We’re going to get a front row seat on whether or not the scientists can actually prove the existence of God. So make sure to, like, comment and subscribe. And let’s dive right in. Your best selling book, new book, return of the God hypothesis. You argue there are three big scientific discoveries that point to the existence of God. I want to go through these. One, the big Bang theory. So why would that lend support to a theory of a God? Or maybe just a little framing before I dive into the evidence. Professor Dawkins at Oxford has said that the universe has precisely the properties that we should expect.

If at bottom, there is no purpose, no design, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. And though I’m on the opposite side of this science v God issue with the good professor, I think he does a marvelous job of framing key issues. And this is one of those great framing quotations. Because what he’s saying is that whether we think of it as a scientific question or a philosophical question, or both, if we have a hypothesis about reality, the way we test that is by looking at the world around us and seeing if what we see comports with what we would expect to see if our hypothesis were true.

And his hypothesis is that of blind, pitiless indifference, which is a, a shorthand way of saying that everything came about by strictly undirected material processes. And what the materialists expected coming into the early 20th century was evidence of an eternal, self existent universe, one that had been here for an infinitely long time and therefore did not need an external creator. What in fact, the astrophysicists, the cosmologists, the astronomers found was evidence of a universe that had a definite beginning, and therefore one that could not have created itself. Because before the matter of the universe came into existence, there was no matter there to do the causing.

And so the picture of the universe that has emerged, starting from the 1920s all the way to the present, both from observational astronomy and from theoretical physics, is a universe that had a definite beginning and therefore requires some sort of external creator or cause. Now, what Stephen Meyer just said, there is absolutely key to understanding why the Big Bang hypothesis doesn’t just point to God, but actually requires God for the Big Bang’s existence. The key here is that the Big Bang affirms that the universe is not a closed system. The very matter of the universe, the very matter that comprises the stuff of the universe, came into being by something that was not itself material.

The universe came into being through that which is entirely outside the universe. In other words, something that is beyond matter. There’s no possible material explanation for the universe. Another way of putting it is that the universe is not a natural phenomenon in that the very matter that comprises nature came into being through non material, non natural means. In that sense, the origin of the cosmos is entirely supernatural by definition. That’s what Steven Myers means by how the big bang requires a cause to the entire universe that’s entirely external to the material universe itself. You know, my big question for all atheists, well, is, okay, you don’t believe in God, but what was there before the big Bang, before this all started? In other words, what was there before, supposedly nothing.

What is nothing? Nothing to me seems to be a totally incongruous word. What is nothingness? And if you can’t explain it to me, and I believe in God, but to me, it suggests there must be a power bigger than the human mind at the start of all this that was able to comprehend what may have happened. Because we can’t. Right. Dawkins wants to portray theistic belief as if it’s equivalent to belief in fairies. And he’ll concede that, well, it’s possible. But I think there’s a stronger argument for the theistic case, and that is that when scientists and philosophers reason from evidence, they typically use a method of reasoning that has a technical name.

It’s called inferring to the best explanation, where the best explanation is one where you’re invoking a cause which has the kind of powers that would be required to explain the phenomenon of interest. And you correctly pointed out in your conversation with him that when you get back to that, what physicists often call the singularity, the point where matter, space, time, and energy begin to exist, the materialist is really up against a huge conundrum, because prior to the origin of matter, there is no matter to do the causing. That’s what we mean by the origin of matter.

That’s where it starts. And so if you want to invoke a cause which is sufficient to explain the origin of matter, you can’t invoke matter. It’s in principle, materialistic explanations are in principle insufficient. So you need to invoke something which is external to the material universe and is not bounded by time and space as well. And that starts to paint a picture of the kind of cause you would need that has the sort of attributes that traditional theists traditionally associated with God. God is a timeless God, is outside of time and space, has causal powers, is an agent with volition, and therefore can initiate a change of state from, in this case, nothing to say.

And do you believe now, again, this is very good, because oftentimes there’s actually a lot of confusion to what’s traditionally meant by this term God that we use here. Right. The term God is actually derived from the old german word got, which has several meanings, but one of them is being a being that is set apart, meaning a reality that’s completely other from what we normally experience in space and time. And what Stephen Meyer is pointing out here is because the cause of the universe has to be, by definition of the big Bang, outside of space and time and matter, this being that caused the universe is wholly other, is wholly set apart from the stuff of the universe.

And the old german word for that being is got, or God, as we say today. So this is why I would argue that the Big Bang doesn’t just suggest that there’s a God, but actually necessitates a God, a being who’s wholly other, who’s wholly set apart from anything at all inside the universe itself. Hey, gang. With the current climate of the media industry, navigating the sea of bias and misinformation is exhausting. Staying informed on the many perspectives is quite valuable, but it’s getting harder and harder to do. And that’s why I rely on our sponsor, ground news, to streamline my research.

Ground News is available as a website and an app. And instead of sifting through multiple sources myself, trying to see every angle of a particular news story, Ground news does it for me. Let me show you how it works. So take this article on Trump’s lead over Biden in six of the seven swing states. Now, when I use ground news, I could see that exactly 61 articles have covered this story. But interestingly, 60% of the sources are right leaning. So is it any wonder why the left isn’t covering this story? You see, that’s when a ground news is best features.

They cover the blind spots in legacy Media’s reporting failures. Go to Ground news, Dr. Steve to check it out. Head over right now to subscribe through my link and get 40% off unlimited access to the vantage subscription. That’s the one I have. When you subscribe, you not only support our trolley talks movement, but you also support an independent platform trying to make the news more transparent. Click on that link below right now. What is the Goldilocks zone, another of your big bedrocks of your book? Well, this is something. This is one way that the physicists refer to something that they call the fine tuning of the universe.

Or sometimes they talk about the anthropic fine tuning. The idea is that the most fundamental parameters of physics fall within very narrow ranges or tolerances, outside of which, we have discovered life would not be possible. Even basic chemistry would not be possible. So the force responsible for the expansion of the universe, called the cosmological constant, is fine tuned and accepted. Value is to one part in ten to the 90th power. So a smidge faster, slower in that expansion, and you either get a heat death of the universe or you get a big crunch, a great black hole.

In either case, life is not possible. That’s just one of many parameters that fall within that kind of a sweet spot. So sometimes the physicists do talk about are living in a Goldilocks universe. Luke Barnes has written a wonderful book about the fine tuning of physicists, who also did his PhD at Cambridge, has written a book called the fortunate universe. So these types of terms are now making their way into physics, because physicists did not expect that life would depend upon such an exquisitely and improbably arranged set of basic parameters. There we have it. This is what they found.

So what Myers is talking about there is often referred to as the new physics. So, for example, David Bohm, who worked at London University, was very close to Einstein. He argued that the universe functions very much like a hologram, meaning that the whole is present in every part. So the old idea, the newtonian physics of old, was that you had fragmented elements, atoms, that functions in the universe, much like marbles, that were held together mechanically by gravitational force and eventually comprise shape and so forth, that makes up the universe. But now, in the new physics, the universe is now understood as a complicated web of interdependent relationships where every part entails the whole.

So, for example, in modern biology, we could see the whole of the human body present in the cell. The cell is this wondrously complex organism that has within it all the specified information needed to create our whole bodies. This is what’s known as the implicate order that comprises the whole universe. Everything in the universe is implicated in everything else. Again, the new physics militates against the idea that the material world is made up of a bunch of marble like atoms that somehow just arrange themselves in such a way that works, that shapes itself into a kind of cosmic order.

No. Just like the way DNA operates in our bodies, where every cell contains all the information and building blocks for the whole of our bodies, the whole of the universe is actually entailed in every single particle of the universe. The form of the universe is actually found encoded in its very building blocks. And so not only does the matter of the universe that comprises the universe require a supernatural origin, a being outside of space and time, which, by definition, is a being that’s infinite and eternal outside of space and time, but that being is comprised of a super intelligence that awakens a universe so utterly complex that the whole, like a hologram, the whole, is entailed in each of the parts.

So we’re dealing now with God, a being set apart, infinite and eternal, that is super intelligent or better, omniscient, all knowing. If you could get the answer to any of life’s great mysteries, if I said to you, Khan, the two or three things you’d most like to know the answer to, that no one’s ever worked out, what would they be? I think it’s the. Well, I just lost my mother. And I think the deepest and hardest questions in life are not actually these big metaphysical questions. I think if you think carefully about them, there’s a pretty clear answer.

But I think it’s the questions that come up because of the events in your own life and sometimes suffering, sometimes joys, why things went this way rather than that way. Those are the questions I think are the hardest ones, the existential questions of one’s own personal experience. I’m very sorry about your mother. Oh, I shouldn’t have introduced a personal element like that. But. No, no, I’m glad you do, because actually, it does play into what you just said. Did that whole experience of losing your mother, did it change any of your thinking about any of this? I think the experience of grief was something that was unexpected and how intense it was.

She had dementia and had been in decline for several years. You think you’re prepared when you’re losing someone by degrees, but there’s a finality of death that I think overtakes all of us in that moment of grief. And there’s something about the grief experience that seems to make everything else pale to insignificance in that moment. And I think it’s kind of my own view of it is kind of a signal, like your conscience tells you what’s right and wrong. I think grief is telling you about what’s really important, and that in that instance, what was important is that we had lost a person of eternal value.

And so, yeah, I think it was. You’re never really prepared for the loss of a parent. And I thought I was, but I wasn’t. Do you take comfort because of your religious conviction that you’ll see your mother again in an afterlife? I absolutely do. Yeah. And I think when I was on the Rogan program, he was probing about both the objective evidence for belief in God and my subjective experience. And I would never base an argument to another scientist or philosopher on my subjective experience, but I think belief in God has, I think, legitimate, objective and subjective basis.

And I think that that mysterious moment when you see a loved one passing when the body is there but the person is gone, it raises some profound metaphysical questions, or maybe a metaphysical awareness that there is something more than the material that is part of all of us. So in a way, what you went through with your mother may have actually intensified your own belief in your theory about all this. Sure. Because you felt it. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. What a powerful and profound testimony and the relevance of God for every bit of our human life and experience.

You see, the grandeur of God, the transcendence of God is such that God’s infinite being extends beyond the whole of this fathomless universe. And yet that same infinite, transcendent being comes to us in our moments of our deepest pains and brokenness. The God of the cosmos is also the God of comfort and compassion. There’s simply nothing else in the whole of humanity’s collective comprehension that can even come close to replacing this notion of an eternal, infinite, all knowing being who provides for us meaning, purpose, and hope, even in the midst of the darkest moments of our lives.

In other words, God is the highest idea that human thought is capable of grasping and the closest and dearest comfort that humans could ever desire. I was deeply touched by this interview with Stephen Meyer, and I’m very appreciative of Piers Morgan for having him on and reminding all of us that the God of cosmic wonders is indeed, most especially the God of compassionate mercies. Here’s your opportunity to tell big tech tyrants where they can stick it. Click on that link below and download our brand new cancel proof Turley talks app, and you can sign our special declaration of restoration.

That’s our petition to big tech that declares a new day is dawn. They are no longer in control, and we are taking our nation back. We’ve already got over a thousand signatures of courageous patriots, and yours is next. Click on that link below or go to fight turleytalks.com right now..

See more of Dr. Steve Turley on their Public Channel and the MPN Dr. Steve Turley channel.