Transcription
does a Multiverse exist that's that's a
legitimate scientific question and if it
does does that explain all the fine
tuning and what I found in that is that
though it seems like it solves the fine
tuning that the argument for purpose
actually shows up even within the
Multiverse can you unpack that a little
[Music]
bit I'm joined today by Dr Zink who am I
in saying that you just got back from
Antarctica I did just get back from
Antarctica that is correct and I'm and
that makes me very jealous so what were
you what what were you doing down there
so part of my job I work for a uh work
over at UCLA as a project scientist and
the particular experiment we're working
on is a dark or an antimatter detector
and so we were building a detector want
to launch it on a balloon and so we were
down in Antarctica assembling
the detector getting ready for a balloon
launch which hopefully will happen here
in later
December so will that
balloon just does it have enough lift
basically to get outside of the
atmosphere on its own without any
propulsion or how does that actually
work that's correct it it it's uh
designed to fly up at 120,000 ft so
120,000 divide by 5 that's about 25
miles up somewhere in that range um and
it you're correct it just you fill it up
with some amount of helium it expands I
think it's got 40 million gallons of
volume to it so it's a pretty good siiz
balloon when it gets up there I think
our detector all said and done weighs
about 8,000 pounds and so it's going to
launch that up fly around Antarctica for
30 or 40 days Gathering data while it's
doing that and you said it's measuring
antimatter that's what it's designed to
detect correct so what what is
antimatter and is it that is it
25 miles above the Earth well so so a
little bit more details of what we're
looking for there antimatter is just for
every particle that exists in the world
there's an anti-particle to it so if you
got protons there's antiprotons if you
got electrons there's anti- electrons we
call them positrons typically and so
what we're looking for is a particular
particle that if you take a proton which
is the center of a hydrogen atom and if
you add a neutron to it that becomes
what's called an anti- duton or sorry a
deuteron we're looking for the
antiparticle of that and the reason why
you have to go up into space is that
matter and antimatter particles and
antiparticles have this property that
when they get together they annihilate
and into Pure Energy so if there while
there may be antiparticles floating
around here they run into particles very
quickly and disappear and so if you get
up 120,000 ft up above the atmosphere
those antiparticles can go quite a long
distance before they interact and so
that's why we we need to be up there so
we can actually see them before they get
absorbed by something in the
atmosphere and what hypothesis is being
tested or what I guess I I'm trying to
think of a a more scientific way to say
it but what value is being added what
question is being answered what what
kind of what's the purpose of the of the
whole project the purpose of the project
is again to search for these antidoron
and if we find a handful of these you
know 5 to 10 in our experiment which
will last for 30 or 40 days we take on
the order of a billion events but if we
find a handful of the ones we're looking
for it will tell us what dark matter is
because the one of the leading
candidates for dark matter we can
measure its gravitational interaction we
know dark matter is out there we suspect
it's a kind of particle but we don't
know what kind of particle it is so
we're looking for that and if it's a
certain kind of particle it's its own
antiparticle so that when it hits
another Dark Matter it will annihilate
into energy and it has enough energy to
produce these anti- dudon and there's
virtually no other way to produce
anti-ron out in space so if we find some
of these anti- duton in our detector
that will tell us ah we now know what
dark matter is and that will be a really
cool find if it works out that way wow
so that actually could be a massive find
also exactly yeah no it really is so I
mean if if we're successful and we find
some and somebody verifies it with
another experiment likely the head of
our project will get a Nobel Prize it's
that level of Discovery if we were to
find it that's exciting how long were
you down there for I was down there for
about three weeks so I went back went
down in early November uh started
working on assembling the detector there
are people St still down there working
on assembling the detector uh pretty
much have it put together we're just in
the testing debugging phase and
hopefully like I said we're supposed to
fly somewhere or launch the balloon
somewhere in late December here and
it'll for 30 or 40 days and then we'll
bring it down and you know even once we
start launching we're going to start
getting data but then we'll do a more
intense data analysis period trying to
figure out what we found and what we
haven't found when you arrived were
there people down there who were kind of
dictating where you would go and would
not go I've heard so much about how
Antarctica is sort of like this highly
restricted area and and it's like humans
are really only allowed in an extremely
small part of it and like did you what
was your experience
uh in terms of like who who what who was
down there and what what how did that
all go down well so it's it's really
kind of cool because we're actually on
an island we're at McMurdo Station which
is on Ross Island and it's a volcanic
island but around the island it's
surrounded by ice so so there would be
ocean and a sea around there but it's
all iced over so our
C7 airplane that we came in on which is
a pretty good sized plane lands out on
the ice but
you know we were driven in on a road
come into McMurdo Station it's a small
City that's there I mean you know small
City but none less a functioning City in
that F in that fashion um we had dorms
we could stay in there's a galley places
to eat uh not restaurants but uh you
know places to go visit for just to
socialize uh we were free to walk around
the base could go out on Hikes you know
I went out on a few hikes while we're
there I I wouldn't say it's highly
restricted that you can't go anywhere or
that they're keeping you from going
anywhere it's just kind of a dangerous
place and there's not a lot of support
if you get hurt and so if you were to
break a leg or if you were to get
trapped somewhere it would take a lot of
resources to deal with that and so
they're just trying to limit that
because we're trying to do science down
there rather than go find people who get
hurt and take care of them you get 15%
off everything in the store by joining
the wisdom society and we're making the
wisdom Society 30% off between now and
the end of the year because I really
really want you guys to join I want to
pull you over the line I want you to be
a part of this because the conversations
have been amazing the book club with
special guests like Steven Meer has been
amazing become a premium member today
sign up for the year get the 30% off and
get a free wisdom Society members mug go
to daily DOA wisdom.com for more details
I hope to see you guys there now back to
the video another thing I wanted to
discuss with you I don't know if you've
seen it or not or how much you know
YouTube you watch or podcast you listen
to but Francis Collins recently went on
the Alex o'conor podcast it got side uh
sidetracked onto this idea of could God
have used different constants different
numbers different mathematical numbers
to make a universe let me play just a
minute of their conversation here so
that you can have the context is God
constrained by these constants he
chooses to be he chooses to be you don't
know that in his existence those
constants exist he's not part he created
but he is not himself part of the
created universe so this is the thing
that that sort of confounds me is that
before the universe exists and you just
have sort of God up in The Ether and
he's sort of thinking about creating
this universe to put it crudely and for
some
reason God is confined to these very
narrow
restraints and in fact could not create
a life permitting universe but within
those
constraints and those and and and
therefore before this universe is even
created God is in some way constrained
by the strong and weak nuclear force I
don't understand that at all you're
suggesting that God is part of the
creation that God put in place for the
universe God doesn't have to be
constrained that way God is outside of
space outside of time yeah not not B
basically having to adhere to any of
such I don't mean that God is
constrained by those forces that they're
like acting upon him I mean that he's
constrained in the sense that he can
only create a material world that abides
by those particular constraints oh I
think you could create create any
material world I think he wanted to
create one that was interesting and so
he made the selection of those equations
and those constants in order for it not
to just be a big waste of time but would
it have been impossible for him to
create a universe that's life emitting
and just as interesting in which gravity
was
Stronger well I don't think it would
have been as
interesting God was interested in
thought but but I mean a thought for
missing Universe right so it's like a
universe where basically everything is
the same as it is now let's say that um
that the gravity is stronger but this
dark energy that's causing the universe
to expand is a bit stronger or there's
some other introduced force or or in
other words when God goes to create the
universe is he constrained in the sense
that if he wants to create this thought
permitting universe that everything has
to be so finally Balan it seems like I'm
missing something because I that doesn't
seem to answer the question I guess
that's kind of your point it didn't seem
to land the plane there cuz cuz when I
think about fine tuning what I the way I
think about it is this way is
that the question I have is do we see
evidence of
purpose in the universe and fine-tuning
is one way to argue for that so for
example I go out and look at my car and
let I find that lo and behold every bolt
in my car has this kind of specific set
of measurements to it they're not just
you know if things were Rand not even
random but just left to left to the way
things work under the laws of physics
you would expect this wide mix of them
the fact that they all all the bolts and
all the nuts seem to line up and they
fit perfectly it it you could argue
that's fine- tuning but it's like these
things fit together they work the way
they do to accomplish a purpose if you
will and so when I think of fine tuning
in the universe that's kind of the way
I'm thinking about
because it's not the question could it
be different because I could go through
there and use all English bolts on my
car or I could use all metric bolts
there are two different ways to do it
but both of them are fine-tuned because
they're still accomplishing
something that they're both going
towards a goal if you will and so that's
kind of the question I'm trying to ask
when I look at fine tuning arguments or
things that are used for fine-tuning you
know so you can talk about things uh you
of the examples that just kind of tend
to come to my mind is we know that the
universe is expanding and the expansion
rate drives what sort of structure forms
in the universe and one of the things
people recognize is that gravity is a
much weaker Force than the
electromagnetic force uh so if you take
two protons and put them next to each
other and ask how much do they affect
each other because of the charge which
is the electromagnetic force and how
much do they affect each other together
because of the mass which is the
gravitational force the electromagnetic
force is orders of magnitude you know
it's like 10 you know a trillion
trillion trillions you know so it's
enormously larger well that means now
that if we're talking about the
expansion of the universe gravity is
what largely drives the expansion of the
universe if it were
true that there were more protons than
electrons in the universe or more
electrons than protons then you can now
so you consider that scenario you can
now ask how much more would it need to
be before it started dominating the
expansion of the universe and it turns
out it's a really small number because
electromagnetism is so much stronger in
fact if the amount of charge the number
of protons and the number of electrons
were not the same to one part in 10 the
37 then electromagnetism would drive the
expansion of the universe and it would
drive it so rapidly that you wouldn't
get structures formed in the universe so
that that's an example of fine-tuning
that the number of prot the number of
positive charge and the number of
negative charge and so it's not even
just restricted to electrons and protons
it's just positive and negative charge
turns out that needs to be fine-tuned to
a very small
amount so okay so that that's an
interesting thing to show up is that
important to life being here it turns
out it's very important to life being
here but then I also have to ask the
question
does that just kind of is that what I
would expect naturally to happen and it
turns out that when you go in and look
at the physics lo and behold one of the
things that drives physicists is
symmetry that you know we talk about
conservation laws like conservation of
energy or conservation of mass or
whatever all of those are a result of
some fundamental symmetry in the
universe well there's also a symmetry
that
says having zero charge is a very
symmetric thing and so there's
conservation of charge and it's that's
related to some symmetry so here I've
got this property which is very
important to life seems to be incredibly
fine-tuned but in this particular
instance I have a good reason to
physically expect it to be that way so
something I give this long exp or you
know this kind of detailed description
of this to show what are some of the
things that we need to look at that when
we're arguing for fine tuning one does
it take on a pretty specific value is
that value important to life
and is there a good natural explanation
for it and so if if it's not a
particularly weird value then it's
probably not fine-tuned if it's not
important to life it's probably not
fine-tuned and if there's a good
explanation for natural explanation for
it it may not be fine-tuned also and so
why I think fine-tuning actually exists
though is that there are numbers of
things I we can point to and it seems
like the more we understand about the
universe the more we see this fine
tuning show up so to me that's a
signature that there's something really
going on there and I'll give you one
example where that plays out we look at
the expansion rate of the universe if
it's much faster then all the stuff in
the universe gets spread to uniformly
you don't have the large scale structure
that allows places where life can exist
to form if it happens more slowly you
get very dense structures and you mostly
get black holes and so either one of
those scenarios doesn't work and so you
can actually do calculations and show
that if the mass density was one part in
60 larger smaller very early in the
universe the expansion would either be
too fast or too slow for life to exist
so here you've got a scenario where
you've got this value that takes on a
very narrow range it's incredibly
important to life and seems to have no
explanation well that is until kind of
the late 1980s early 90s where we
realized that in inflation happened in
our universe and inflation actually
drives that value very close to what it
needs for the expansion rate of the
universe so it seems like we've gotten
rid of the fine-tuning by understanding
more until you go in and look at how
inflation happens and to get inflation
to work requires this real convoluted
potential so inflation requires a whole
bunch of fine-tuning to work so this now
reminds me of those little uh uh balloon
tubes that were filled with water it's
like you got them in your hand and you
try and squeeze it I'm like okay I can
squeeze it and make it smaller except it
kind of pops out your hand one way or
the other if you that we have this stuff
that is it looks like it's it's it's a
weird value it's critical to life and we
we seem to have scientific Advance say
okay no it really isn't and we've gotten
rid of the finetuning and then it pops
up bigger somewhere else that process
has repeatedly gone on as we've
investigated fine-tuning and so that's
why I think it's a real effect it's like
something's really there because this
universe needs to have certain
constraints or else life's not going to
exist no there's there's not a lot of
par there are not a lot of options you
can have in a universe that actually
permits life and the more we know about
life it seems like the more constraints
there are on what the universe must
behave that seems to make the evidence
for the fine-tuning stronger
which points to the universe being here
for a purpose and I think that's what
the fine-tuning argument really does is
illuminates that there's a purpose to
the
universe that's really helpful and as a
followup to that am I right in my
understanding that if not for going into
the
Multiverse
hypothesis there's only one at bat right
there's only
one big bang and everything else
happening that in other
words all of this is so precisely as it
is and there was only one opportunity
for that all to dial in perfectly is
that is that the general idea or so in
other words is the is the reason that
the Multiverse hypothesis exist as a
response to saying well what if there
was a bunch of
opportunities that then by based on Bas
you know
probability created this one dialed in
scenario but but apart from the
Multiverse am I right in in my
understanding that just I'm talking just
science that it's like you know there's
one uh bang big bang that
that includes all of this fine-tuning is
I guess what I'm trying to say no that
is right in in that you know if you go
to the early late ' 80s early 90s that
in that range 607s 80s it's like there's
one universe and so that's why how did
life get here was such a fascinating
problem is because given the one shot we
had at it life seems really weird how
did it get here how do we explain it so
that so that is correct now what I would
say is this it's not like scientists
were going along saying boy it'd be
really nice if we had a lot of
opportunities how could we develop a
model that allows us to have that it
actually was driven the other way around
science recognized that if there were a
lot of opportunities that would explain
you you could use that to potentially
explain the fine tuning but what
ultimately happened was they're saying
all right how do we explain the universe
there are these features of the universe
that are hard to explain given our
standard Big Bang cosmological picture
and what they recog what scientists
recognize is that if our universe
underwent a period of inflation very
early in its history it would explain
many of those features you know stuff
about magnetic monopoles the geometry of
the universe the temperature of the UN
the temperature of the cosmic microwave
background all of these things a period
of inflation would explain and then they
started saying okay is there evidence
for inflation and lo and behold I think
there's pretty strong evidence that
inflation happened and then they asked
the question okay how does inflation
happen how do we understand the
mechanism behind inflation and it's when
they started understanding the mechanism
behind
inflation which at that point time had a
lot of
scientific I don't want to say it was
demonstrated but it had a lot of lot of
evidence in its support when they
started investigating it's like wait a
second if inflation works it seems to
produce a Multiverse and so it wasn't
like again I just want to emphasize that
scientists didn't think well we need a
lot of universes how can we do that it
was let's try and understand this
universe and oh inflation happened and
oh as we're looking at inflation maybe
the Multiverse actually so we might live
in a Multiverse so it
was we just you know we don't get to
stand back and say oh scientists just
invented the Multiverse to get around
all this evidence for fine tuning they
were really trying to understand the
universe better and it seems like that's
a very good and plausible explanation
for the best explanation of our universe
so now I got to ask the question okay so
it does a Multiverse exist that's that's
a legitimate scientific question and if
it does does that explain all the fine
tuning and what I found in that is that
though it seems like it solves the fine
tuning that the argument for purpose
actually shows up even within the
Multiverse and can you unpack that a
little bit so I I'll go back to a point
you made there where you know if this is
the only Universe we have we now have to
explain how do you get
life when this is the only shot it seems
very improbable and the improbability of
Life made it hard to
explain now you look at the the so if
the Multiverse exists and it's the
explanation for life what's the
explanation that it's basically given
okay yes life requires this rare set of
circumstances improbable set of
circumstances to come about the
Multiverse basically says everything
that can happen happens and life just
shows up because it's one of those
possibility that can happens that's
basically the naturalistic Multiverse
explanation of life here on Earth now
you have this question okay wait a
second if everything that can happen
does happen I need to ask the question
is this the only way life shows up
because we think life is arrangement of
atoms and it just all shows up whether
you know some evolutionary process it
starts early and life grows that that's
the it's rare it's it's incredibly
improbable but that's the way it
happens
well as scientists think that's not the
only way you can get life you could get
life maybe once Life Starts somewhere
these life advances to a place where
these creatures can create universes
with simulated
life and so we now have to ask the
question are we actually the life that
is the production of this evolutionary
process naturalistic evolutionary
process or are we part of some Advanced
civilization
simulation how do we tell the difference
between those two an even more bizarre
idea is that again if life is just an
arrangement of atoms well you get
thermal fluctuations
the you know this is basic
thermodynamics that you have your your
background and then you got these
fluctuations well you can have
fluctuations where the right number of
atoms comes into place and you get a
brain and jeffing goes oh I'm here and
then poops out of existence incredibly
rare but again look at how the
Multiverse explains life everything that
can happen does happen so as rare and
improbable as this brain fluctuating
into existence it happens in the
Multiverse are we one of of those brains
or are we this history and when you
begin to delve in and ask the question
how do we how do we address are we a
simulation are we this evolutionary
outcome are we a boltzman
brain well the only one that explains
how science works is if we're this
evolutionary history and it turns out
most ways of trying to account which
one's most probable this evolutionary
history are the ones that are
improbable well things that are
improbable might be fine-tuning and
pointing to purpose purpose and so even
in the Multiverse because you now have
to deal with every way life could come
up it looks like we're a rare kind of
life and that still has that we're
atypical or we're unusual that points to
purpose and fine tuning so even in the
Multiverse the naturalistic Multiverse I
will say you still get a fine-tuning or
a or a or a t teleological argument
where there's purpose there's there's a
reason why this is all played out this
way
so what do you think are uh the the
biggest obstacles within all of this for
someone buying into the god hypothesis
because that's I know kind of the the
elephant in the room here as we're
essentially saying hey purpose means
there's a purpos and you know design
means there's a
designer uh you know obviously I'm a
Believer for not not just for these
types of reasons uh although that
definitely helps but you know for a
number of reasons so uh but I just I
always put myself in the shoes of the
person who
just that that you know be being
intelligent
being uh answer to these questions
about about all these topics just it
just seems like such an
insurmountable uh obstacle for for some
people and I and I always trying to
understand what what that is uh and so
um what do what do you think what do you
think is is going on there I I this is
I'm not leading this question in any way
I just uh I'm trying to because you're
basically it's no longer a scientific
answer I guess but anyways what like
you're you're essentially saying we see
in we we see the markers of
intentionality we see the markers of
purpose we see uh mathematically
something that that what like wow I mean
how lucky can you get until it's not
luck and also um I mean a lot of other
things right like like uh the fact that
we can perceive Beauty the fact that we
have Consciousness there's just a lot of
things that kind of make sense in the
being scenario um but why why is that
such a hard pill to swallow for some and
not for others I guess is my
question I think that question probably
has more answers than there are people
on the Earth if I would sure but I I do
think there I've at least seen a few
different classes to that I think there
are some who perceive that the moment
you start introducing an intelligent
being into scientific discussions that
that's just a cop out and you're not
wanting to do the hard work of trying to
understand how the universe works and so
there's this belief somewhat Justified
that Christians use God to get around
doing the hard work of trying to
understand how the universe works and
being a scientist I know how much fun
doing science is and so the moment you
come in and say well God did it I just
have to accept it I'm like I don't like
that you know so I think there's some of
it where how Christians have portrayed
how science Works has been a detriment
to that Swiss AI Jesus project to bridge
digital and divine draws users praise as
questions remain now I know that's a
hard pivot but stick with me for just 60
seconds here you guys have heard me talk
in the past about ground news they an
app and website that combines news from
local and international sources around
the world as well as how different
stories are being covered for example if
you type in Jesus in the search bar you
can see there's 1,626 recent stories
that hit that search term and you can
also see the top story right away which
is the title that I just read about this
AI Jesus so let's just use this story as
an example to see how this works this
story has been covered 58 times so far
the bias distribution is 27% left
leaning coverage 62 Center and 11 right
leaning coverage which is actually kind
of surprising because it looks like the
story is actually a blind spot for the
right since only 11% of coverage comes
from right leaning Outlets so if you
mainly read right leaning Publications
you may have actually missed this
bizarre story all right so let's compare
the coverage how do the headlines
compare the left seems to emphasize
technological capabilities and the
inclusivity of AI Jesus such as its
multilingual communication whereas the
right questions the broader societal
implications of blending the so-called
digital and the Divine what I love about
ground news and why I continue to work
with them is that they help you stay
informed on the topics you care about
from sources you trust while still
highlighting blind spots and Reporting
and exposing media bias so sign up
through this QR code or use my link in
the description for 50% off this
unlimited access plan it's their biggest
discount of the year whether it's for
yourself or as a gift I think that
they're doing important work especially
in this weird cultural moment where it
seems like truth is a harder thing than
ever to actually get to the bottom of so
check out ground news think for yourself
now back to the interview many Skeptics
I've met would like to portray that oh
clearly the evidence points to God
doesn't exist and many Christians who
would like to portray and if you think
that God exists you're being irrational
and many Christians portray oh the
evidence is so compelling towards God
that it's so clear that he exists and if
you don't believe in God you're being
irrational and it leaves this dichotomy
that I don't really fall into either of
those that I I really do think there's a
lot of evidence that points to God's
existence but I can also understand how
someone could look and say you know what
I there's a lot of evidence there but
I there's some uncertainty and I and I
think there I think it's still an open
question
and I if you if
you treat if somebody were to treat that
like that was an unhonest question I
would quit listening to you because it
just says you don't really understand
you're kind of dismissing the actual
struggles and thoughts and intellectual
and social wrestling that I'm doing here
and so I think there there's some people
in that Cate I would put myself that
that I I tend to be in that kind of
middle range of I think there's strong
evidence for but I could see why it's
not compelling to certain people and and
I actually think scripturally speaking
that's the way the Bible describes
things I mean when you think about it if
the Bible is correct and I'm convinced
it is you've got the second person of
the godhead in human form walking on the
earth and people still didn't believe he
was God you know so I mean there can't
be any better evidence than that in some
sense and so it's not I don't think
we're ever going to prove that God does
exist and I don't think it will ever be
proved that God doesn't exist there's
data if you want evidence to to believe
that God exists there's an abundance of
evidence but it's not something that
compels you to do that or be
irrational and then I think there are
also some people who just have been hurt
by people in the church or bad family
environments or they don't understand
how there could be all this suffering in
the world there are genuine intellectual
arguments that they don't have answers
to there are uh
emotional relational issues that they've
been hurt I think like I said the the
number of reasons could span the
Spectrum and so that's why as as in my
personal interactions with people I'm
less concerned with how do I get these
arguments in line so when I encounter
someone who doesn't believe in God I can
present
this great case I'm saying all right I
need to know how to present Christianity
well but then I want to know who are you
what's going on with you what are your
real questions you know often people
bring up questions like yeah I I wrestle
with that too you know so it's it's a
relational approach of wanting to know
where they are and ultimately the
question I'm asking is okay God how are
you working in this person's life soce
you that a Multiverse doesn't exist so
that we can talk about Christianity well
that's going to be a really stilted
conversation but if you're interested in
you know how could there be not be alien
life out there well let's have a
discussion and how can I bring my
Christian view into that present it to
you let you think about and ponder it
and ultimately recognize that it's the
spirit's work in your life that is going
to ultimately do that work that
convinces you one way or the other that
makes a lot of sense that makes a lot of
sense I also
think well uh I let me just ask
you why do you want people to be
Christian
because I think that is who they're
designed to be we
are again I think there's an abundance
of evidence that scripture is correct
and scripture reveals that the god the
creator of the universe the father who
eternally begat the son that the spirit
proceeds from that that love that God
the Father shows to the son overflows
through the spirit to us that he's
inviting us into that relationship that
that's what we're designed for I want
people to know that
um some people may not want that they
reject that's their call not my call I
want people to know that and I want
people to know that in doing
that that's where they're designed one
they'll have eternal life but two even
in this life it just it's the way to
live that is truly fulfilling and
satisfying that's what I want people to
know
yeah yeah I think that I think that
that's important because
I I feel that it can often be
misunderstood as try just like
Christians want to just like win the
chess game of the conversation
and have succeeded in convincing the
other person that God is real and then
have the ego boost of that or the in or
the just gratification of having changed
someone's mind but I think what you said
is so important that it's
I I forget the the reference to it but
there's a verse in scripture that talks
about basically the role of love in all
of this they'll know they'll know that
you're my disciples if you love one
another right and uh that might sound
hippie-ish but I think it's important
for people to know that it's um that
there is
a a love that's fueling the the the
effort and I I love what you said too
about for for different
people the roadblock to belief is going
to look a little bit different and so
it's like you want to talk Multiverse
let's talk Multiverse you want to talk
aliens let's talk aliens but the idea of
that the shape of the conversation
should be particularized to where the
individual person is at that's one of
the things that's so hard about a public
discussion like this it's like I don't
know half of what's being said is
probably triggering some people and
maybe it's like helping some other
people it's it's it's always so
difficult but let me so we we' on some
of the science but I also have seen I've
seen some of your videos that deal with
aquinus five ways which I think is
really cool and that's something that
not a lot of people um talk about as
much anymore but I do think that there's
a bit of value in that more sort of
philosophical uh approach to things um
is that something that you are
comfortable going into on on the Fly
here like kind of breaking down some of
of
aquinus uh Sumo theological stuff I I
can talk a little bit about it I mean
there's a reason I went into
astrophysics and not philosophy because
one Fair one fascinates me far more than
the other I do really like philosophy
and I like learning about it but uh you
I I my interest in you know I have done
some reading not so much in the sum
theologica but in interacting with uh
you know some of our visiting Scholars
here at reasons to believe have a uh
interest in that and so I
have I have interacted with that because
I think there
the this the way the scientific
discussion plays out about the
discussion of whether God exists is a
philosophically kind of small version
that what aquinus insights into how to
think about things and what the ancient
philosophers were thinking about was a
more fully orbed discussion of existence
instead of just the material stuff and
that's what I found pretty interesting
about uh aquinus and Aristotle's way of
their philosophy behind that can can you
unpack then just that a little bit cuz
because even as saying that I I think I
know what you mean but I am interested
to learn more about just that piece we
we don't have to do a whole Deep dive
into all five and all that but but just
in terms of maybe maybe it's just a
matter of helping
to uh to show some contrast between like
you said kind of their way of viewing
reality versus maybe the way that some
sort of post-enlightenment uh
perceptions of reality are yeah well I
think one of the things that stood out
to me and uh you again I was having this
discussion with people who are far more
versed in uh Tom mytic philosophy but
you know that we look at things today we
talk about causes and they're almost
always material causes you know the the
Mater what what would be in h
Aristotle's term there were four
different types of causes there was the
the material cause the efficient cause
the final formal cause and the final
cause and if I if I got what was being
said there it's like to understand
something you need to understand all
those causes so could talk about why
does Jeff's Zink exist or you know like
why was the pot why why was the pot
boiling you can talk about the material
causes well there's atoms that are
moving in there and the temp the average
kinetic energy increase that would be
today's language we would use for that
increase to a certain point that the
vapor pressure you know the water
transition from a liquid to a vapor form
and so that would be the what what what
are going on with the material in it and
then there's the efficient causes of
well the teapot is sitting on top the
stove the stove was on the gas was
burning that's what was causing the
molecules to heat up so now we've got an
efficiency cause or the the physical
chain of cause if you will there but
what that misses is that there's also a
formal cause and a final cause and what
to the to what I understand in in that
that explanation there is that there's a
a formal cause in that water molecules
when they get hotter they behave in a
certain way and it's it's
it's not like there there is no other
option it's like if water goes from here
to here it gets hotter these are the way
it behaves in fact if you were to pour
water over certain types of materials it
always dissolves this way in these
conditions and so there's not this
Randomness to it um it's it's like it
always works this way there's a form of
what boiling water is supposed to be if
you will and it's kind of described in
some of the material and efficient
causes but it's something more than that
and you know it's that's kind of more
Illustrated when you talk about you know
like a sodium and a chlorine atom you
know sodium has certain set of
properties chlorine has a certain set of
properties and it's not like sodium
chloride is a mixture of those
properties that when they get together
this thing has an entirely different
form to it if you will and so you can
talk about formal causes and then
there's the final cause of it's like
where is this all going what's it going
to well the reason why the final cause
of the teapot is that somebody's making
tea you know and so the interesting part
of that discussion
was that that came out in the discussion
I think with his philosophers he said
that when scient when natural
philosophers finally said we're not
going to worry about final and formal
causes we're just going to look at the
material and efficient causes that's
when science really began to make
progress and it kind of makes sense
because what you're now doing there is
saying we're not going to look at the
kind of immaterial things we're going to
look at the the matter and how it
behaves those are the things that we can
do and measure and control and quantify
and that's where science began to take
off I just found that interesting that
now you come back hundreds of years
later and we're saying well science
which has restricted itself to the
material and the efficient causes is now
saying we know the explanation for
everything we know why the universe
exists and that there's no God
it's if you look at the trajectory it
was like okay to explain everything we
needed to know not only the material and
the efficient causes but we needed to
know the final and the formal causes
we're going to reject or we're going to
exclude those so that we can study
things here we're going to get to there
and now we can rule out that there's a
final and a formal cause you know it's
it's just an interesting chain of logic
to me
that because of restricting oursel
philosophically we're able to advance
scientifically those advances
scientifically are now leading us to
conclusion that those original we
shouldn't have to worry about anyway
because I think to really get a good
understanding you need to understand the
final and the formal cause also that's
really helpful and I think that a part
of that is highlighting that those
causes are non-competitive they're not
it's not one or the other or the other
they're they're
they're all working together to give a
complete answer basically and so to your
point about why why is the water boiling
which I I I love Dr John Linx who talks
about that as well he's like it's
boiling for the materialistic reason and
we can explain scientifically why and
and the other reasons that you just went
into and then also because I wanted a
cup of tea right right like that's
that's a part of the answer um does this
play into because it's just so funny how
often I anytime that there's a a a case
for God made or you know in intelligent
design is his given an explanation for
some reality that we're looking at god
of the gaps without fail comes out and I
see it in the comments uh that's
argument from ignorance argument from
ignorance god of the gaps but is what
you're saying about the the different
causes that each in different ways
explain a
phenomenon a part of answering why
labeling certain things as God of the
gaps is actually wrong namely because it
begins with
the the the end in mind basically at a
priority says only material explanations
are
valid the fact that you wanted a cup of
tea is not a material explanation
therefore you're saying you know you of
the gaps as an explanation for why the
why the water is boiling if you follow
what I'm saying like is can you kind of
tie this into just because I I just
I it it really feels like a catchall for
me if it feels like just one of those
phrases that people have learned they're
like whatever any time I hear God I
respond with god of the gaps and I I
just sense that there's not a lot of
thought going into that and so I kind of
want to just tease out you know what
maybe what would be a valid instance in
which we could label something and say
that is a god of the gaps argument or
that is an argument from ignorance but
then this would not be and so I I just
want to help people think through that
because again I think it's it's
something that it's like a it's like a
tool that people have learned like a
vocab word that people have learned and
I see it get used correctly sometimes
and incorrectly very
often well the immediate thought that
comes to mind as as you're asking that
question I actually had a number of
immediate thoughts but I I just remember
a piece of counsel that a wise Pastor
once gave to me when I you know we were
talking about I was interested in going
into apologetics and we were talking
about that and he made a statement to me
that I've not forgotten over the last 30
plus years he says before you argue
against a position make sure you
understand it well enough to argue for
it and I think what you're getting at
relates to a lot of that it's like okay
here's something I can just throw this
argument into it without actually
understanding what the person's saying
and so you know I I don't I would love
it if everybody approached things that
way I don't get that luxury but I can go
at things and try and approach it that
way and so I mean you know somebody came
along and said oh that's just got of the
gaps I think my question would be o okay
what do you mean by that how am I
applying god of the gaps is it just
because I said hey I'm bringing a god
into the equation that that's a kind of
a bad way to argue it if I'm saying well
we don't understand this so therefore
I'm injecting God then it's actually a
legitimate god of the gaps and so they
may see in me a flaw in my reasoning
that I'm not seeing and so just trying
to understand what is it that you're
arguing here why do you think I'm
arguing out of the gaps because what I
would contend at least a lot of the ways
that I try and approach argument for
fine-tuning it's not well we don't
understand this so therefore God it's
like well here's the argument here's how
it applies to why I think it points to
life here's where a naturalistic
explanation I'm trying to get as much
data into that as I can and then once I
have as much data and evidence and what
I what we do know then I step back and
say okay what's the best explanation for
this and I just find that as I'm looking
the more we know about the universe the
more I see evidence for God for a
designer popping up you know you look at
how Water Works and how carbon Works
which are fascinating molecule or you
know elements and molecules they're not
you know so so it could just be that
carbon you know we use water and we use
carbon because that's what life adapted
to but you go in and you study and it's
like you know carbon's ability to form
molecules is unlike any other element in
the period or any other combination of
elements in the period iodic table and
water's ability to maintain heat
transmit heat absorb heat um allow
chemical reactions to occur what it can
do again it's a it's a molecule that is
unlike any other liquid
molecule and so those are fascinating
things but now you say all right well
okay given Big Bang cosmology how would
you expect the elements to be existent
you'd expect based on how things happen
in the early universe that you'd have
hydrogen would be the most abundant and
then helium because it's the next most
massive and then lithium because that's
the next most abundant element then
burum and Boron and car and lo and
behold when we look at our universe the
most abundant elements in the universe
are hydrogen that that matches helium
that also matches because of the way
it's formed but the next most abundant
elements are carbon and
oxygen which are what you need for life
you know so it's it's not that I'm
saying well wow carbon so unique must
have be God created that way therefore
God exists it's like no okay we
understand how carbon works and the more
we understand we see how remarkable of
an of an atom of an element it is and we
look at oxygen and hydrogen and we see
how water behaves and we see the the
more we study we see its remarkable
characteristics and then we look at how
the universe formed and the universe is
structured the laws of physics are
structured in a certain way that assures
that carbon and hydro hen and oxygen are
the three most abundant reactive
elements in the universe helium is not
reactive this is building a case that it
all fits together the more we understand
the more it looks like it's fine tuned
and so that's where I think just asking
the question so what why do you think
you know how is this a god of the gaps
argument is it just a god of the gaps
because I'm bringing in an intelligent
designer trying to figure out what
they're actually saying and what they're
thinking there and then also making sure
that I'm applying what we know not what
we don't know to make an argument for
God I think those are the two things
that I really try and do when
interacting with the question you just
raised
there that's helpful that's helpful so
like the the analogy that I've given I
want to run this by you to see if I'm if
I'm because I've said this a few times
on the Channel I want to make sure that
in light of what you just said the way
that I have articulated this is
something that you think is right
basically which is you know a and
actually I got this original analogy
from Frank Turk at one point kind of
talks about this where uh you know
there's there's the the alphabet Cal
that has all the letters and you know
the kid comes home from school and it
the serial spells out uh I've run to the
grocery store I'll be back in an hour
love you Mom right and so but if you I I
guess it's like the most intuitive
answer to that data is that your mom
left you that message
uh but if you begin by saying that there
is no
Mom uh at all if you just say there is
there is no Mom uh to begin with then
you're forced to say there must have
been an earthquake or there must have
been something else that generated those
letters in that order uh and so by
default it's a mom of the gaps argument
to say mom did it mhmc because you began
by saying there's no Mom for sure like
there's definitely no Mom so then
therefore it is a mom of the gaps
argument to say we don't know because we
didn't see Mom do it but we think it's
probably mom yeah am I am I is that the
same thing as what you're saying it's
very similar yes and I I would just kind
of add in there it's like you know so if
you're a kid do you have reason to
expect that Mom exists well if you have
other data that says mom exists then mom
writing the the words in the in the
cereal that would make a good that would
strengthen the case for it but you know
if if Mom exists and mom hates making
messes and leaving food on the table
that would be evidence against mom doing
that and so it's it's really just kind
of asking the question if you just say
all right I just want to explain this
I've got to exclude I can exclude mom
existing I can exclude other evidence
you're going to likely end up in some
sort of argument for the gaps of
something because you're excluding
evidence and so I think it's just really
important we ask what is the evidence
pointing towards if if if I'm just
positing something with no evidence
except this looks weird that's a
whatever of the gaps argument but if I'm
excluding it because I don't like the
outcome I'm doing exactly the same thing
and I think it's much more related to
yeah what are we inclined or wanting to
believe anytime I want to believe
something I should ask myself okay I'm
wanting to believe this does the
evidence really support it or am I just
inclined to believe it and I think it's
fair to challenge the person who's on
the other side of that are you just
getting that because that's the
conclusion you want or does the evidence
really say so let's lay out the evidence
and see if we can find some objective
way way to agree on how we're going to
evaluate what the best explanation is
yeah maybe go going back to aliens for a
second maybe this is a better one since
we let's let's say we don't have
physical evidence of aliens but if we
did you know travel to a planet in a
different you know galaxy in the future
and we found uh a space station with a
bunch of
spacecraft and Compu operational
computers and everything else but we
didn't see any
aliens it's like kind of the question is
like is it is it at least logical to
think that maybe there are aliens
responsible for this space station and
all you know right is that is that the
same idea that we're we're looking at
that and we're saying you know
it appears to have some intentionality
and design features to it it appears to
be a functional operational space
station we have zero physical evidence
of these aliens yeah but we're we're at
least including that as a possibility in
the realm of possibilities that aliens
might have had something to do with a
space station uh rather than than uh not
including it from the from the GetGo I I
don't know if that makes sense or not it
is and I I I guess I would say the
moment we've traveled some else that
removes that entire first argument I had
against the being aliens because if we
can travel somewhere it's very
reasonable to assume that somebody could
travel back but I I would think it put
it just in ours if if we found out that
there were what appeared to be the
wreckage of spacecraft on the moon um if
we found the Moon is a better example
because we can actually yeah yeah so so
again you're always asking the question
I think it's highly improbable BAS B on
what I know of physics but one thing is
true of physics is that data trumps
Theory every time if the data says this
is what it is and the theory says it
can't the theory is wrong not the data
um so if you know what what I find why I
find the data for UFOs or uaps
unconvincing that it's aliens is that
the data that's there is the kind of
stuff I would expect given where we live
we we see things that their spacecraft
look remarkably like what ours would
they they may move in occasionally weird
ways but they're always kind of right at
the boundary of our techn they're always
fuzzy it's like if aliens were really
that alien or if they were really that
technological Advanced why
can't are they really just trying to
hide from us all the time because that's
what they would have to be doing there's
nothing about Humanity says that we can
go somewhere and hide all the time and
do it well so there's just a lot of
evidence stacked up in front of it but
if I've started seeing clear evidence of
something that transcends what I would
expect from
Human what what we can human
technologically do then the data would
force me to say okay the physics is
strongly against this but the data says
I need to re-evaluate what's going on
here and so I think that's kind of what
you're getting at is that there can be
evidence that's not I don't have
complete full evidence but there's
things that say I need to have a bigger
picture than what I might originally
think yeah exactly and I didn't mean to
throw you off by I I didn't mean like
Interstellar space travel like I was I
was saying like just the moon or Mars
but basically if you see if you see
basically like the markers of like if
you see like architecture and spaceships
and computers and things like that it's
like there's only a couple scenarios
right like it's either naturally created
it was like a really amazing tornado
that just generated a space station or
humans had actually been there in the
past and we didn't know it but we but we
are responsible for that space station
that we're looking at or they're
actually is something else that is not
human that made that space station and
all that I was trying to say is that
basically uh I think it's just silly to
like to not include the possibility of
some intelligent designer when you see
intelligent design it was basically
where I was trying to go with that like
don't Begin by saying that's not
possible when you're faced with like you
said data or or something actually
physical that you're looking at like I'm
thinking about the information inside of
the cell or you know some of these
things that it's just like I think we
should be open to all possibility
because we're facing something that
appears to be
designed I agree and you know I I would
say especially when you're looking at
things inside the cell and the way the
earth works there's there's some of that
you can say well that's just the way the
laws of physics work I think that's
there there is a lot to that argument
but there's a number of places where
what it seems like the technology that's
in the cell that's in life that's in the
Earth are far beyond anything we can do
and if we were to
to go somewhere else and somebody says
look what I created you'd look at the
cell and say oh that is so far beyond
what we can do but yet when we're having
this discussion in the context of does
God exists and I get other creatures in
God are they're they're different
classes of of explanation I will just
readily say that but
the sophistication of how life works by
analogy from what we can do require is
seems to point to a mind so beyond what
we're capable of that it's at least
reasonable to include that in there um
and and I do kind of wonder if how much
that's just a response to Christians
have whether rightly or wrongly been
perceived as saying well the Bible says
it so I don't have to look at the
science and I think we just have to as
Christians recognize that we haven't
always handled that well at least not in
some of the public vocal ways it's
happened and I think that's a legitimate
reason why people might be a little
hesitant to go that way I think that's
such a good point and it's basically the
idea about there's baggage and I think
that you're right we've created some of
it Believers have created some of it I
think it comes from other locations as
well but there there is real baggage
that has to be dealt with and almost
like an apology that needs to be made
sorry if we if we turned if we weren't
critical thinkers because we were too
married to a particular interpret of
this that we felt like had to then uh be
be you know uh wield like wielded in
some way against what was being observed
naturally like that's that was a mistake
if that to the extent that that did
happen so um man I could keep going
what's what's the LA I I always try to
end interviews with you know what
question have I not asked that I should
what what should we be talking about
that we haven't yet so as we're Landing
the plane here I guess I'll just open
that up to you is there is there
anything that you know you want to add
on top of this a cherry on top a last
thought um or or anything of that
nature I I've I've enjoyed our
conversation thoroughly we've hit a lot
of really important good I know sitting
here trying to think is there anything I
would love to say that we missed and I
think the the only part that I would add
or something I would like to comment is
that yeah I have found just as by my
nature I tend to be a fairly questioning
person uh you was like if somebody comes
and challenges me you know your position
is wrong I got to be honest my first
response is no it's not and I'm ready
hackles get up set the feet let's get
ready to battle here whether I know I'm
wrong or right I that's just my default
response is when somebody aggressively
approaches me and so I've kind of
thought about that that if I do that is
that kind of Representative of people
and I don't I don't think anybody likes
to be told they're wrong or even shown
they're wrong sometimes and so part of a
lot of my thought in how do I deal with
science apologetics talking to people
about the gospel is trying to ask the
question how can I what can I do to
smooth the way if you will um I look at
what when I change my mind most of the
time it's not because somebody's
presented overwhelming evidence it's
because they've done something that has
caused me to think why do I believe what
I do and so you know if if you come and
say hey I can show you that God doesn't
exist we're going to have a fight unless
I decide to step back and say I'm not
going to do that but if somebody gets me
talking about why do you think God
exists well now I'm thinking about the
reasons in my mind and trying to
evaluate are they good or not and I
think that's just what I try and do when
I'm talking to people is not here's all
the evidence how do you explain it it's
like how can we have a conversation
where the where might there be barriers
that are up where's things that you know
that I can engage and be a part of
what's going on to empathize with you
you there's just so many places where
people misunderstand Christianity and
what it's really about that yeah I've
just come to the conclusion that God is
never offended at an honest question um
if that was true Jesus would have
responded very differently to John the
Baptist but when John asked the question
he said hey go look at what the evidence
says and so as a scientist I love that
aspect of it I don't have to say I've
got to have all the answers and when
somebody comes at me I have a question
I'm like okay how do I go about
investigating that what am I going to be
find and I've done that enough times
that I am supremely confident that no
matter what the question what the
challenge as I go in and explore what
does the science really say and what
does Christianity really say that those
two are always going to line up at the
end because if God is the author of
scripture and the inspiration or the
inspiration of scripture and the author
of creation they're going to have to do
that and I found that time and time
again and so I've I am supremely
confident of that and that's what I want
Christians to walk in that kind of
confidence that they're just so
convinced that God and His Revelation
are trustworthy that they can go engage
any topic and any
person and rest in that confidence
anchored in the truth and be able to
share the gospel with the love that
Jesus gives them yeah and what I love
about that is that I really do feel that
culturally we're in a place right now
where people are very post uh like
people do not want to be told here's the
right answer here's how you should think
people want to listen to a conversation
people want to be able to ask a question
and people want to basically be able to
think for themselves which I think is a
really really good thing and I think
even Christians need to like pay
attention to that and be like stop
telling people even though we're called
to present the truth but like stop like
uh like cramming things down people's
throats as much as saying like hey come
let us reason together like let's let's
understand you know what isn't making
sense for you and and what questions you
have and maybe what counterpoints that
you have and we can kind of like it can
kind of go back and forth both ways in
fact that's kind of like the next Quest
I want to embark on on this channel
honestly is and I don't know the best
way to do it yet but it would be so cool
to get you know someone like you and
someone who is not a Believer but and
it's where it's not a debate it's more
of let's share notes let's reason
together let's figure out you know where
is their agreement where is their
disagreement why does each believe what
they believe and basically just have
like a long form conversation with
Believers and and non-believers or or
even you know between even inner Faith
right like Christians and Muslims and
just just that idea of of let's all talk
it out and reason together and let the
chips fall where they may rather than
kind of these separate silos of like
they're wrong they're wrong they're
wrong we're right we're right we're
right I just think there's so much value
in basically having that conversation
and I also just see so much of Jesus in
that because you know he he didn't stay
in his Silo he like went out to the he
called us to go to the highways and
byways but he also went and had dinner
with the the tax collector how dare you
you know the even the prostitute right
like he would get down and and so you
know that idea Jesus Friend of Sinners
and and just like you said not being uh
not being ashamed of the Gospel but also
not being afraid to talk with people or
even be corrected if we're getting you
know whatever we're getting wrong and
and just the humility to basically have
the conversation so I I think that
there's actually like a really really
big need for that and so um anyways I
I'll reach out to reasons to believe in
the future once I once I figure out the
best way to do it but uh but anyways I I
I just appreciate your time so much uh
today and everything that we talked
about you're right we really ping-ponged
around in a lot of different directions
but it was great I I like I said I
thoroughly enjoyed our conversation and
if you ever do that you know that
opposing or differing opinions dialogue
I've been trying any chance I get to do
that I would love to do that because I
think I think when it comes down to it
whenever understanding of any position
any set of positions is done I think
Christianity shines well in in any kind
of environment like that because it's I
firmly believe it's the truth love to do
it love what you're thinking about there
and again just really enjoyed our
conversation today if you enjoyed this
conversation you might also enjoy the
wisdom Society a growing community of
Believers from around the world that
meets weekly to discuss tough questions
to read scripture and to pray within the
wisdom Society there is also a book club
where members are joined by the author
of the book so that they can discuss the
book directly with the author join today
support this channel invest in yourself
grow in faith connect with Believers
from around the world click the link in
the description to find out more