its expansion (quickly incinerating everything, which is quite bad for all
life forms), or contracted into a black hole (where the entire mass-energy
of the universe would collapse into a space of only 10
(which is really, really, really small—and has almost infinite crushing
capacity—equally bad for life forms). These are two universal constants
that could have been any value at the Big bang and they just happened to
fall into this narrow anthropic range. This is trillions of trillions of trillions
to one against either of them being exactly what they are, by
COINCIDENCE? You already looked at the odds against entropy being
low at the Big Bang. Wow, we were really lucky. Or… (W+ 43)
5. Who was Sir Fred Hoyle and what did he find amazing? How did this evidence
affect his life?
The famous physicist and cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge
University, was an atheist who, when confronted with the truth of the
necessity of these “anthropic coincidences,” working in concert with one
another to produce carbon at the Big Bang, stated, “Would you not say to
yourself, “Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the
properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an
atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly miniscule?” Of
course you would…. 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.” (W+ 43)
6. If it is virtually impossible for all of these anthropic conditions to have happened by
chance, what are the (reasonable) options left for us?
A) As Father Spitzer said, “we really threaded the needle at the Big Bang.
If the values of the constants did not occur by pure chance (because that is
virtually impossible) and those values are necessary for life forms, then
there must be another cause - - either a multiverse or a supernatural
designer.” It is of interest that the evidence we have discussed in this
chapter was enough to convert Sir Fred Hoyle and he was an ardent
atheist. (W+ 44)
7. Do you think it is important to explore the improbability of universal constants in
our schools today?
If this information was enough to convert an atheist scientist to belief in an
intelligent Creator, how many others might it help convert?
“If we can find no explanation for the necessity of the conditions and
constants of our universe being as they are, then it may be more reasonable
and responsible to believe that there is an intelligent designer of our universe
than it is to not to believe in that creator.”
Fr. Robert J. Spitzer, S.J, Ph.D.
The Multiverse vs. Supernatural Design
1. How would you describe a multiverse? (we know this is very complex – it is important)
A multiverse is a hypothetical configuration proposed by Andre Linde and
others as a possible implication of the collapse of a false vacuum in
inflationary theory. The hypothesis suggests that little “mini-universes”
(bubble universes) could be generated by the collapse of the false vacuum
in this “super-universe” (the multiverse). (W+ 48)
2. What are the odds against a bubble universe popping into existence with low
Oxford physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose calculated the odds of
a universe blossoming into existence with entropy as low as ours. He
concluded that the odds against it are
to one. (W+ 41)
3. What are some of the three problems with using the multiverse to explain the
fine-tuning of our universe? (Here are all three)
1. Multiverses (which are purely hypothetical) have to have a beginning,
which means there can only be a finite number of bubble universes in
2. Multiverses violate Ockham’s Razor—in a really big way! Though this
is not a fatal flaw, it casts suspicion on the theory because it runs counter
to nature’s omnipresent elegance.
3. As currently conceived multiverses require fine-tuning. This means that
the multiverse does not solve the problem of fine-tuning—it only moves it
back one step. This is the most problematic of the three problems with
multiverses. (W+ 50)
4. How many natural causes have we found for low entropy at the Big Bang?
the odds of having a universe, which can accommodate life forms are
exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly small. We need not return to the
monkey or the lottery to understand that an anthropic universe (made for
life) could not have occurred by pure chance—it is not only scientifically
unrealistic—it is unrealistic in every imaginable sense. (The short answer
here would be, “none”.) (W+ 44)
5. Why do you think scientists promote multiverse theories?
See answer to question 9, Episode One, Chapter 3. Scientists either really
believe in their unsupportable (un-observable and no supporting evidence
whatsoever) theories or they are trying to support their personal belief that
God does not exist. Either way, they lose as we have already shown that
even a multiverse would require a Creator.
“It seems as if we need an intelligent Creator to explain fine-tuning of either
our universe—or, if there is one—a multiverse.”
6. What are your views on the challenges to the multiverse theories?
Personally, I don’t see the multiverse as a threat to an Intelligent Creator.
It would actually require even MORE fine-tuning than our single universe.
That would make it less likely to be a natural occurrence and more likely
to be a creation of God. (See W+ 50 - - - give your personal thoughts).
7. What can “nothing” do?
You should get this one on your own…
8. What conclusion did we reach about the viability of the multiverse as an
explanation for our universe’s anthropic coincidences?
See answer to question 3 above. It actually seems to make things worse by
increasing the scale of required fine-tuning while not resolving the infinite
number of universes since a “beginning is required.
9. With what you know about the multiverse and Ockham’s Razor, what do you
think about the validity of the following statement from Steven Hawking?
See W+ 49 item “1)” for additional information
In QR 29 (W+ 49), Stephen Hawking says the following: “It seems better
to employ the principle known as Occam's Razor and cut out all the features of the
theory that cannot be observed." He implies in this context that the only non-observable
entity is an intelligent Creator.
Do you think that Ockham’s Razor only applies to God? Does it not also apply to multiverses?
Remember, the multiverse is just as non-observable as a transcendent intelligent Creator. If we
took Hawking seriously and tossed out all of the theories we cannot observe, this would be a
much smaller workbook. Is it possible that Ockham’s Razor applies more properly to a
multiverse than to God? Remember, Ockham’s Razor is not concerned primarily with non-
observability but with the assumption that nature favors elegance—that is, what is least
complex, complicated and convoluted. (W+ 51)
“Maybe the multiverse is the one “super-huge” exception to Ockham’s
Razor—but then again, perhaps nature is totally consistent and multiverses
simply do not exist.”
A response to Two Objections to Supernatural Design
1. How do some skeptics explain our low entropy and low anthropic values of
constants without a Creator?
It is no surprise that “new atheists” reject supernatural design (fine-tuning,
etc.). They insist that the fine-tuning of our anthropic universe has a
natural explanation — “It just is!” W+ 53)
2. How might we respond in light of the Big Bang?
One might try, “Do you really think that is a valid explanation of anthropic
coincidences like the low entropy of our universe and the anthropic values
of our universal constants at the Big Bang?” Those who claim that the
value of entropy and the anthropic values of our constants at the Big Bang
have a natural cause—must provide data. If they don’t, we are left with the
need for some other cause or explanation because those values should not
have happened (according to the Penrose number etc.). (W+ 55)
3. When considering explanations for the extraordinary occurrence of our low
entropy and anthropic values of constants at the Big Bang, why is the answer “It
just is” invalid from both a logical and factual point of view?
Factually, the Penrose number alone tells us there were trillions upon
trillions (trillions of times over) of results for entropy that could have
occurred at the Big Bang that would have precluded life forms from
existing. Add to this the multiple Anthropic Universal Constants and the
odds of them all being in the narrow range of conditions that would allow
life to form and flourish and you have an incredibly robust set of data
indicating we really did, as Fr. said, “thread the needle at the Big Bang”.
From a logical point of view, “It just is” is, quite simply, a smoke screen.
Making a case against the incredible odds of anthropic conditions, as
calculated by some of the worlds top scientists, should require more than
what the skeptics are offering in, It just is”. Logic tells us to seek a
reasonable and responsible answer. It just is, is neither of those things.
4. Do you think that the evidence for a Creator is both reasonable and responsible
in light of the counter arguments argued by skeptics?
If there were
chances against low entropy at the Big Bang that life
forms would not exist, against one chance that life would exist, shouldn’t
there be a better explanation than, “It just is”? (W+ 54).
“There is certainly a far better chance it isn’t just, it just is.”
5. How is a natural cause for the universe essentially made a moot point by a
Many new atheists argue that all natural occurrences must have a natural
explanation (as if, “It just is” is a natural explanation). As you might
remember from Episode One, this is not true because inasmuch as our
universe (or even a multiverse) has a beginning, all natural occurrences
cannot have a natural explanation—remember, prior to a beginning, all
natural explanations do not exist—they are literally, nothing. Recall also,
from Episode Two that the Big Bang is a barrier to natural causation; so
even if there were something prior to the Big Bang, it would be causally
disconnected from it. The idea of asking for a natural cause of occurrences
at the Big Bang is like asking “What is the natural cause of an event prior
to which there can be no natural cause”-- an obvious contradiction.
6. With all of the evidence presented by science in recent decades, why do you
think atheists and skeptics continue to be unaware or ignore the facts?
The complete question is, “Why does our entropy have such a low value
and our constants have anthropic values at the Big Bang, when by every
imaginable standard or measure they should not have had those values?”
As we said, this requires a cause or explanation. Failure to ask this
question in any other line of inquiry would be considered sheer
incompetence. Why shouldn’t we think the same thing with respect to
inquiry about an intelligent Creator? They ignore the facts and the
questions. As previously stated, there really can’t be a scientific reason for
ignoring the facts so this has to be a personal choice for reasons we can’t
possibly know. It would be easy to be unaware of the facts if they are so
caught up in their personal belief system that they ignore the latest in
scientific findings, confident they already have all of the answers.
“I used to have a sign hanging in my office: “ ‘In God we trust,’ all
others must bring data.” Those who claim that the value of
entropy and the anthropic values of our constants at the Big Bang
have a natural cause—must provide data.”
Mike Noggle, FNTC: Workbook +
A response to Dawkins and a Metaphysical Proof of a Creator
1. What does “Metaphysical” mean?
In Greek, “meta” means “beyond” (among other things). That works pretty
well for what we’re doing here. Webster’s defines metaphysical as,
“transcending physical matter or laws of nature.” A metaphysical
explanation, then, is one beyond the physical. Often times, such
explanations are based upon philosophical (logical) proofs. (W+ 58)
2. How did Dawkins try to show a Designer would be more improbable than
what it designed? (Give all three parts of his argument.)
So what is Dawkins’ argument? We can set it out in three steps:
1. A designer must be more complex than anything it designs.
2. Whatever is more complex is more improbable.
3. Therefore, a designer must always be more improbable that what it
3. What support does he cite for his theory of a Designer being more complex
than what it designs?
Though Dawkins was clearly tryng to incorporate his statement into
something resembling Ockham’s Razor, he failed rather miserably. He
cited no support whatsoever. There is an important expression in the rules
of logic and evidence — “arbitrarily asserted — then, arbitrarily denied.”
In other words, if someone gives no evidence for an assertion, then an
opponent need not give any evidence to deny it. The problem with
Richard Dawkins’ argument against God, is that its first premise is
arbitrarily asserted. In his work The God Delusion he gives no evidence
for why a Designer would have to be more complex than what it designs.
As a good biologist, he probably assumed it. Unfortunately, this
assumption is categorically wrong when applied to an uncaused
reality (God). (W+ 65)
4. Can you name any philosophers who believe quite the opposite?
Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas (W+ 59, 60)
5. How would you describe an uncaused reality?
It’s a reality that does not have to be caused in order to exist—it exists
through itself alone. (W+ 59)
Here are some tougher questions for those who are interested in delving deeper
into proofs of God – this is beyond extra credit:
6. Try to describe in your own words why there must be at least one uncaused
reality. (Look at the proof in Step One - W+ 59 - for help.)
All “caused realities” require a cause for their existence. Without at least
one “uncaused cause”, the whole of reality would not exist. (W+ 59)
7. Try to describe why “pure existence through itself” can have no differences
within itself. Hint – is there a contradiction in this?
Differences would have to be caused and an uncaused reality could
not have any “caused realities” within it. It must be pure existence.
It could not be both caused and uncaused. (W+ 60)
8. Okay, now this is really going to get harder – try to describe in your own
words why “pure existence through itself” cannot have any restrictions. Hint –
if you need to, go back to the formula at the end of Step Three of the proof,
and fill in the blanks again.
“Pure existence through itself” does not need any restrictions
because it exists through itself (it is uncaused). Therefore, any
restriction must be different from “pure existence through itself”.
Since we already proved there can be no differences in “pure
existence through itself”, there can be no “restriction to existence”
in “pure existence through itself”. Therefore – “pure existence
through itself” must be unrestricted. (W+ 62)
9. If you are really a glutton for punishment, try this one – Why must an
unrestricted reality be unique – one and only one?
If there were more than one uncaused reality, there would have to
be differences between them. Differences are restrictions and
uncaused realities can have no restrictions so there can be only
one uncaused cause. (W+ 63)
10. Here is the last one – Why must an unrestricted reality be absolutely simple
(devoid of complexity)?
A watch is complex, it has many parts – they break or wear out
often. A sundial has only one part and lasts for centuries (though it
does have certain obvious drawbacks). Complexity requires more
parts and more parts require more restrictions. Since “pure
existence through itself” can have no restrictions, it must be free
from all parts and complexity, completely simple – better than a
sundial. (W+ 64)
Dawkins doesn’t give a definition of either “God,” or “Designer” beyond a common sense
meaning. If he had bothered to do this, and had given only a minimal definition of God
(such as the “metaphysical God” of Aristotle — an “uncaused reality”) he would have
discovered that an uncaused reality is absolutely necessary. If he had looked into the
attributes of an uncaused reality, he would have seen that such a reality cannot have any
differences or restrictions within itself, and if he discovered that, he might have made the
further discovery that this reality must be absolutely one and absolutely simple allowing
him to avoid the major blunder of asserting the complexity of God
A Summary of the Evidence for an Intelligent Creator from Physics
1. What is the definition of an “informal inference”?
John Henry Newman would call this convergence of three data sets an
“informal inference”. He defined that as a convergence of multiple data
sets (each of which is independently probable) on a single conclusion.
2. How would that apply to what we have just discussed in this chapter?
…we have three scientific data sets (the B-V-G Proof, entropy, and fine-
tuning), and one logical-metaphysical proof all converging on a single
conclusion – namely, that a transcendent intelligent Creator exists – and
created the whole of physical reality. Notice what Newman said about this
convergence – all four of these independently probable data sets mutually
corroborate (reinforce) and complement one another. This means that if
one or more of the data sets undergoes modification, the conclusion can
still stand. Like individual strands of nylon woven into a rope, the strength
of the whole is far greater than the individual components. (W+ 70)
3. Do you think the four kinds of evidence are sufficient for reasonable and
responsible belief in an intelligent Creator? If so, why, and if not, why not?
Chapter Review: Three sets of data from physics all point towards
a Creator. So also does the metaphysical proof of God, which allows us to
make the informal inference of a transcendent, intelligent Creator. Recent
history has shown that the above evidence is so strong that physicists have
to conjure up incredibly unlikely and convoluted scenarios just to avoid it.
The physical evidence on its own favors a Creator, …(W+ 70)
4. Ockham’s Razor holds that the more complex natural explanations become, and
the more assumptions they require, the more they violate the elegance of nature.
Do you agree or disagree, and why?
It is difficult to dispute the wisdom behind the test of Ockham’s Razor. It
is one of the first tests scientists look to for seeing if they are on the right
track. It appears Dawkins had the right idea; he was simply going down
the wrong set of tracks with his assumptions.
“At this point, Dawkins’ objection becomes relevant– if a designer must be more
complex than what it designs, then it must be more probable. But this objection
proves to be invalid, because an uncaused reality (necessary for existence) must
be absolutely simple – as we have shown in the metaphysical proof of God. By
Dawkins’ own logic then, this supernatural Creator and Designer is the most
probable cause of the anthropic conditions and constants of our universe.”
Evidence of a Soul from Near Death Experiences
1. What is the definition of “clinical death”?
“The absence of electrical activity in the cerebral cortex (flat
EEG) and in the lower brain (shown by fixed and dilated pupils and the
absence of gag reflex).” (W+ 72)
2. How does that definition play a role in Near Death Experiences?
With no electrical activity in the brain, we should not be able to see,
hear or comprehend sensory stimuli, and we should not be conscious or
capable of thinking. (W+ 72)
3. What do you think about NDEs as evidence of a soul and life after death?
Considering all of the studies that have been done and the quality of the
doctors involved, the evidence is quite astounding. Further, using only
those who were found to be clinically dead enhances the case to be made
for these being transcendental experiences.
4. How would you explain people blind from birth suddenly being able to see while
they were clinically dead?
My first thought, a miracle. In fact, lots of them according to the “Ring
Study” and the Von Lommel Study. To be able to see without their useless
eyes AND while clinically dead seems to me to portend things to come
after death. (W+ 74)
5. How would you explain a clinically dead child meeting a relative they never knew
existed, and learning facts that were later verified by parents or others?
How would anyone explain it other than as an out of body, transcendent,
experience. Even more importantly, they have been able to go to another
place entirely, where those who have gone before us, seem to be living
quite happily. These studies give me great hope. (W+ 74)
6. Which, if any, of the four kinds of veridical evidence did you find most
compelling? If you answer “None”, why?
I find the blind who see after death the most compelling. They cannot
make up seeing what they have never seen. Still, the people meeting
relatives they never met before or meeting Jesus are also quite difficult to
explain as well. (W+ 75)
“Medical science has entered into the domain of a transphysical soul and a heavenly
domain through modern resuscitation techniques. People in the midst of an NDE pass
through walls, see where their missing dentures were placed and hear what their friends
were saying about them in the waiting room, the blind see--many for the first time ever--
and children meet Jesus or long deceased relatives they never knew existed. “(W+ 75)
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested