October 8, 2025 • 46 mins
Can science prove God exists? To find the answer, we tell the story of a fascinating scientific concept that has atheists shaking in their boots. Along the way, we talk to Eric Metaxas, the New York Times bestselling author of Fish Out of Water: A Search for the Meaning of Life. Eric had a unique life experience that led him to God…and he’d later open our eyes to the possibility that our creator may be scientifically verifiable.
Support the show: https://redpilledamerica.com/support/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
This is Red Pilled America.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Before we start the show, just a reminder to share, like,
and subscribe to this podcast wherever you're listening to it,
and please give us a five star rating. It helps
us beat the big tech algorithm. Also, if you love
Red Pilled America, please consider becoming a backstage subscriber. You'll
have exclusive access to our entire back catalog of episodes.
Just visit Redpilled America dot com and click support in
(00:29):
the top menu for details, and don't forget to get
merch from the RPA store. RPA merch is always made
in America and never stuck on a cargo ship. Visit
Redpilled America dot com and click shop in the topmenu.
Support what you love or it goes away. Thanks everyone.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
This episode was originally broadcast on April sixteenth, twenty twenty one.
Scientists love ridiculing believers in God.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Why overall do you believe God?
Speaker 3 (00:58):
Is a bad explanation?
Speaker 4 (00:59):
Well, it's not necessary, unnecessary, totally actually lazy explanation.
Speaker 5 (01:04):
What is an atheist? An atheist is just somebody who
feels about yahweh the way any decent Christian feels about
thor or bail or the Golden Calf. As has been
said before, we are all atheists about most of the
gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us
just go one god further.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
But over the past few decades a striking question has
been gaining steam within science circles, and that is, can
science actually prove the existence of God? I'm Patrick Carelci.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
And I'm Adriana Portez.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
And this is Red Pilled America, a storytelling show.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
This is not another talk show covering the day's news.
We are all about telling stories.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
Stories. Hollywood doesn't want you to hear stories.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
The media marks stories about everyday Americans that the globalists ignore.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
You could think of Red Pilled America as audio documentaries,
and we promise only one thing, the truth. Welcome to
Red Pilled America. Science and faith is often thought to
(02:26):
be at odds. But should it be both claim to
explain the origin of the universe and science professes to
search for facts to confirm its claims. If this is
the case, if science is about searching for evidence to
prove or disprove a theory, can science prove the existence
of God. To find the answer, we tell the story
(02:47):
of how a fascinating scientific concept called the fine tuned
universe was developed, and how this concept may be leading
science closer to proving once and for all that there
is a creator. Along the way, we'll hear from Eric Metaxas,
the New York Times best author of Fish out of Water,
A Search for the Meaning of Life. Eric had a
unique life experience that led him to God, and he'd
(03:10):
later open our eyes to the possibility that our creator
may be scientifically verifiable. Comedians are some of the most
insightful people on the planet. That may sound strange given
the current crop of woke comics littering our screens.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
I find it just incredible to see these young people
have the agency to say I am non binary.
Speaker 6 (03:35):
I don't have that.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Kind of agency, and I literally have agents.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
Woke ones aside. I've found some of the most intriguing
thoughts coming from good comedians. That's likely because their minds
live out in the fringes where unauthorized thought is allowed
to be explored.
Speaker 7 (03:50):
The dominant narrative in America is white people are evil,
White people suck. We should be ashamed of ourselves. And
I don't think we should be ashamed of ourselves. I
think that we should take responsibility for the system that
we've created system in the world.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
We do not have the best system.
Speaker 7 (04:06):
We has a better system. There are many European countries
that have are much better offers. You mean, like the
European countries with a higher density of whites, like Northern Europe.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
That's one way to phrase it.
Speaker 7 (04:17):
I guess you don't mean Turkey. No, you don't mean
Eastern Europe with the Communists. So the only time you
can come up with a system that's better than America,
it's a country that's more white than America. I don't understand.
Speaker 4 (04:31):
I don't want to say that.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
So one comedian that I guess you could say radically
change my life is Norm McDonald.
Speaker 6 (04:43):
I have some beliefs there are too inflammatory to even discuss.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Unfortunately, that's norm.
Speaker 6 (04:50):
Because there are certain things in society that you're not
allowed to believe or speak publicly, and so I'll just
never say them. I'll just leave them in.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Years ago, I stumbled on this interview where he ventured
into the topic of God, and.
Speaker 6 (05:07):
I think as far as the question of God goes,
I wish that science, which is supposed to explore these things,
refuses to explore the fundamental question that is of interest
not only to religious people but intensely to atheists as well.
They spent a lot of time thinking about something they
(05:29):
don't care about that science should spend all their time.
I mean, they spend time trying to find new galaxies,
as if that's important.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
Norm discussed a subject that I hadn't really given any
serious thought, the idea that science could actually prove God.
Speaker 6 (05:47):
Since God's an unproven thing, just a hypothesis at this point,
I think it would be good to study it.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Norm's comments seems so preposterous to the interviewer that he
couldn't help but mock the idea.
Speaker 8 (06:00):
I mean, they've gone through space, they didn't find God
floating around. How could you possibly test it scientifically? They
just say it's unknowable. It's beyond our area of what
we can know.
Speaker 6 (06:14):
I don't know when scientists started saying things were unknowable,
but that's a new one on me, because that's not
a scientific term as far as I know, unknowable. I
don't think scientists could possibly use that term unknowable because
it infers that they can see into the future.
Speaker 8 (06:36):
How would you even begin to prove the existence of
a God.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
Norma said that scientists claim evolution exists without having actually
witnessed it. They've mainly inferred its existence from the fossil record.
So he suggested scientists could use the same kind of
reasoning to prove the existence of God. The whole conversation
was fascinating to me. Why couldn't science prove the existence
of a creator?
Speaker 4 (07:02):
Now?
Speaker 1 (07:02):
As many long time listeners of Red Pilled America may know,
I have a background in science, and during my studies,
the deeper I delved into the laws of physics, the
more I could no longer deny that there was a God.
The laws governing the physical world just appeared to be
designed with a purpose. Now, it was one thing to
have that intuition, but something else entirely to think that
(07:22):
science could actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists.
That task seemed impossible, so I really didn't give it
much thought while I was in college. However, after listening
to norm MacDonald's argument, I decided to go on a
bit of a dive into the subject, and when I did,
I found Eric Metaxis, or more precisely, I found an
(07:44):
article he'd written back in twenty fourteen.
Speaker 9 (07:47):
My original title was is Science leading Us to God?
That's Eric Metaxis, but the Wall Street Journal changed the
title to Science increasingly makes the Case for God, and
it went extremely viral. It became the most popular most
shared article in the history of the Wall Street Journal,
six hundred and fifty thousand Facebook shares. I mean, really insane,
(08:11):
but it struck a nerve, and I guess I shouldn't
be so surprised. Everybody's hungry and we get nothing on
these kinds of issues. We're starved.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Eric Matexas is a talented biographer and author of Fish
out of Water, A Search for the Meaning of Life
on paper. You'd never expect Eric to be one of
the leading intellectuals arguing for God's existence. I mean, the
guy graduated from Yale, and there's not many institutions that
do a better job at filtering faith out of people's
lives than the Ivy League. But Eric is one of
(08:39):
the few popularizing a concept that is leading people to
believe we now have scientific confirmation of God.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Eric was born in New York City and his sounds
like the classic American story.
Speaker 9 (08:53):
I mean, you have immigrants coming from Greece and Germany,
totally different countries, meeting in New York City where I
live now, meeting in an English class, getting married, and
then raising their kids. And I always say that if
you're raised by a Greek and a German, that means
you'll be raised Greek, since the Greeks are, like, you know,
ultra proud about their ethnicity.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
His parents were working class immigrants, but I was.
Speaker 9 (09:14):
Not raised in a serious Christian home. It was kind
of a cultural Christianity. My dad's Greek, my mom's German,
so we went to the Greek church. It's kind of
like the cultural community center for the Greeks.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Right when he was nine, he moved to Danbury, Connecticut, which.
Speaker 9 (09:26):
Is very different from Queens, New York. It's really Middle America.
So that was my entree into the normal world where
kids ride bikes and build tree fords and you know,
go fishing and play kickball and touch football or whatever
it is. So I kind of grew up in that world.
But I was always a fish out of water there too.
I was a fish out of water whenever I was
in the Greek community because I wasn't Greek enough because
(09:47):
my mother's German. And then you get into this world
of Middle America, and you always feel like this odd
European kid whose parents don't ever take you to baseball
games or whatever. They don't get that they're just lucky
to have food on the table because they came from
World War II ravaged Europe.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
So Eric grew up in a normal, working class American
community where Christianity was the backdrop, but it wasn't the centerpiece,
nor was it viewed with any hostility. But as Eric
approached college, he entered a progressive community that was intent
on exterminating God.
Speaker 9 (10:22):
So then, of course I get into Yale, and that
is another strange experience, because I'm the working class kid
suddenly among the cultural elites for whom the question of
whether life has meaning is simply not asked, because it's
assumed that we've already answered that question. Darwin tells us no,
Freud tells us no, Margaret Mead and Hugh Hefner and
(10:45):
everybody else tells us no. We're just here. There's a
random process of evolution that kind of led to us.
There's no guiding God in that process. We're just here
by accident. So life has no meaning, and it's really
impressing so we're not going to talk about it or
think about it. We'll just, you know, we'll just say,
work hard, get a good job in banking or something,
and on the weekends you'll have some hobby and alcohol
(11:07):
and you'll be fine. And I didn't know what to think.
So I kind of drank that kool aid and drifted,
but I wasn't sure what I believed.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Eric eventually got a degree in English. He wanted to
become a writer, but as he wandered a bit trying
to find his place, the Yale experience left him a
bit confused about the meaning of life.
Speaker 9 (11:36):
So when I graduated, I did not get a good
job to distract me from these horrible questions. And so
I floundered and floated. And I always say that when
you flounder and float out of college, it's only one
thing that can happen. You're going to move back in
with your parents, which is what happened to me. And
if your parents are working class with your Pean immigrants
who didn't get to go to college a much less
girl in America, they're looking at you like, what is
(11:57):
your problem? And I say that my friend's parents said, oh,
Eric is finding himself, but my parents and we're thinking, like, Eric,
you should find yourself a job, and what is your
problem here? We worked meal jobs to put you through Yale.
So it was a really it was a tough time
for me. But in the midst of that painful crucible,
I began, just in a tiny way, to open up
(12:18):
to the possibility of God. Not big, but tiny, tiny bit.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Over the course of the next year, he became more
and more open to the idea. Then on his twenty
fifth birthday, he had a breakthrough, a breakthrough that he
reveals in his book Fish out of Water.
Speaker 9 (12:32):
My life was changed overnight, and it's like like it
or not, God came into my life and I had
to then process that. So after that, of course most
of my friends thought, like, what's happened to this guy's
he gone nuts? Whatever? So I felt a kind of
compulsion to read everything I could get my hands on,
(12:53):
as they say, about everything, And one of the things
I did was I stumbled on the work of Hugh Ross.
He's a scientist in California who is a Christian, and
he has an apologetics ministry called Reasons to Believe Spectacular,
I mean amazing, But this in the early nineties, I
start reading this stuff, and I'm reading about the fine
tuned universe and all this stuff.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
And this is really where the journey begins, because you see,
the fine tuned universe is one of the most compelling
science based arguments for the existence of God. In fact,
the fine tuning argument is so compelling that it makes
some of the most prominent atheists on the planet swarm
with discomfort.
Speaker 10 (13:31):
More of Red Pilled America after the break.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
If you haven't had licorice from the Liquorice Guy yet,
what are you waiting for? The Licorice Guy is the
perfect candy for those home movie nights. Trust me, I
know licorice and it doesn't get any better than the
Licorice Guy. What sets their liquorice apart is its freshness
and its flavor. This isn't anything like the store bought
stuff that's hard enough to break a tooth. They offer
(14:09):
jumbo licorice sticks that come in nostalgic dimestar flavors like red, black, chocolate, cinnamon,
and blue raspberry. The Licorice Guy is an American family
owned business, and we love having them as part of
our Red Pilled America tribe. Right now. Our listeners will
get fifteen percent off when they enter RPA fifteen at checkout.
Visit licoriceguy dot com and enter RPA fifteen at checkout.
(14:32):
That's licoriceguy dot com. Treat yourself and taste the difference.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
Welcome back to red pilled America. So Eric Mataxis left
Yo wanting to become a writer. Without a job to
keep him occupied, his mind began to search for answers
to the meaning of life. Then, on his twenty fifth birthday,
something miraculous happened to him that he highlights in his
book Fish out of Water, a search for the meaning
of life. The event immediately led him to God. Because
(15:03):
his new found faith was the antithesis of his z
e L peers, Eric went on a hunt to learn
everything he could that justified his beliefs. Eric's search led
him to a scientific concept called the fine tuned universe,
an argument that's been identified by even the most prominent
atheist in the world as the single strongest argument for
the existence of a creator.
Speaker 9 (15:25):
Again, Eric Ataxis, as Christopher Hitchins, was asked what is
the most compelling argument on the other side, on the
God's side.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
Christopher Hitchins was an English intellectual, a devout atheist, author,
writer and cultural critic, and.
Speaker 9 (15:37):
In a rare moment of honesty, because he was not
famous for being gracious towards his ideological opponents, he said, Oh,
it's the fine tuned argument. That's the one that gives
all of us on our side the atheist's pause.
Speaker 11 (15:52):
At some point, certainly we rule us. Which is the
best argument you've had come up against? Jumelu Sarvon.
Speaker 4 (15:58):
I think every one of us picks the fine tuning
one is the most.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Intriguing meant by a fine tuned universe? And how does
it point to the existence of God. To answer these questions,
we first have to grasp how the science community came
to its consensus on the origin of the universe. Humans
(16:22):
have been contemplating where we come from since the beginning
of recorded history. Hindus in the fifteenth century BC believed
that the universe originated from a golden egg. In the
fourth century BC, Aristotle thought Earth was the center of
the universe and that it was eternal but finite in space.
By about the second century BC, Hindus modified their theories,
(16:43):
describing a cyclical universe that was created, sustained, then destroyed
either every eight point six four billion years or every
six hundred and twenty two point zero eight trillion years. Clearly,
accuracy was not exactly in their wheelhouse. By the fifteen hundreds,
the prevailing scientific consensus was that the Sun and the
planets were of the Earth. It wasn't until Nicholas Copernicus
(17:06):
arrived on the scene that a clear picture came into focus.
In fifteen forty three, Copernicus published On the Revolutions of
the Heavenly Spears, where he proposed that the planets in
our Solar System orbited around the Sun. There was a backlash,
but ultimately scientific observations proved him right. By the early
nineteen hundreds, the accepted model of the universe was that
(17:28):
it was unchanging and infinite in both time and space.
It had no beginning and no end. But the foundation
of this model was about to be chipped away. In
nineteen fifteen, Albert Einstein introduced his General theory of relativity.
The theory proposed something radical that gravity was not really
(17:52):
a force, but was instead the warping of space and
time by the presence of massive objects like our Sun
and planets. To visualize Einstein's idea, picture a bold rolling
ball sitting in the middle of a circular trampoline. Its
mass bends the rubber surface around it. The bending is
like gravity. Einstein's concept not only theorized that the presence
(18:14):
of mass actually warps space time, but it also suggested
that time was different when you got closer to a
large object. It was a startling claim, one that went
against Sir Isaac Newton's two hundred and fifty year old
model of gravity. This theory had to be put to
the test, and some British astronomers thought they could use
(18:36):
a solar eclipse to find out who was right, Einstein
or Newton. Their idea was to measure whose model of
gravity best predicted the position of stars near the edge
of the Sun during a solar eclipse, when the light
of the star is traveling past the edge of the
Sun to make its way to Earth. So on May
twenty ninth, nineteen nineteen, the astronomers traveled to Africa and
(18:57):
Brazil to record the light passing by the Sun, and
what they found was that the light from the distant
stars actually bent when passing by the Sun, just as
Einstein predicted it was a monumental discovery and one that
allowed scientists for the first time to talk about the
past history of the universe. In nineteen twenty seven, Georges Lametra,
(19:18):
a Belgium Catholic priest, astronomer, mathematician, and physicist, used Einstein's
equations to predict that the universe is expanding, an idea
Einstein initially rejected. Scientists, including even Einstein, preferred other theories
of the universe that were eternal. But in nineteen twenty nine,
American astronomer Edwin Hubble made a groundbreaking discovery. He measured
(19:41):
light coming from distant galaxies and found that all the
light was shifted towards the red part of the light spectrum,
which meant the stars were actually moving away from Earth.
What Hubble also found was that the further away the
star was, the faster it was moving away from Earth.
In other words, Hubble confirmed that the universe was indeed expanding,
just as Lemetra predicted. A few years later, in nineteen
(20:05):
thirty one, Lemetra proposed that the universe expanded from a
single point that he called the primeval atom. In essence,
he introduced the Big Bang theory to the world the
theory that the universe expanded from a single point known
as the singularity, before which space time did not exist.
Many cosmologists rejected his idea, in large part because it
(20:28):
suggested a creator. If something caused the beginning of the universe,
something must have caused it. Atheists minded scientists quickly began
proposing other models of the universe. It did not include
a starting point, but one by one scientific observations eliminated
these models. The Big Bang theory was the last viable
(20:49):
model standing, but the theory's big moment would come along
a little over three decades after it was proposed. In
May nineteen sixty four, Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson
were investigating the heavens at Bell Labs in Holmdel, New Jersey.
Speaker 12 (21:09):
Arno Penzius and I had been working about a year
putting together a precision measuring system to work with a
twenty foot horn reflector for several measurements that we wanted
to make.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
That's Robert Woodrow Wilson. The two radio astronomers were working
to measure the brightness of the sky by pointing a
horn reflector antenna towards space to detect and record radio.
Speaker 12 (21:31):
Waves, and it immediately showed a problem. At that point,
what we saw was that the antenna had almost twice
as much noise as it was supposed to, and clearly
this was a problem.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Everywhere they pointed their antenna they heard a strange static hum.
At first, the two thought they were hearing radio waves
coming from nearby New York City, but that was quickly rejected.
They then climbed into the antenna.
Speaker 12 (21:59):
There were a couple of pigeons living in the antenna,
and we thought that pigeon droppings might actually have make
microwave radiation. They would have served microwaves. So at some
point we replaced the receiver with a pigeon trap, caught
the pigeons, put them in a box, shipped them in
the company mail as far away as we could, which
(22:21):
was swipping in New Jersey. We found the name of
a pigeon fancier sent them to him. He looked them
at him and said, these are junk pigeons and let
them go. Well, what do you expect two days later,
pigeons are back. So, in the interest of science, our
(22:44):
technician brought in a shotgun and that was the end
of the pigeons, then Arno, then Arnold and I got
up there in our lab coats with a sproom and
scrub brush and cleaned out the antenna.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
Maybe the poop was throwing everything off, but when they
pointed their antenna back to the sky, the hum continued,
and it persisted no matter where they pointed it. The
sound was coming from all directions at all times. So
they called a researcher at Princeton University who was also
studying the sky.
Speaker 12 (23:21):
What we didn't know was that he had been thinking
about a big bang and that it would be very
hot and as it expanded, the radiation and it would
cool off.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
After some back and forth, the researcher concluded that what
the two radio astronomers found was the echo of the
Big Bang. You see, the big Bang theory required that
at some point in the distant past, the universe sprung
from an incredibly hot and dense point, so hot that
it would be filled with radiation, but as the universe expanded,
(23:51):
these radiation waves would cool down to form radio waves.
If the Big Bang actually occurred, as Lemetra initially proposed,
this cosmic microwave background radiation as they called it, would
be evenly dispersed throughout the sky. Scientists concluded that what
Arnold Pensius and Robert Woodrow Wilson found was the echo
of the event that started it all. Their discovery further
(24:19):
confirmed the Big Bang theory. Arno Penzias would later say, quote,
astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which
was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate
balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life,
and one which has an underlying, one might say, supernatural
plan end quote. Over the coming years, additional observational evidence
(24:44):
would back the Big Bang theory and rule out all
other proposed models. Analysis of the cosmic microwave background radiation
suggested that the universe was roughly thirteen point eight billion
years old. Science was pointing to a universe that had
a beginning, which then suggested a beginner. At around the
(25:15):
time the echo of the Big Bang was discovered, another
scientist was a few years into his search for something
else in the sky extraterrestrials.
Speaker 13 (25:23):
I got interested in astronomy at about the age of eight.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
That's American astronomer and astrophysicist Frank Drake.
Speaker 13 (25:30):
One day my father told me that there were other
worlds in space, and I was fascinated. I wondered do
they have cars and streets and all the same things
I had? And I can tendue to have that fascination
the rest of my life. It was always in my mind,
are they out there? How could we find out? And
finally an opportunity came much later when I was doing
(25:52):
my graduate work at Harvard and was a lone graduate
student working in the cold dark of night at the
Harvard Observatory. I was observing the Pleiades star cluster and
measuring the spectrol line of hydrogen that was then very
popular in astronomy still is. And then one night there
was a whole new feature there and I thought, wow,
(26:15):
could this be creatures on Appliades sending signals? And it
turned out this was actually coming from a nearby radio
amateur transmission, as I found out a few nights later.
But it made me do the calculations and see what
could we detect. And just a few years later, when
I was a green Bank and had a bigger telescope
(26:37):
and a much more sensitive radio receiver, then the equation
showed we could detect transmissions just like our own from
the distance of the nearest stars, and that led to
the search in nineteen sixty for signals from the stars.
Tasseti and Epsilin Aridny didn't see anything, but it was
a start, and it did stimulate a lot of other
(26:58):
people to start searching, because they too recognized, yes, indeed,
we could civilizations like our own from nearby end the galaxy.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
His initial search for aliens found nothing, but the modern
search for alien intelligence, or SETI as it's called, was underway.
By the mid nineteen sixties, it was thought that there
were billions upon billions of stars in the universe. The
current estimate is that there are one septillian stars in
the observable universe. That's one with twenty four zeros after it.
(27:27):
With that many stars, astronomers believe that the universe was
teeming with planets that could support life like ours.
Speaker 11 (27:33):
There are stars which are billions of years older than
our son.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
That's Carl Sagan, the famous American astronomer.
Speaker 11 (27:40):
Some of them very likely have planets, and therefore I
can imagine civilizations immensely beyond the capabilities of our own.
What capabilities those are, no one can tell. It's remarkable
that the molecules of life are littering the cosmos. If
it turns out, for example, that Mars is lifeless, that
is not a major disappointment, because then we have two
(28:01):
planets near each other space and time life developed on
one and not on the other. You have the classic
case of an experiment and a control and be very
important to investigate why life on the Earth and not
on Mars. But even more exciting would be if Mars
turns out to have life, for us to investigate what
kind of life it is, how similar, how different from
(28:22):
life on Earth. That will immensely broaden the science of biology.
And then there is certainly the serious work, long term, patient,
cautious investigation of other stars for possible signals being sent
our way.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
Over the following decades, astronomers pointed their telescopes towards the
stars to find some sign, any sign of intelligent life.
They looked for radio signals. They searched for special heat
signatures it could show intelligent life generating power. They scoured
the skies and found nothing, no signs of life. There
was a deafening silence, and it got scientists to thinking,
(29:01):
where is everybody? With billions upon billions of stars and
likely trillions of planets orbiting those stars. Why haven't we
found life anywhere else in the universe? Was there something
special about Earth? Carl Sagan considered the significance of Earth
being the lone life forming planet in the universe.
Speaker 11 (29:19):
If we made a serious search and failed, we would
have determined something of the uniqueness, frigility, preciousness of human beings.
And it seems to me, either way we win.
Speaker 2 (29:31):
Before Carl Sagan entered the scene, another scientist stumbled on
the low probability of life forming on Earth. That man
was British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle. In the early nineteen fifties.
Hoyle famously rejected the idea of the Big Bang in
part because it suggested a creator. He was an atheist.
In fact, Hoyle was the person that coined the term
(29:54):
Big Bang to mock the idea of the universe popping
into existence at some finite point. He searched for the
origin of life on Earth in a different way. Carbon
is the building blocks of life, and Hoyle wanted to
figure out where it came from and how it was
formed in nature. He concluded that carbon must have come
from the reactions in the sun again, Eric metaxis Fred Hoyle.
Speaker 9 (30:17):
He was really spooked when he thought, we need carbon
for life, but carbon forms in the middle of stars
out there.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
Hoyle did the calculations for how this reaction occurred in
stars and was struck by the unbelievable accuracy necessary for
carbon's formation. A certain kind of helium atom had to
fuse with another helium atom to form a specific beryllium atom.
Then this beryllium atom had to fuse with another helium
atom to form carbon. And this entire reaction had to
(30:49):
occur in a time so infinitesimally small that it seemed
nearly impossible to have happened by chance. The process had
to be done just right, or life as we know
it would never have existed.
Speaker 9 (31:02):
And it really spooked him because he was an atheist,
and he said, this is looking I'm getting spooked. How
is it that this tiny thing that nobody ever talks about,
but I'm a physicist, I'm looking into this that this
is exactly the level that it would need to be
so that carbon can form.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
The chance of this process occurring in nature on its
own was so statistically unlikely that it prompted Fred Hoyle
to state, quote, A common sense interpretation of the facts
suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics as
well as with chemistry and biology. The numbers one calculates
from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to
(31:39):
put this conclusion almost beyond question end quote, the fine
tune argument was born.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
Can you believe since nineteen thirteen the dollar has lost
ninety six percent of its purchasing power and it's still
losing down ten point eight percent this year. So ask yourself,
what do you do to protect your wealth today? Many
people are turning to gold and silver for protection. This
year alone, gold and silver have risen an impressive twenty
nine percent, and since nineteen thirteen they've risen more than
(32:14):
six thousand percent. Can gold and silver help protect your
hard earned savings? Call Lear Capital at eight hundred four
to eight zero one one zero zero and request your
free wealth protection kit. Discover how gold and silver can
help your retirement dreams come true. You can even own
them in an ira. With over eight billion in transactions
and thousands of five star reviews, Liar is your leading source.
(32:36):
Call eight hundred four to eight zero one one zero
zero and with a qualified purchase get up to fifteen
thousand in bonus gold or silver call eight hundred four
to eight zero one one zero zero eight hundred four
to eight zero one one zero zero. Keep in mind
that any investment has a certain amount of risk associated
with it, and you should only invest if you can
afford to bear the risk of loss. Before making investment decisions,
(32:59):
you should carefully consider and review all risks involved. Welcome
back to red pilled America. So in the early nineteen fifties,
British astrophysicist and atheist Fred Hoyle began a search for
the origin of life on Earth. Carbon is the building
blocks of life, and Hoyle wanted to figure out where
(33:20):
it came from and how it was formed in nature.
He concluded that carbon must have come from the reactions
in the sun. Hoyle did the calculations for how this
reaction occurs in stars and was struck by the unbelievable
precision necessary for carbon's formation. The process had to be
done just right, or life as we know it would
never have existed. The finding led Fred Hoyle to conclude
(33:42):
that the facts overwhelmingly suggested that a super intellect tinkered
with physics, chemistry, and biology to set the universe in motion.
The fine tuned argument was born as research progressed. Scientists
began finding more and more fundamental scientific constants and quantities that,
if they were modified just a little bit, all life
as we know it would have never formed. British mathematical
(34:05):
physicist Roger Penrose, who won the Nobel Prize in physics,
calculated from scientific observations the initial conditions of the universe
at the Big Bang, and what he found was nothing
short of a miracle.
Speaker 4 (34:17):
It was very very special. How special was it? You
can actually work this out. It's so special that the
odds against the special initial state coming about by chance
are less than one path and ten to the power
tend to the power one hundred and twenty three. If
you try to write this out one zero zero zero
(34:38):
zero zero with this number of zeros, you'd try to
put one zero in every particle in the observable universe.
You'd be way short. That's not enough room to put
all the zeros in. So I didn't want to give
you some feeling for how special the initial state of
the universe was. And for some reason people, you know,
they try and say, well, you don't want such and
such a theory or so and so a theory because
(35:00):
that requires fine tuning or something like that. Well, there's
going to be fine tuning. This is fine tuning. This
is incredible precision in the organization of the initial universe.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
Scientists continued to find these constants in nature that if
even one of them were modified, even an inconceivably small amount,
life would never have formed. Take, for example, the cosmological constant,
which controls the expansion speed of the universe. If that
constant were to deviate by one part in ten to
the one hundred and twentieth that's one with one hundred
(35:32):
and twenty zeros, life as we know it would never
have formed. These fine tuned parameters are found everywhere, and
not just found in the general laws of nature. They're
also found in characteristics specific to our planet Earth. Again,
Eric Metaxis.
Speaker 9 (35:49):
So let's take the most basic thing, the moon. Who
would think that the moon being where it is and
what it is, would have any bearing on whether there's
going to be life on this planet? Right? You think, Hey,
if there's no one there, big deal. I'll get up
and I'll look at the sky. There's no moon. Who cares?
How does it affect me well, the way it affects
us as scientists, atheists and agnostics. Scientists will tell you,
(36:10):
without the Moon precisely the size that it is, and
I mean precisely, if it were fifteen percent larger or
fifteen percent smaller or four percent larger, there's no life
on Earth. And you go, that's ridiculous. Well, no, that's
what science tells us.
Speaker 1 (36:28):
The Moon contributes to the tilt of Earth's axis and
the speed it spins. If there were no Moon at
just the right size and just the right distance from
our planet, there would be no life on Earth.
Speaker 9 (36:38):
And it goes way on and on from there. I
always refer to the planet Jupiter. Right, You think, where's Jupiter?
If I look up in the sky, if I'm really trained,
I might be able to find a speck. Then I say, oh,
you see that, that's not a star, that's Jupiter. If
I really know what I'm doing, it is so far
away from us it couldn't possibly have any bearing on
(36:59):
life on Earth. But science tells us no, if Jupiter,
this monster massive planet, we're not there in our solar system.
This is a scientific fact. Then a thousand times more
asteroids and meteorites would hit the surface of the Earth,
wiping out life, you know, every ten years. But who
(37:21):
has ever heard in school that Jupiter is utterly central
to our existence of life on Earth. It sounds crazy.
I'm saying it now, and I'm thinking, man, somebody hearing this,
they're just going to think it's crazy. But this is
what science teaches us. And that's one parameter. And there
are now probably a couple of hundred of these kinds
(37:42):
of parameters.
Speaker 1 (37:42):
And if any one of these parameters weren't just right,
if any one of them deviated slightly, life as we
know it never would have formed. That's a scientific fact.
The list of fine tuned parameters goes on and on.
If Earth didn't have plate tectonics, you know, the thing
that gives places like California earthquakes. If Earth didn't have
these plates, claim that complex life would have never formed
(38:05):
on Earth.
Speaker 9 (38:06):
We didn't know about plate tectonics till the sixties. Now
we know that if we didn't have plate tectonics on
our planet, there can be no life. And part of
the reason this stuff is so astounding is because most
of us don't really know how things work. Why would
plate tectonics, you know, have anything to do with anything.
And so as I've looked into this, you start thinking
(38:28):
I'm going crazy because there is so much information and
yet literally no one knows about it. Not literally, but
close to literally no one knows about it. And those
who maybe do know about it, they don't talk about
it or they don't write about it in a way
that would suggest what would be obvious to most people
that oh, yeah, there is probably pretty clearly a brilliant,
(38:52):
all powerful intelligence that created all this stuff. There's no
other logical explanation. But that's so unpalatable to people, to
some people that they pretty much they just ignore it.
Speaker 1 (39:03):
Taken as a whole, this fine tuned universe is concrete
evidence of a fine tuner, a creator. Scientifically speaking, the
odds are so overwhelmingly against life ever half forming that
it practically had zero chance. And that's no exaggeration. All
of these parameters coming together to form life on Earth
is less likely than you winning the lottery jackpot over
(39:25):
one hundred times in a row with one lottery ticket
each time, and it all happening on your first try.
That's because the formation of stars, solar systems, and galaxies
is not an iterative process. Physics doesn't tinker until it
gets it right. That's not the way physics works. Biologists
claim evolution explains how life on Earth evolved from a
(39:45):
single cell organism because life builds on the successes of
the past, you know, survival of the fittest. Whoever has
specific traits goes on to survive, and those traits are
passed on to the next generation, the organism getting smarter
and smarter, until one day a single cell organism becomes
Cardi B. That's not how space evolves. There is no
(40:05):
selection process. It was all set in motion, and through
the miraculous laws of physics, with just the right fundamental
constants tuned to just the right numbers, solar systems formed
until a planet came along that was in just the
right galaxy, placed next to just the right kind of
Sun that produced carbon, that planet being just the right
(40:26):
size and just the right distance from the Sun and
just the right size Moon orbiting it, and just the
right size gas planet Jupiter shielding it. The odds of
this happening on its own is a few decimal places
after never and for those that think, well, there has
to be life out there, somewhere. I think astronomer's Stephan
Web may have put it best. Web is involved in
(40:49):
a project called Breakthrough Starshot that's developing a proof of
concept space probe capable of reaching Alpha Centauri, the closest
solar system that's similar to ours.
Speaker 3 (40:59):
If the galaxy contains a trillion planets, how many will
host stibilization capable of contemplating like ours a projects such
as Breakthrough Starshot, habitability, right sort of planet around the
right sort of star. The trillion becomes a billion, stability
a climate that stays benign for eons. The billion becomes
(41:23):
a million.
Speaker 13 (41:24):
Life must start.
Speaker 3 (41:26):
The million becomes a thousand. Complex life forms must arise,
The thousand becomes one sophisticated two use must develop. That's
one planet in a thousand galaxies. To understand the universe,
they'll have to develop the techniques of science and mathematics.
That's one planet in a million galaxies. To reach the stars,
they'll have to be social creatures capable of discussing abstract
(41:49):
concepts with each other, easier complex grammar. One planet in
a billion galaxies, and they have to avoid disaster, not
just self inflicted, but from the Skies two that planet
around a centauri. Last year it got blasted by a flare.
One planet in a trillion galaxies just does in the
(42:11):
visible universe.
Speaker 1 (42:13):
I think we're alone. George Lucas has tricked us into
believing that life is out there on tattooine. The improbability
of our fine tune universe has startled many of the
most prominent scientists in the world. English physicist Paul Davies
has said, quote, there is for me powerful evidence that
there is something going on behind it all. It seems
(42:34):
as though somebody has fine tuned nature's numbers to make
the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming end quote.
Astrophysicist George Greenstein has stated quote, as we survey all
the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency
must be involved. Is it possible that, suddenly, without intending to,
(42:56):
we have stumbled upon the scientific proof of the existence
of a supreme being? Was it God who stepped in
and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? End quote?
Even fame physicist Stephen Hawking has stated, quote the laws
of science as we know them at present contain many
fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of
the electron, and the ratio of masses of the proton
(43:18):
and the electron. The remarkable fact is that the values
of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted
to make possible the development of life end quote. The
odds of Earth forming life are so astronomically improbable that
it has some scientists pointing to the only logical conclusion
there is a creator. The facts are just that clear.
Speaker 9 (43:39):
We should be teaching this in schools because, by the way,
what I'm saying, this is science. This is not Christian science.
This is science. Why doesn't everyone know about this? Like,
it's not like I'm reading conspiracy theories or crazy stuff.
I'm reading basic stuff written by scientists that other scientists
agree on that this is not just crazy stuff, and
(44:01):
yet no one talks about And I've always felt that
part of the problem that we have in American culture
right now is those who are conservative or those who
are people of serious faith, they are not the folks
telling the stories. They're not the people in Hollywood who
are sort of setting the cultural temperature. They are usually
(44:23):
on the outs. And so even though you might be
right about something, good luck getting that word to anyone.
Speaker 1 (44:36):
Which leads us back to the question can science prove
the existence of God?
Speaker 9 (44:44):
The little told story is that science has over the
last fifty or so years, effectively proved God. In other words,
I don't even think it's like, well, it's kind of
pushing us toward God. If you're honest, you'd have to say,
I don't know what to say. I don't like it,
but it seems obvious, whether you're talking about the big be,
whether you're talking about the fine tuned universe, whether you're
(45:04):
talking about the impossibility that life arose from non life
four billion years ago through random natural processes. I mean,
the more science we know, ironically, the more we're pushed
to believe in a creator God, which is the precisely
the opposite narrative that we've been fed since we were,
you know, in the cradle.
Speaker 1 (45:25):
Physicist Paul Davies once said, quote, there is now broad
agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is, in
several respects fine tune for life end quote. I agree.
If you look at the scientific facts as we know
them today, and you're honest, it's just irrefutable that a
universe fine Tune for Life requires a fine tuner.
Speaker 2 (45:48):
To support Eric Metaxas's work or Bias books, visit Ericmataxis
dot com. That's E R I C M E t
a xas dot com. Red Pilled America is an iHeartRadio
original podcast. It's produced by me Adrianna Quartz and Patrick
Carrelci for Informed Ventures. Now, our entire archive of episodes
is only available to our backstage subscribers. To subscribe, visit
(46:11):
Redpilled America dot com and click support in the topmenu.
Thanks for listening.
This is Red Pilled America.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Before we start the show, just a reminder to share, like,
and subscribe to this podcast wherever you're listening to it,
and please give us a five star rating. It helps
us beat the big tech algorithm. Also, if you love
Red Pilled America, please consider becoming a backstage subscriber. You'll
have exclusive access to our entire back catalog of episodes.
Just visit Redpilled America dot com and click support in
(00:29):
the top menu for details, and don't forget to get
merch from the RPA store. RPA merch is always made
in America and never stuck on a cargo ship. Visit
Redpilled America dot com and click shop in the topmenu.
Support what you love or it goes away. Thanks everyone.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
This episode was originally broadcast on April sixteenth, twenty twenty one.
Scientists love ridiculing believers in God.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Why overall do you believe God?
Speaker 3 (00:58):
Is a bad explanation?
Speaker 4 (00:59):
Well, it's not necessary, unnecessary, totally actually lazy explanation.
Speaker 5 (01:04):
What is an atheist? An atheist is just somebody who
feels about yahweh the way any decent Christian feels about
thor or bail or the Golden Calf. As has been
said before, we are all atheists about most of the
gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us
just go one god further.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
But over the past few decades a striking question has
been gaining steam within science circles, and that is, can
science actually prove the existence of God? I'm Patrick Carelci.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
And I'm Adriana Portez.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
And this is Red Pilled America, a storytelling show.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
This is not another talk show covering the day's news.
We are all about telling stories.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
Stories. Hollywood doesn't want you to hear stories.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
The media marks stories about everyday Americans that the globalists ignore.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
You could think of Red Pilled America as audio documentaries,
and we promise only one thing, the truth. Welcome to
Red Pilled America. Science and faith is often thought to
(02:26):
be at odds. But should it be both claim to
explain the origin of the universe and science professes to
search for facts to confirm its claims. If this is
the case, if science is about searching for evidence to
prove or disprove a theory, can science prove the existence
of God. To find the answer, we tell the story
(02:47):
of how a fascinating scientific concept called the fine tuned
universe was developed, and how this concept may be leading
science closer to proving once and for all that there
is a creator. Along the way, we'll hear from Eric Metaxas,
the New York Times best author of Fish out of Water,
A Search for the Meaning of Life. Eric had a
unique life experience that led him to God, and he'd
(03:10):
later open our eyes to the possibility that our creator
may be scientifically verifiable. Comedians are some of the most
insightful people on the planet. That may sound strange given
the current crop of woke comics littering our screens.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
I find it just incredible to see these young people
have the agency to say I am non binary.
Speaker 6 (03:35):
I don't have that.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Kind of agency, and I literally have agents.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
Woke ones aside. I've found some of the most intriguing
thoughts coming from good comedians. That's likely because their minds
live out in the fringes where unauthorized thought is allowed
to be explored.
Speaker 7 (03:50):
The dominant narrative in America is white people are evil,
White people suck. We should be ashamed of ourselves. And
I don't think we should be ashamed of ourselves. I
think that we should take responsibility for the system that
we've created system in the world.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
We do not have the best system.
Speaker 7 (04:06):
We has a better system. There are many European countries
that have are much better offers. You mean, like the
European countries with a higher density of whites, like Northern Europe.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
That's one way to phrase it.
Speaker 7 (04:17):
I guess you don't mean Turkey. No, you don't mean
Eastern Europe with the Communists. So the only time you
can come up with a system that's better than America,
it's a country that's more white than America. I don't understand.
Speaker 4 (04:31):
I don't want to say that.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
So one comedian that I guess you could say radically
change my life is Norm McDonald.
Speaker 6 (04:43):
I have some beliefs there are too inflammatory to even discuss.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Unfortunately, that's norm.
Speaker 6 (04:50):
Because there are certain things in society that you're not
allowed to believe or speak publicly, and so I'll just
never say them. I'll just leave them in.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Years ago, I stumbled on this interview where he ventured
into the topic of God, and.
Speaker 6 (05:07):
I think as far as the question of God goes,
I wish that science, which is supposed to explore these things,
refuses to explore the fundamental question that is of interest
not only to religious people but intensely to atheists as well.
They spent a lot of time thinking about something they
(05:29):
don't care about that science should spend all their time.
I mean, they spend time trying to find new galaxies,
as if that's important.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
Norm discussed a subject that I hadn't really given any
serious thought, the idea that science could actually prove God.
Speaker 6 (05:47):
Since God's an unproven thing, just a hypothesis at this point,
I think it would be good to study it.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Norm's comments seems so preposterous to the interviewer that he
couldn't help but mock the idea.
Speaker 8 (06:00):
I mean, they've gone through space, they didn't find God
floating around. How could you possibly test it scientifically? They
just say it's unknowable. It's beyond our area of what
we can know.
Speaker 6 (06:14):
I don't know when scientists started saying things were unknowable,
but that's a new one on me, because that's not
a scientific term as far as I know, unknowable. I
don't think scientists could possibly use that term unknowable because
it infers that they can see into the future.
Speaker 8 (06:36):
How would you even begin to prove the existence of
a God.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
Norma said that scientists claim evolution exists without having actually
witnessed it. They've mainly inferred its existence from the fossil record.
So he suggested scientists could use the same kind of
reasoning to prove the existence of God. The whole conversation
was fascinating to me. Why couldn't science prove the existence
of a creator?
Speaker 4 (07:02):
Now?
Speaker 1 (07:02):
As many long time listeners of Red Pilled America may know,
I have a background in science, and during my studies,
the deeper I delved into the laws of physics, the
more I could no longer deny that there was a God.
The laws governing the physical world just appeared to be
designed with a purpose. Now, it was one thing to
have that intuition, but something else entirely to think that
(07:22):
science could actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists.
That task seemed impossible, so I really didn't give it
much thought while I was in college. However, after listening
to norm MacDonald's argument, I decided to go on a
bit of a dive into the subject, and when I did,
I found Eric Metaxis, or more precisely, I found an
(07:44):
article he'd written back in twenty fourteen.
Speaker 9 (07:47):
My original title was is Science leading Us to God?
That's Eric Metaxis, but the Wall Street Journal changed the
title to Science increasingly makes the Case for God, and
it went extremely viral. It became the most popular most
shared article in the history of the Wall Street Journal,
six hundred and fifty thousand Facebook shares. I mean, really insane,
(08:11):
but it struck a nerve, and I guess I shouldn't
be so surprised. Everybody's hungry and we get nothing on
these kinds of issues. We're starved.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Eric Matexas is a talented biographer and author of Fish
out of Water, A Search for the Meaning of Life
on paper. You'd never expect Eric to be one of
the leading intellectuals arguing for God's existence. I mean, the
guy graduated from Yale, and there's not many institutions that
do a better job at filtering faith out of people's
lives than the Ivy League. But Eric is one of
(08:39):
the few popularizing a concept that is leading people to
believe we now have scientific confirmation of God.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Eric was born in New York City and his sounds
like the classic American story.
Speaker 9 (08:53):
I mean, you have immigrants coming from Greece and Germany,
totally different countries, meeting in New York City where I
live now, meeting in an English class, getting married, and
then raising their kids. And I always say that if
you're raised by a Greek and a German, that means
you'll be raised Greek, since the Greeks are, like, you know,
ultra proud about their ethnicity.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
His parents were working class immigrants, but I was.
Speaker 9 (09:14):
Not raised in a serious Christian home. It was kind
of a cultural Christianity. My dad's Greek, my mom's German,
so we went to the Greek church. It's kind of
like the cultural community center for the Greeks.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Right when he was nine, he moved to Danbury, Connecticut, which.
Speaker 9 (09:26):
Is very different from Queens, New York. It's really Middle America.
So that was my entree into the normal world where
kids ride bikes and build tree fords and you know,
go fishing and play kickball and touch football or whatever
it is. So I kind of grew up in that world.
But I was always a fish out of water there too.
I was a fish out of water whenever I was
in the Greek community because I wasn't Greek enough because
(09:47):
my mother's German. And then you get into this world
of Middle America, and you always feel like this odd
European kid whose parents don't ever take you to baseball
games or whatever. They don't get that they're just lucky
to have food on the table because they came from
World War II ravaged Europe.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
So Eric grew up in a normal, working class American
community where Christianity was the backdrop, but it wasn't the centerpiece,
nor was it viewed with any hostility. But as Eric
approached college, he entered a progressive community that was intent
on exterminating God.
Speaker 9 (10:22):
So then, of course I get into Yale, and that
is another strange experience, because I'm the working class kid
suddenly among the cultural elites for whom the question of
whether life has meaning is simply not asked, because it's
assumed that we've already answered that question. Darwin tells us no,
Freud tells us no, Margaret Mead and Hugh Hefner and
(10:45):
everybody else tells us no. We're just here. There's a
random process of evolution that kind of led to us.
There's no guiding God in that process. We're just here
by accident. So life has no meaning, and it's really
impressing so we're not going to talk about it or
think about it. We'll just, you know, we'll just say,
work hard, get a good job in banking or something,
and on the weekends you'll have some hobby and alcohol
(11:07):
and you'll be fine. And I didn't know what to think.
So I kind of drank that kool aid and drifted,
but I wasn't sure what I believed.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Eric eventually got a degree in English. He wanted to
become a writer, but as he wandered a bit trying
to find his place, the Yale experience left him a
bit confused about the meaning of life.
Speaker 9 (11:36):
So when I graduated, I did not get a good
job to distract me from these horrible questions. And so
I floundered and floated. And I always say that when
you flounder and float out of college, it's only one
thing that can happen. You're going to move back in
with your parents, which is what happened to me. And
if your parents are working class with your Pean immigrants
who didn't get to go to college a much less
girl in America, they're looking at you like, what is
(11:57):
your problem? And I say that my friend's parents said, oh,
Eric is finding himself, but my parents and we're thinking, like, Eric,
you should find yourself a job, and what is your
problem here? We worked meal jobs to put you through Yale.
So it was a really it was a tough time
for me. But in the midst of that painful crucible,
I began, just in a tiny way, to open up
(12:18):
to the possibility of God. Not big, but tiny, tiny bit.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Over the course of the next year, he became more
and more open to the idea. Then on his twenty
fifth birthday, he had a breakthrough, a breakthrough that he
reveals in his book Fish out of Water.
Speaker 9 (12:32):
My life was changed overnight, and it's like like it
or not, God came into my life and I had
to then process that. So after that, of course most
of my friends thought, like, what's happened to this guy's
he gone nuts? Whatever? So I felt a kind of
compulsion to read everything I could get my hands on,
(12:53):
as they say, about everything, And one of the things
I did was I stumbled on the work of Hugh Ross.
He's a scientist in California who is a Christian, and
he has an apologetics ministry called Reasons to Believe Spectacular,
I mean amazing, But this in the early nineties, I
start reading this stuff, and I'm reading about the fine
tuned universe and all this stuff.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
And this is really where the journey begins, because you see,
the fine tuned universe is one of the most compelling
science based arguments for the existence of God. In fact,
the fine tuning argument is so compelling that it makes
some of the most prominent atheists on the planet swarm
with discomfort.
Speaker 10 (13:31):
More of Red Pilled America after the break.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
If you haven't had licorice from the Liquorice Guy yet,
what are you waiting for? The Licorice Guy is the
perfect candy for those home movie nights. Trust me, I
know licorice and it doesn't get any better than the
Licorice Guy. What sets their liquorice apart is its freshness
and its flavor. This isn't anything like the store bought
stuff that's hard enough to break a tooth. They offer
(14:09):
jumbo licorice sticks that come in nostalgic dimestar flavors like red, black, chocolate, cinnamon,
and blue raspberry. The Licorice Guy is an American family
owned business, and we love having them as part of
our Red Pilled America tribe. Right now. Our listeners will
get fifteen percent off when they enter RPA fifteen at checkout.
Visit licoriceguy dot com and enter RPA fifteen at checkout.
(14:32):
That's licoriceguy dot com. Treat yourself and taste the difference.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
Welcome back to red pilled America. So Eric Mataxis left
Yo wanting to become a writer. Without a job to
keep him occupied, his mind began to search for answers
to the meaning of life. Then, on his twenty fifth birthday,
something miraculous happened to him that he highlights in his
book Fish out of Water, a search for the meaning
of life. The event immediately led him to God. Because
(15:03):
his new found faith was the antithesis of his z
e L peers, Eric went on a hunt to learn
everything he could that justified his beliefs. Eric's search led
him to a scientific concept called the fine tuned universe,
an argument that's been identified by even the most prominent
atheist in the world as the single strongest argument for
the existence of a creator.
Speaker 9 (15:25):
Again, Eric Ataxis, as Christopher Hitchins, was asked what is
the most compelling argument on the other side, on the
God's side.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
Christopher Hitchins was an English intellectual, a devout atheist, author,
writer and cultural critic, and.
Speaker 9 (15:37):
In a rare moment of honesty, because he was not
famous for being gracious towards his ideological opponents, he said, Oh,
it's the fine tuned argument. That's the one that gives
all of us on our side the atheist's pause.
Speaker 11 (15:52):
At some point, certainly we rule us. Which is the
best argument you've had come up against? Jumelu Sarvon.
Speaker 4 (15:58):
I think every one of us picks the fine tuning
one is the most.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Intriguing meant by a fine tuned universe? And how does
it point to the existence of God. To answer these questions,
we first have to grasp how the science community came
to its consensus on the origin of the universe. Humans
(16:22):
have been contemplating where we come from since the beginning
of recorded history. Hindus in the fifteenth century BC believed
that the universe originated from a golden egg. In the
fourth century BC, Aristotle thought Earth was the center of
the universe and that it was eternal but finite in space.
By about the second century BC, Hindus modified their theories,
(16:43):
describing a cyclical universe that was created, sustained, then destroyed
either every eight point six four billion years or every
six hundred and twenty two point zero eight trillion years. Clearly,
accuracy was not exactly in their wheelhouse. By the fifteen hundreds,
the prevailing scientific consensus was that the Sun and the
planets were of the Earth. It wasn't until Nicholas Copernicus
(17:06):
arrived on the scene that a clear picture came into focus.
In fifteen forty three, Copernicus published On the Revolutions of
the Heavenly Spears, where he proposed that the planets in
our Solar System orbited around the Sun. There was a backlash,
but ultimately scientific observations proved him right. By the early
nineteen hundreds, the accepted model of the universe was that
(17:28):
it was unchanging and infinite in both time and space.
It had no beginning and no end. But the foundation
of this model was about to be chipped away. In
nineteen fifteen, Albert Einstein introduced his General theory of relativity.
The theory proposed something radical that gravity was not really
(17:52):
a force, but was instead the warping of space and
time by the presence of massive objects like our Sun
and planets. To visualize Einstein's idea, picture a bold rolling
ball sitting in the middle of a circular trampoline. Its
mass bends the rubber surface around it. The bending is
like gravity. Einstein's concept not only theorized that the presence
(18:14):
of mass actually warps space time, but it also suggested
that time was different when you got closer to a
large object. It was a startling claim, one that went
against Sir Isaac Newton's two hundred and fifty year old
model of gravity. This theory had to be put to
the test, and some British astronomers thought they could use
(18:36):
a solar eclipse to find out who was right, Einstein
or Newton. Their idea was to measure whose model of
gravity best predicted the position of stars near the edge
of the Sun during a solar eclipse, when the light
of the star is traveling past the edge of the
Sun to make its way to Earth. So on May
twenty ninth, nineteen nineteen, the astronomers traveled to Africa and
(18:57):
Brazil to record the light passing by the Sun, and
what they found was that the light from the distant
stars actually bent when passing by the Sun, just as
Einstein predicted it was a monumental discovery and one that
allowed scientists for the first time to talk about the
past history of the universe. In nineteen twenty seven, Georges Lametra,
(19:18):
a Belgium Catholic priest, astronomer, mathematician, and physicist, used Einstein's
equations to predict that the universe is expanding, an idea
Einstein initially rejected. Scientists, including even Einstein, preferred other theories
of the universe that were eternal. But in nineteen twenty nine,
American astronomer Edwin Hubble made a groundbreaking discovery. He measured
(19:41):
light coming from distant galaxies and found that all the
light was shifted towards the red part of the light spectrum,
which meant the stars were actually moving away from Earth.
What Hubble also found was that the further away the
star was, the faster it was moving away from Earth.
In other words, Hubble confirmed that the universe was indeed expanding,
just as Lemetra predicted. A few years later, in nineteen
(20:05):
thirty one, Lemetra proposed that the universe expanded from a
single point that he called the primeval atom. In essence,
he introduced the Big Bang theory to the world the
theory that the universe expanded from a single point known
as the singularity, before which space time did not exist.
Many cosmologists rejected his idea, in large part because it
(20:28):
suggested a creator. If something caused the beginning of the universe,
something must have caused it. Atheists minded scientists quickly began
proposing other models of the universe. It did not include
a starting point, but one by one scientific observations eliminated
these models. The Big Bang theory was the last viable
(20:49):
model standing, but the theory's big moment would come along
a little over three decades after it was proposed. In
May nineteen sixty four, Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson
were investigating the heavens at Bell Labs in Holmdel, New Jersey.
Speaker 12 (21:09):
Arno Penzius and I had been working about a year
putting together a precision measuring system to work with a
twenty foot horn reflector for several measurements that we wanted
to make.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
That's Robert Woodrow Wilson. The two radio astronomers were working
to measure the brightness of the sky by pointing a
horn reflector antenna towards space to detect and record radio.
Speaker 12 (21:31):
Waves, and it immediately showed a problem. At that point,
what we saw was that the antenna had almost twice
as much noise as it was supposed to, and clearly
this was a problem.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Everywhere they pointed their antenna they heard a strange static hum.
At first, the two thought they were hearing radio waves
coming from nearby New York City, but that was quickly rejected.
They then climbed into the antenna.
Speaker 12 (21:59):
There were a couple of pigeons living in the antenna,
and we thought that pigeon droppings might actually have make
microwave radiation. They would have served microwaves. So at some
point we replaced the receiver with a pigeon trap, caught
the pigeons, put them in a box, shipped them in
the company mail as far away as we could, which
(22:21):
was swipping in New Jersey. We found the name of
a pigeon fancier sent them to him. He looked them
at him and said, these are junk pigeons and let
them go. Well, what do you expect two days later,
pigeons are back. So, in the interest of science, our
(22:44):
technician brought in a shotgun and that was the end
of the pigeons, then Arno, then Arnold and I got
up there in our lab coats with a sproom and
scrub brush and cleaned out the antenna.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
Maybe the poop was throwing everything off, but when they
pointed their antenna back to the sky, the hum continued,
and it persisted no matter where they pointed it. The
sound was coming from all directions at all times. So
they called a researcher at Princeton University who was also
studying the sky.
Speaker 12 (23:21):
What we didn't know was that he had been thinking
about a big bang and that it would be very
hot and as it expanded, the radiation and it would
cool off.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
After some back and forth, the researcher concluded that what
the two radio astronomers found was the echo of the
Big Bang. You see, the big Bang theory required that
at some point in the distant past, the universe sprung
from an incredibly hot and dense point, so hot that
it would be filled with radiation, but as the universe expanded,
(23:51):
these radiation waves would cool down to form radio waves.
If the Big Bang actually occurred, as Lemetra initially proposed,
this cosmic microwave background radiation as they called it, would
be evenly dispersed throughout the sky. Scientists concluded that what
Arnold Pensius and Robert Woodrow Wilson found was the echo
of the event that started it all. Their discovery further
(24:19):
confirmed the Big Bang theory. Arno Penzias would later say, quote,
astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which
was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate
balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life,
and one which has an underlying, one might say, supernatural
plan end quote. Over the coming years, additional observational evidence
(24:44):
would back the Big Bang theory and rule out all
other proposed models. Analysis of the cosmic microwave background radiation
suggested that the universe was roughly thirteen point eight billion
years old. Science was pointing to a universe that had
a beginning, which then suggested a beginner. At around the
(25:15):
time the echo of the Big Bang was discovered, another
scientist was a few years into his search for something
else in the sky extraterrestrials.
Speaker 13 (25:23):
I got interested in astronomy at about the age of eight.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
That's American astronomer and astrophysicist Frank Drake.
Speaker 13 (25:30):
One day my father told me that there were other
worlds in space, and I was fascinated. I wondered do
they have cars and streets and all the same things
I had? And I can tendue to have that fascination
the rest of my life. It was always in my mind,
are they out there? How could we find out? And
finally an opportunity came much later when I was doing
(25:52):
my graduate work at Harvard and was a lone graduate
student working in the cold dark of night at the
Harvard Observatory. I was observing the Pleiades star cluster and
measuring the spectrol line of hydrogen that was then very
popular in astronomy still is. And then one night there
was a whole new feature there and I thought, wow,
(26:15):
could this be creatures on Appliades sending signals? And it
turned out this was actually coming from a nearby radio
amateur transmission, as I found out a few nights later.
But it made me do the calculations and see what
could we detect. And just a few years later, when
I was a green Bank and had a bigger telescope
(26:37):
and a much more sensitive radio receiver, then the equation
showed we could detect transmissions just like our own from
the distance of the nearest stars, and that led to
the search in nineteen sixty for signals from the stars.
Tasseti and Epsilin Aridny didn't see anything, but it was
a start, and it did stimulate a lot of other
(26:58):
people to start searching, because they too recognized, yes, indeed,
we could civilizations like our own from nearby end the galaxy.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
His initial search for aliens found nothing, but the modern
search for alien intelligence, or SETI as it's called, was underway.
By the mid nineteen sixties, it was thought that there
were billions upon billions of stars in the universe. The
current estimate is that there are one septillian stars in
the observable universe. That's one with twenty four zeros after it.
(27:27):
With that many stars, astronomers believe that the universe was
teeming with planets that could support life like ours.
Speaker 11 (27:33):
There are stars which are billions of years older than
our son.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
That's Carl Sagan, the famous American astronomer.
Speaker 11 (27:40):
Some of them very likely have planets, and therefore I
can imagine civilizations immensely beyond the capabilities of our own.
What capabilities those are, no one can tell. It's remarkable
that the molecules of life are littering the cosmos. If
it turns out, for example, that Mars is lifeless, that
is not a major disappointment, because then we have two
(28:01):
planets near each other space and time life developed on
one and not on the other. You have the classic
case of an experiment and a control and be very
important to investigate why life on the Earth and not
on Mars. But even more exciting would be if Mars
turns out to have life, for us to investigate what
kind of life it is, how similar, how different from
(28:22):
life on Earth. That will immensely broaden the science of biology.
And then there is certainly the serious work, long term, patient,
cautious investigation of other stars for possible signals being sent
our way.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
Over the following decades, astronomers pointed their telescopes towards the
stars to find some sign, any sign of intelligent life.
They looked for radio signals. They searched for special heat
signatures it could show intelligent life generating power. They scoured
the skies and found nothing, no signs of life. There
was a deafening silence, and it got scientists to thinking,
(29:01):
where is everybody? With billions upon billions of stars and
likely trillions of planets orbiting those stars. Why haven't we
found life anywhere else in the universe? Was there something
special about Earth? Carl Sagan considered the significance of Earth
being the lone life forming planet in the universe.
Speaker 11 (29:19):
If we made a serious search and failed, we would
have determined something of the uniqueness, frigility, preciousness of human beings.
And it seems to me, either way we win.
Speaker 2 (29:31):
Before Carl Sagan entered the scene, another scientist stumbled on
the low probability of life forming on Earth. That man
was British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle. In the early nineteen fifties.
Hoyle famously rejected the idea of the Big Bang in
part because it suggested a creator. He was an atheist.
In fact, Hoyle was the person that coined the term
(29:54):
Big Bang to mock the idea of the universe popping
into existence at some finite point. He searched for the
origin of life on Earth in a different way. Carbon
is the building blocks of life, and Hoyle wanted to
figure out where it came from and how it was
formed in nature. He concluded that carbon must have come
from the reactions in the sun again, Eric metaxis Fred Hoyle.
Speaker 9 (30:17):
He was really spooked when he thought, we need carbon
for life, but carbon forms in the middle of stars
out there.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
Hoyle did the calculations for how this reaction occurred in
stars and was struck by the unbelievable accuracy necessary for
carbon's formation. A certain kind of helium atom had to
fuse with another helium atom to form a specific beryllium atom.
Then this beryllium atom had to fuse with another helium
atom to form carbon. And this entire reaction had to
(30:49):
occur in a time so infinitesimally small that it seemed
nearly impossible to have happened by chance. The process had
to be done just right, or life as we know
it would never have existed.
Speaker 9 (31:02):
And it really spooked him because he was an atheist,
and he said, this is looking I'm getting spooked. How
is it that this tiny thing that nobody ever talks about,
but I'm a physicist, I'm looking into this that this
is exactly the level that it would need to be
so that carbon can form.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
The chance of this process occurring in nature on its
own was so statistically unlikely that it prompted Fred Hoyle
to state, quote, A common sense interpretation of the facts
suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics as
well as with chemistry and biology. The numbers one calculates
from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to
(31:39):
put this conclusion almost beyond question end quote, the fine
tune argument was born.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
Can you believe since nineteen thirteen the dollar has lost
ninety six percent of its purchasing power and it's still
losing down ten point eight percent this year. So ask yourself,
what do you do to protect your wealth today? Many
people are turning to gold and silver for protection. This
year alone, gold and silver have risen an impressive twenty
nine percent, and since nineteen thirteen they've risen more than
(32:14):
six thousand percent. Can gold and silver help protect your
hard earned savings? Call Lear Capital at eight hundred four
to eight zero one one zero zero and request your
free wealth protection kit. Discover how gold and silver can
help your retirement dreams come true. You can even own
them in an ira. With over eight billion in transactions
and thousands of five star reviews, Liar is your leading source.
(32:36):
Call eight hundred four to eight zero one one zero
zero and with a qualified purchase get up to fifteen
thousand in bonus gold or silver call eight hundred four
to eight zero one one zero zero eight hundred four
to eight zero one one zero zero. Keep in mind
that any investment has a certain amount of risk associated
with it, and you should only invest if you can
afford to bear the risk of loss. Before making investment decisions,
(32:59):
you should carefully consider and review all risks involved. Welcome
back to red pilled America. So in the early nineteen fifties,
British astrophysicist and atheist Fred Hoyle began a search for
the origin of life on Earth. Carbon is the building
blocks of life, and Hoyle wanted to figure out where
(33:20):
it came from and how it was formed in nature.
He concluded that carbon must have come from the reactions
in the sun. Hoyle did the calculations for how this
reaction occurs in stars and was struck by the unbelievable
precision necessary for carbon's formation. The process had to be
done just right, or life as we know it would
never have existed. The finding led Fred Hoyle to conclude
(33:42):
that the facts overwhelmingly suggested that a super intellect tinkered
with physics, chemistry, and biology to set the universe in motion.
The fine tuned argument was born as research progressed. Scientists
began finding more and more fundamental scientific constants and quantities that,
if they were modified just a little bit, all life
as we know it would have never formed. British mathematical
(34:05):
physicist Roger Penrose, who won the Nobel Prize in physics,
calculated from scientific observations the initial conditions of the universe
at the Big Bang, and what he found was nothing
short of a miracle.
Speaker 4 (34:17):
It was very very special. How special was it? You
can actually work this out. It's so special that the
odds against the special initial state coming about by chance
are less than one path and ten to the power
tend to the power one hundred and twenty three. If
you try to write this out one zero zero zero
(34:38):
zero zero with this number of zeros, you'd try to
put one zero in every particle in the observable universe.
You'd be way short. That's not enough room to put
all the zeros in. So I didn't want to give
you some feeling for how special the initial state of
the universe was. And for some reason people, you know,
they try and say, well, you don't want such and
such a theory or so and so a theory because
(35:00):
that requires fine tuning or something like that. Well, there's
going to be fine tuning. This is fine tuning. This
is incredible precision in the organization of the initial universe.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
Scientists continued to find these constants in nature that if
even one of them were modified, even an inconceivably small amount,
life would never have formed. Take, for example, the cosmological constant,
which controls the expansion speed of the universe. If that
constant were to deviate by one part in ten to
the one hundred and twentieth that's one with one hundred
(35:32):
and twenty zeros, life as we know it would never
have formed. These fine tuned parameters are found everywhere, and
not just found in the general laws of nature. They're
also found in characteristics specific to our planet Earth. Again,
Eric Metaxis.
Speaker 9 (35:49):
So let's take the most basic thing, the moon. Who
would think that the moon being where it is and
what it is, would have any bearing on whether there's
going to be life on this planet? Right? You think, Hey,
if there's no one there, big deal. I'll get up
and I'll look at the sky. There's no moon. Who cares?
How does it affect me well, the way it affects
us as scientists, atheists and agnostics. Scientists will tell you,
(36:10):
without the Moon precisely the size that it is, and
I mean precisely, if it were fifteen percent larger or
fifteen percent smaller or four percent larger, there's no life
on Earth. And you go, that's ridiculous. Well, no, that's
what science tells us.
Speaker 1 (36:28):
The Moon contributes to the tilt of Earth's axis and
the speed it spins. If there were no Moon at
just the right size and just the right distance from
our planet, there would be no life on Earth.
Speaker 9 (36:38):
And it goes way on and on from there. I
always refer to the planet Jupiter. Right, You think, where's Jupiter?
If I look up in the sky, if I'm really trained,
I might be able to find a speck. Then I say, oh,
you see that, that's not a star, that's Jupiter. If
I really know what I'm doing, it is so far
away from us it couldn't possibly have any bearing on
(36:59):
life on Earth. But science tells us no, if Jupiter,
this monster massive planet, we're not there in our solar system.
This is a scientific fact. Then a thousand times more
asteroids and meteorites would hit the surface of the Earth,
wiping out life, you know, every ten years. But who
(37:21):
has ever heard in school that Jupiter is utterly central
to our existence of life on Earth. It sounds crazy.
I'm saying it now, and I'm thinking, man, somebody hearing this,
they're just going to think it's crazy. But this is
what science teaches us. And that's one parameter. And there
are now probably a couple of hundred of these kinds
(37:42):
of parameters.
Speaker 1 (37:42):
And if any one of these parameters weren't just right,
if any one of them deviated slightly, life as we
know it never would have formed. That's a scientific fact.
The list of fine tuned parameters goes on and on.
If Earth didn't have plate tectonics, you know, the thing
that gives places like California earthquakes. If Earth didn't have
these plates, claim that complex life would have never formed
(38:05):
on Earth.
Speaker 9 (38:06):
We didn't know about plate tectonics till the sixties. Now
we know that if we didn't have plate tectonics on
our planet, there can be no life. And part of
the reason this stuff is so astounding is because most
of us don't really know how things work. Why would
plate tectonics, you know, have anything to do with anything.
And so as I've looked into this, you start thinking
(38:28):
I'm going crazy because there is so much information and
yet literally no one knows about it. Not literally, but
close to literally no one knows about it. And those
who maybe do know about it, they don't talk about
it or they don't write about it in a way
that would suggest what would be obvious to most people
that oh, yeah, there is probably pretty clearly a brilliant,
(38:52):
all powerful intelligence that created all this stuff. There's no
other logical explanation. But that's so unpalatable to people, to
some people that they pretty much they just ignore it.
Speaker 1 (39:03):
Taken as a whole, this fine tuned universe is concrete
evidence of a fine tuner, a creator. Scientifically speaking, the
odds are so overwhelmingly against life ever half forming that
it practically had zero chance. And that's no exaggeration. All
of these parameters coming together to form life on Earth
is less likely than you winning the lottery jackpot over
(39:25):
one hundred times in a row with one lottery ticket
each time, and it all happening on your first try.
That's because the formation of stars, solar systems, and galaxies
is not an iterative process. Physics doesn't tinker until it
gets it right. That's not the way physics works. Biologists
claim evolution explains how life on Earth evolved from a
(39:45):
single cell organism because life builds on the successes of
the past, you know, survival of the fittest. Whoever has
specific traits goes on to survive, and those traits are
passed on to the next generation, the organism getting smarter
and smarter, until one day a single cell organism becomes
Cardi B. That's not how space evolves. There is no
(40:05):
selection process. It was all set in motion, and through
the miraculous laws of physics, with just the right fundamental
constants tuned to just the right numbers, solar systems formed
until a planet came along that was in just the
right galaxy, placed next to just the right kind of
Sun that produced carbon, that planet being just the right
(40:26):
size and just the right distance from the Sun and
just the right size Moon orbiting it, and just the
right size gas planet Jupiter shielding it. The odds of
this happening on its own is a few decimal places
after never and for those that think, well, there has
to be life out there, somewhere. I think astronomer's Stephan
Web may have put it best. Web is involved in
(40:49):
a project called Breakthrough Starshot that's developing a proof of
concept space probe capable of reaching Alpha Centauri, the closest
solar system that's similar to ours.
Speaker 3 (40:59):
If the galaxy contains a trillion planets, how many will
host stibilization capable of contemplating like ours a projects such
as Breakthrough Starshot, habitability, right sort of planet around the
right sort of star. The trillion becomes a billion, stability
a climate that stays benign for eons. The billion becomes
(41:23):
a million.
Speaker 13 (41:24):
Life must start.
Speaker 3 (41:26):
The million becomes a thousand. Complex life forms must arise,
The thousand becomes one sophisticated two use must develop. That's
one planet in a thousand galaxies. To understand the universe,
they'll have to develop the techniques of science and mathematics.
That's one planet in a million galaxies. To reach the stars,
they'll have to be social creatures capable of discussing abstract
(41:49):
concepts with each other, easier complex grammar. One planet in
a billion galaxies, and they have to avoid disaster, not
just self inflicted, but from the Skies two that planet
around a centauri. Last year it got blasted by a flare.
One planet in a trillion galaxies just does in the
(42:11):
visible universe.
Speaker 1 (42:13):
I think we're alone. George Lucas has tricked us into
believing that life is out there on tattooine. The improbability
of our fine tune universe has startled many of the
most prominent scientists in the world. English physicist Paul Davies
has said, quote, there is for me powerful evidence that
there is something going on behind it all. It seems
(42:34):
as though somebody has fine tuned nature's numbers to make
the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming end quote.
Astrophysicist George Greenstein has stated quote, as we survey all
the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency
must be involved. Is it possible that, suddenly, without intending to,
(42:56):
we have stumbled upon the scientific proof of the existence
of a supreme being? Was it God who stepped in
and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? End quote?
Even fame physicist Stephen Hawking has stated, quote the laws
of science as we know them at present contain many
fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of
the electron, and the ratio of masses of the proton
(43:18):
and the electron. The remarkable fact is that the values
of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted
to make possible the development of life end quote. The
odds of Earth forming life are so astronomically improbable that
it has some scientists pointing to the only logical conclusion
there is a creator. The facts are just that clear.
Speaker 9 (43:39):
We should be teaching this in schools because, by the way,
what I'm saying, this is science. This is not Christian science.
This is science. Why doesn't everyone know about this? Like,
it's not like I'm reading conspiracy theories or crazy stuff.
I'm reading basic stuff written by scientists that other scientists
agree on that this is not just crazy stuff, and
(44:01):
yet no one talks about And I've always felt that
part of the problem that we have in American culture
right now is those who are conservative or those who
are people of serious faith, they are not the folks
telling the stories. They're not the people in Hollywood who
are sort of setting the cultural temperature. They are usually
(44:23):
on the outs. And so even though you might be
right about something, good luck getting that word to anyone.
Speaker 1 (44:36):
Which leads us back to the question can science prove
the existence of God?
Speaker 9 (44:44):
The little told story is that science has over the
last fifty or so years, effectively proved God. In other words,
I don't even think it's like, well, it's kind of
pushing us toward God. If you're honest, you'd have to say,
I don't know what to say. I don't like it,
but it seems obvious, whether you're talking about the big be,
whether you're talking about the fine tuned universe, whether you're
(45:04):
talking about the impossibility that life arose from non life
four billion years ago through random natural processes. I mean,
the more science we know, ironically, the more we're pushed
to believe in a creator God, which is the precisely
the opposite narrative that we've been fed since we were,
you know, in the cradle.
Speaker 1 (45:25):
Physicist Paul Davies once said, quote, there is now broad
agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is, in
several respects fine tune for life end quote. I agree.
If you look at the scientific facts as we know
them today, and you're honest, it's just irrefutable that a
universe fine Tune for Life requires a fine tuner.
Speaker 2 (45:48):
To support Eric Metaxas's work or Bias books, visit Ericmataxis
dot com. That's E R I C M E t
a xas dot com. Red Pilled America is an iHeartRadio
original podcast. It's produced by me Adrianna Quartz and Patrick
Carrelci for Informed Ventures. Now, our entire archive of episodes
is only available to our backstage subscribers. To subscribe, visit
(46:11):
Redpilled America dot com and click support in the topmenu.
Thanks for listening.
Hosts And Creators
Adryana Cortez
Patrick Courrielche
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com