The first podcast looking at the evidence for God. In a wide ranging conversation we look at the evidence for God as brought out by the book 6 Numbers by Martin Rees. We look at concepts in mathematics and physics which point to the existence of God.

1. SCIENCE AND
SPIRITUALITY
A quest to look at the intersection between Science and
Spirituality
PODCAST 1 :- PHYSICS AND THE EVIDENCE FOR GOD

2. FORMAT OF THESE PODCASTS
SSPIRITUALITY
SCIENCE
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Mathematics
Psychology
Neuroscience
The existence of God
Religious Traditions
Rituals
Prayer and Meditation
Philosophy
Intention and Action

3. A SIGN

4. A PICTURE IS WORTH A
THOUSAND WORDS
Martin Rees is a research professor at Cambridge
University. He marvels at how organised the universe is
and he amazed at the cause of this order in the
universe. Is there a cause at all?

5. He considers six “cosmic numbers” that have determined the way the universe is today.
According to Rees, these numbers govern the shape, size and texture of the universe and
would have been defined during the big bang.
Reference :- https://www.vision.org/review-just-six-
numbers-1139

6. The first of these numbers, represented in Rees’s book by the letter N, is the ratio of the
strength of the electrical force to the gravitational force. Rees states that if this number
were just slightly smaller, stars would have much reduced life cycles: the balance between
the gravitational forces pulling stars together and the electrical forces stopping them from
collapsing is closely related to the longevity of stars. Without this fine balance we could
not expect planets like Earth to have had time to develop. Even the most optimistic of
evolutionary theories maintains that life can only arise after a vast amount of time.
Without a stable sun to orbit around, the existence of Earth, or life on it, would be highly
improbable.
Reference :- https://www.vision.org/review-just-six-
numbers-1139

7. Rees’s second number, ε (epsilon), defines how strongly atomic nuclei bind together. This
factor governs the power output from stars and affects the type and abundance of
elements that are produced within them. If this number were just slightly different, the
chemical abundance in the universe would be radically altered, preventing the existence of
the type of life we see on Earth.
Reference :- https://www.vision.org/review-just-six-
numbers-1139

8. The third number, Ω (omega), measures the amount of material in the universe. If this
number had been too high, the universe would have collapsed upon itself long ago, all the
matter in the universe being drawn back into a single point—a “big crunch.” If it had been
too low, stars and galaxies would never have formed. What matter there is would have
been scattered thinly across the depths of space. Yet what Rees found is that the initial
expansion speed of the universe and the amount of material within it appear to have been
finely tuned to promote a long-lived and stable universe suitable for the development and
sustaining of life.
Reference :- https://www.vision.org/review-just-six-
numbers-1139

9. His fourth number, λ (lambda), has only resurfaced in scientific thought within the last few
years. It relates to an assumed antigravity effect that modifies the rate of expansion of the
universe to explain recent astronomical observations. Einstein initially calculated such a
force into his general theory of relativity to predict a stable universe, but he later reckoned
that the addition of this “cosmological constant” was the biggest mistake of his life.
Ironically, many cosmologists now think he may have been right after all. Rees points out
that, fortunately for us, the value of the number is extremely small. If it were not, it would
have stopped galaxies and stars from forming and, once again, we would not exist.
Reference :- https://www.vision.org/review-just-six-
numbers-1139

10. The fifth number, represented by the letter Q, relates to the degree of structure in the
universe. This number, too, seems to have been imprinted into the early universe in the big
bang, and it, too, appears to be carefully balanced to allow life to exist. If this number were
only slightly smaller, the universe would be inert and would lack structure. A little larger,
and the universe would be too violent for stars or solar systems to survive. Instead, it
would be dominated by vast black holes.
Reference :- https://www.vision.org/review-just-six-
numbers-1139

11. The sixth number, represented by the letter D, is a simple one that has been known for
centuries. It is the number of spatial dimensions we live in and is equal to three: height,
width and depth. If the universe we lived in had four spatial dimensions, many of the laws
of nature would have to be rewritten. Life in the forms we know it just could not have
originated.
Reference :- https://www.vision.org/review-just-six-
numbers-1139

12. Let’s have a look at the 4th and the 6th number closely
as other scientists have commented on this.
Looking at number 4 and what Martin Rees and
Princeton Physicist Leonard Susskind has to say
about it in a YouTube video.

13. the general view of this for most physicists is that these fine tunings are largely
accidental that the constants of nature are determined by some mathematical principles
which have nothing whatever to do with our existence impersonal mathematical and we
were just incredibly lucky that that mathematics haven't forgive happen to give rise to a
universe with all this kind of fine-tuning just precisely so and so the anthropic principle
existed as an interesting but eccentric theory but then quite unexpectedly a completely
new law of nature was discovered and our universe relied on this law being so
precisely tuned but it seemed no rational theory would ever explain it our universe
seems to be defined by a set of numbers which in some sense look
special if we had different numbers we would end up with a sterile universe
people react to this seeming coincidence in a number of ways you could say it's
the outcome of some kind of design or Providence we could say it's a brute
fact we have to accept because these numbers might be determined by some
theory which we haven't yet discovered for a while it was possible to believe
that the laws of nature were not so precisely said is to require the hand of
a creator but then a completely new fundamenta property of the universe was
discovered an anti-gravity force present in space itself it is called the cosmological
constant and when cosmologists calculated its effect on the evolution

14. of the universe they realized it had to be very finely tuned indeed the
fine-tuning is how far how fine-tuned are they most of them are 1% sort of
things in other words other things are one percent different everything is bad
and the physicist could say maybe those are just luck on the other hand this
cosmological constant is tuned to one part and 10 to the 120 120 decimal
places nobody thinks that's accidental that is not a reasonable idea that something is
tuned to 120 decimal places just by accident that's the most extreme example of
fine-tuning no force in the history of cosmology has ever been discovered to be
that finely tuned the cosmological constant needs to be set to one part in a trillion trillion
trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion otherwise the universe
would be so drastically different that it would be impossible for us to evolve that the
cosmological constant arrived at such a tiny value by chance seem to
be out of the question but the alternative explanation was also impossible to
contemplate physicists did not want to accept the idea that the laws of nature might be
controlled by by well the bullet benevolence of nature there should be no reason why the
luck should just have it that we can exist it's too much that's it's a stretch it's
much too far to stretch it seemed that hidden in the laws of nature was a value
so precise that it was impossible to deny that our universe was designed

15. but a designed universe requires the existence of a designer a notion that even the anthropic scientists did not
want to entertain there are some people who love mystery and really enjoy not having all the answers and then there are other people
who fear mr. Yuna uncertainty and just want all the answers and to get on with it and they'll be delighted if you give them a little book
you know whether it be my little red one or some particular religious book that does this here's all

16. but a designed universe requires the existence of a designer a notion that
even the anthropic scientists did not want to entertain
Reference :- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4T2Ulv48nw

17. What is Fine Tuning?
The Fine-Tuning Argument (FTA) is a variant of the Design Argument for the
existence of God. In this paper the evidence of fine-tuning is explained and the
Fine-Tuning Design Argument for God is presented. Then two objections are
covered. The first objection is that fine-tuning can be explained in terms of
the existence of multiple universes (the ‘multiverse’) plus the operation of the
anthropic principle. The second objection is the ‘normalizability problem’ – the
objection that the Fine-Tuning Argument fails because fine-tuning is not actually
improbable.
Reference :- http://home.olemiss.edu/~namanson/Fine%20tuning%20argument.pdf

18. What is The Anthropic Principle?
"Anthropic" means to do with humans. The Anthropic Principle is the idea that the
universe seems particularly suited to bring about and support human life. This is a
modern version of the Design Argument, building on Richard Swinburne's concept of
regularity. It accepts things that many fundamentalists object to (like evolution and the
universe being billions of years old) but it's a Design Argument because it finds
something "suspicious" in the fact that the universe has "human friendly" laws and the
evolution, through chance, produced humans at all.
Reference :- https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/anthropic-principle.html

19. Max Tegmark

20. Max Tegmark and Super Mario

21. Elon Musk has recently funded Max Tegmark’s
research.
I believe there’s some there's some explanation for this universe which you might call God.
In another video he does say as well – where did this all come from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lRL2H7iioU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdnPKjHyKT8

22. Big Bang – and what was the first cause – The Kalam
Cosmological Argument
Form of the argument
The most prominent form of the argument, as defended by William Lane Craig,
states the Kalam cosmological argument as the following brief syllogism:[4]
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

23. Stephen Meyer – 4 Discoveries of Science
First, cosmologists have discovered that the physical universe
likely had a beginning, contrary to the expectations of scientific
materialists who had long portrayed the material universe as
eternal and self-existent (and, therefore, in no need of an external
creator).
https://stephencmeyer.org/2021/04/02/three-major-scientific-
discoveries/

24. Stephen Meyer – 4 Discoveries of Science
The first evidence of a cosmic beginning came in the 1920s when astronomers discovered that light coming from
distant galaxies was being stretched out or “red-shifted” as if the galaxies were moving away from us. Soon after,
Belgian priest and physicist Georges Lemaître and Caltech astronomer Edwin Hubble independently showed that
galaxies farther away from Earth were receding faster than those close at hand. That suggested a spherical
expansion of the universe (and space) like a balloon inflating from a singular explosive beginning — from a “big
bang.”
https://stephencmeyer.org/2021/04/02/three-major-scientific-
discoveries/

25. Stephen Meyer – 4 Discoveries of Science
This evidence of a beginning, later reinforced by other developments in observational astronomy and theoretical
physics, not only contradicted the expectations of scientific materialists, it confirmed those of traditional theists.
As physicist and Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias observed, “The best data we have [concerning a beginning] are
exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the first five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the
Bible as a whole.”
https://stephencmeyer.org/2021/04/02/three-major-scientific-
discoveries/

26. Stephen Meyer – 4 Discoveries of Science
Second, physicists have discovered that we live in a kind of “Goldilocks universe.” Indeed, since the 1960s,
physicists have determined that the fundamental physical laws and parameters of our universe have been finely
tuned, against all odds, to make our universe capable of hosting life. Even slight alterations in the values of many
independent factors — such as the strength of gravitational and electromagnetic attraction, the masses of
elementary particles, and the initial arrangement of matter and energy in the universe — would have rendered
life impossible.
https://stephencmeyer.org/2021/04/02/three-major-scientific-
discoveries/

27. Stephen Meyer – 4 Discoveries of Science
Not surprisingly many physicists have concluded that this improbable fine-tuning for life points to a cosmic “fine-
tuner.” As former Cambridge astrophysicist, Sir Fred Hoyle argued: “A common-sense interpretation of the data
suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics” to make life possible.
To avoid this conclusion, some physicists have postulated a vast number of other universes. This “multiverse”
idea portrays our universe as the outcome of a grand lottery in which some universe-generating mechanism spits
out billions and billions of universes — so many that our universe with its improbable combination of life-
conducive factors would eventually have to arise.
https://stephencmeyer.org/2021/04/02/three-major-scientific-
discoveries/

28. —ISAAC NEWTON

29. RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF ISAAC
NEWTON
There is disputes to what exactly his religious views were but it is
clear he believed in a Monotheistic God in line with the Abrahamic
traditions.
The idea here is that if there are “laws” of Nature – like
“Newton’s 3 laws” – then therefore there must be a “lawgiver” as
well which emanates from those laws. For laws to exist, there
needs to be a lawgiver. This view is actually similar to Max
Tegmark’s view which we will see later below.

30. COSMOLOGICAL
CONSTANT
1 in 1-in-
10^120 odds of life-
friendly.
01