasonable Faith, “Dr. Craig’s Favorite Argument for God’s Existence,” May 10, 2017.
[^9] A. Borde, A. Guth, and A. Vilenkin, “Inflationary Spacetimes are Not Past-Complete,” January 11, 2003.
[^10] Alan Guth, “Eternal Inflation and Its Implications,” February 22, 2007.
