"Scientists Are Hiding God!" Matt Dillahunty Couldn't Believe It

[00:00:00]Do you think there's a conspiracy amongst scientists to hide good evidence for God?

[00:00:07]>> Yeah, I do actually.

[00:00:09]>> Yeah. Cool. Thank you for demonstrating that you're a conspiracy theorist.

[00:00:12]That's exactly what I thought. What evidence do you have that there's a conspiracy amongst the elite scientists to hide evidence for God? I Well, you're completely correct. If the constants were different, the universe would be different.

[00:00:26]But what I asked was, how do you know there is any option for the constants to be different?

[00:00:33]>> Hello everyone and welcome back to Faith and Facts, where we explore life's biggest questions with curiosity, reason, and a commitment to understanding before judging.

[00:00:44]What happens when someone argues that science eventually reaches a point where God becomes the only possible explanation? Is that a compelling conclusion, or does it simply reveal how differently people think about evidence in the first place? The conversation you're about to watch may have happened some time ago, but the issues it raises are as relevant today as they've ever been. Matt Dillah Honey and Jimmy Snow are joined by Anthony from Virginia, who argues that atheism ultimately breaks down when confronted with the origin of the universe, the apparent fine-tuning of physical constants, and the existence of natural laws.

[00:01:21]Matt pushes back just as strongly, insisting that unanswered scientific questions are not by themselves evidence for a designer, and that admitting we don't know is intellectually different from claiming therefore God. At its heart, this isn't simply a debate about cosmology or Christianity. It's a debate about what counts as a good explanation, when should we infer design, when should we suspend judgment, and how much of our world's view depends on the standards of evidence we choose before the discussion even begins. If you enjoy thoughtful conversations that challenge assumptions from every perspective, please like this video, subscribe to Faith and Facts, and join a community committed to keeping an open mind while following the evidence wherever it leads.

[00:02:10]Now, let's listen carefully to what was actually said.

[00:02:15]>> Yeah. When I called in, uh, I said I wanted to talk about, um, areas where atheism breaks down, but, uh, I've been talking with atheists online about the problem of moral evil. I didn't know if y'all wanted to go in that direction or just stick to the original topic.

[00:02:32]I I saw your original topic and and I'm curious because atheism is the state of not being convinced that God exists. How does that break down?

[00:02:42]>> Yeah, that's a good point.

[00:02:44]>> Well, I feel like that there are certain there are implications logically of uh a god not existing. And >> that's not the pos that's not the a that's not that's not the atheist position. I just described it. Atheism is the position of not being convinced that a god exists, how does that break down? It is not the assertion that no god exists.

[00:03:08]Right? So if if you're not convinced that a god exists, then that means to me logically that you think everything you observe can be explained without reference to god or any god. Correct?

[00:03:21]>> No.

[00:03:23]>> Okay. So wouldn't that all right? I'm just asking questions. Wouldn't that mean that you see something that uh seems to be more explicable with reference to God? How how am I where's my logic failing there?

[00:03:39]>> There are things that we don't have an explanation for. The time to think that they require a god is when it's been demonstrated that a god exists and is a suitable explanation for it and not a moment before. But merely being unconvinced that a god exists does not mean that you think God is necessary for something.

[00:03:58]>> Yeah. The the your the assertions you were making implied that we have eliminated the possibility when I have neither eliminated the possibility or uh I wouldn't say entertain the possibility. I've not been shown possibility in either direction for a god. Uh so there's no elimination or assertion of a possibility of god in any answer for me.

[00:04:19]But let's assume let's let's assume let's assume >> that my position is there are no gods and you say that breaks down.

[00:04:29]>> Yeah. Okay. So there's all I wanted to do hang on hang on. All I wanted to do is clarify at the outset that when you say atheism breaks down atheism at its minimum is merely not being convinced.

[00:04:42]That doesn't break down. It doesn't have any implications. It doesn't have any baggage it carries. strong atheism, the hard atheist position of there are no gods.

[00:04:52]If you want to argue that that breaks down at some point, go for it. That'd be good.

[00:04:58]>> I don't know. I I feel like if if you're if you have a worldview that says I I don't I'm not convinced there's a a god or gods and um there are are [clears throat] there are things that uh you think well okay let me yeah let's all let's just go with the yeah all right so I think that there are areas where god becomes logically necessary how about that >> sure give me one and how you know >> okay so so so the origin of the universe Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just trying to It seems to me like atheism gets to a point where you have to uh logically assume that the universe came from nothing. Like absolutely nothing.

[00:05:42]>> No. No.

[00:05:43]>> Nope.

[00:05:44]>> Okay.

[00:05:45]>> Atheism. Atheism. Atheism in that in that particular description is the rejection of God. It's not the rejection of everything. But the universe, our local presentation of the universe, we have no way to explore it at any point earlier than the plank time. And so for now, we are barred from exploring that or determining what sort of origin it might have or if it had an origin. If it's not the case that that it always existed in some form or another and changed, we just don't know.

[00:06:15]>> Yeah. It is noticeable though uh that amongst the proposed the the hypotheses that are out there and when they talk about all kinds of stuff string theory uh multiverse or as you're learning about things that we do understand in physics you read a book like something from nothing from Lawrence Krauss that uh notably these scientific hypotheses which never uh say God would be a part of it pretty well across the board all have some sort of element of uh some sort of eternal element some sort of thing that always was uh there there that isn't really lacking. So if anything, while we don't know what the answer is, there is an interesting tendency among science without an invocation of God to suggest something was probably eternal in some form.

[00:07:00]>> Okay. So when I was growing up and we were learning about the big bang theory >> and again this may just be the popular presentation of it but I remember them saying that the matter uh exploded from nothing.

[00:07:16]>> No exploed from No one ever said that or whoever did was wrong. The singularity has not been presented as nothing. And in fact in the big bang theory the singularity is possibly one of those eternal elements.

[00:07:30]>> Okay. So we are we going to uh acknowledge that the matter that exists in this universe had to be eternally it has to be eternally existent. It has to have always existed in some >> No because I don't know. I don't know that it's the case.

[00:07:45]>> We don't know. We just don't know that it hasn't.

[00:07:47]>> So all right well let's let's let's play with that. So if we don't know that means we're there's a a possibility we're entertaining where the matter in the universe didn't exist and then somehow it started to exist. If by entertain we go, that's something we'd like to test for. And for sure, we don't actually know whether it is even possible that all of the matter didn't exist or that it always exists. We haven't established possibility either.

[00:08:13]>> Okay. So, if if the matter in the universe didn't always exist, what mechanism would generate matter from nothing?

[00:08:23]>> Why would that be a question we would answer when we don't know whether or not? You're basically sitting and going, "Okay, what if of the myriad of answers that could be, but we don't know? What if we pick this one? What then would be the mechanism that until we prove that one, we haven't even studied and there wouldn't currently be scientific theory for?" Anthony, what very I I got too annoyed last week and I've I've taken my blood pressure medication at the right time this week and I'm not going to let it happen like it did last week. But you are here trying to essentially defend a sort of deistic proposition with uh uh this assertion of simply this is a this is a a sexier god of the gaps argument and that is the entirety of what you are doing. I wonder are you a deist or are you a Christian or something else?

[00:09:12]Uh I believe in a god that is is purposefully interacts in this uh conscious aware of creation and isn't just like a um the kind of deedent god that just starts singing and just let it go >> and do you associate that god with any other religious tradition or is it a sort of >> I actually do think that I think I think Jesus uh is like a prophet of that god.

[00:09:36]Yeah I do. So for Christianity, >> what evidence >> you believe the best proof of your God has nothing to do with the God presented in the Bible who does miracles, who do these incredible things, who is capable apparently of doing miracles when cameras aren't around. You don't believe that it is the evidence for Jesus, the historical evidence. You believe that the best evidence for God is that there are places there are questions about the universe that either are answered and you don't even know they're answered because you're not a physicist or whatever or are unanswered and that the qu the answer to that question seems so big and so conceivably unanswerable.

[00:10:14]Therefore, insert God and that gets you all the way to the Jerusalem mythology.

[00:10:22]>> Well, yeah. I just well I I don't think that um you know the Bible proves God. I think that it's that God stands on its own irrespective of any religious uh system or institution. So I think the best arguments for God are are based in logic and rational thought empiricism and things like that. So yeah, I don't >> So give give an argument for God. Give give an argument for God because you give an argument for God because you came in and suggested that atheism falls apart but everything about your thing atheism falls apart misunderstood atheism and cosmology. So what's the argument for God specifically an interactive God? because you you not only did you did you get to Jesus, but right before that you said you believe that there's a God that interacts with and has thoughts about its its creation.

[00:11:14]So what's the argument for that?

[00:11:16]>> I think when you when you think about how the the universe and matter and all of it uh it's how it could have logically come into existence or whether it always existed. I think it reaches a point where first of all every all the matter and energy has to be eternally existent. It can't have >> you don't know.

[00:11:37]>> So clearly you don't know what an argument is because at no at no point in the history of the world has anyone said give me an argument for and it and and the argument began with I think when you think about it it could logically that's not an argument >> right especially this you're advocating for common sense physics which is absurd.

[00:11:57]>> Well the thing is the laws of physics have to be >> Go ahead.

[00:12:03]There's so many counterintuitive things in the world that we discover that a common sense misunderstanding of physics is not going to be good as an argument for the existence of God.

[00:12:15]>> Well, I think it does because it seems to me that the laws of course could >> the laws of physics could be other than what they are. Like we have uh constants we have physical constants like the gravitational constant. You have you have no to think that anything could be here. Let me ask this. Do you think a second grader's understanding of physics is superior to Neil Degrass Tyson's?

[00:12:38]>> No.

[00:12:39]>> Then why are you arguing that a common misunderstood understanding of physics is sufficient to demonstrate that a god exists?

[00:12:50]Because if you have wouldn't a better understanding wouldn't wouldn't a better wouldn't a better understanding of physics than a second grader >> if there was a if there was a second grade physics argument for God then wouldn't that also convince Neil deGrasse Tyson perhaps well I guess perhaps yet he's not convinced is he >> well whether people are convinced or not doesn't really establish truth to me Uh, >> I I agree with you. Did I Did I say Did I say anything at all about establishing truth once in this entire [ __ ] show?

[00:13:26]>> No. No, you didn't.

[00:13:27]>> No, I didn't. So, why would you respond about addressing truth? Why can't you respond to what I'm saying? If you think that that a second grader's misunderstanding of physics is sufficient to demonstrate that a god exists and that the are are you saying that there are arguments that can demonstrate God, but there's still no good reason to think they're true?

[00:13:45]Well, I was just what I was going for with the uh with what I was trying to say with the matter is that uh the universe could be a different way. So, >> I don't know that intuiting argument.

[00:13:57]>> So, what I'm saying is >> how do you know wait how do you know the universe could be a different way?

[00:14:02]Because when we uh when we measure certain uh physical laws as we call them like uh gravity, the electromagnetic forces, the nuclear forces, a what we find is that these things are governed by what seem to be constant.

[00:14:16]>> Okay. Wait, wait, Anthony, real quick before you proceed because I think I have to test you like I did last week.

[00:14:21]What question did I just ask you?

[00:14:24]>> Uh I I'm sorry. I don't remember.

[00:14:27]>> Yeah. How do you know the universe could be no could be any other way? You said that the con you're talking about the constants and I think what you just asked you think I asked was what makes you think the universe was fine-tuned and I didn't ask that. I asked how do you know the universe could be any other way than it is that those constants could change?

[00:14:52]>> I don't I don't >> exactly there goes the finetuning argument.

[00:14:58]But we can kind of theoretically speculate about what the universe might look like if the constants were different.

[00:15:04]>> Sure. But we don't know whether that is possible to >> We could spend the rest of the show We could spend the rest of the show arguing if Thor could beat up Hulk, but that would be a waste of [ __ ] time.

[00:15:17]>> It just seems to me that if you if you modify the constants, you get a different universe. So, >> but why?

[00:15:23]>> Exactly. You're completely correct. If the constants were different, the universe would be different. But what I asked was, how do you know there is any option for the constants to be different? That the universe could have been any other way.

[00:15:41]>> We don't. There's no way to know that.

[00:15:42]>> So, how many examples of universes where we exist, for example, do you know of >> just one?

[00:15:49]>> How many examples have you confirmed of universes that exist that we don't exist in? that humans don't exist in?

[00:15:57]>> No.

[00:15:57]>> How could we possibly observe or test for a universe that humans don't exist in outside of our own universe?

[00:16:05]>> Yeah, we can't.

[00:16:07]>> Exactly. So, all we know is that we are here. So, clearly we are in a universe that supports human life. Whether or not other universes could exist, by the way, I'm not saying we may never answer that question. I don't know. For all I know, multiverse travel is possible. For all I know, that's a stupid thing to say because multiverses are impossible. I don't know. But when I go, I don't know.

[00:16:32]I don't then go, so which which person here who says they do know because of deep conviction, because of faith am I going to associate the my belief in or my answer with? That's what the difference between us is. Anthony, because you have gone from I don't see a way that there couldn't be a god because you think laws of physics contradict it when I I don't know which law of physic you would physics you would invoke to say that before the big bang anything any law of physic would physics would apply. Uh I I so I don't know which one you would invoke but then you get from I feel there must be because of this deep incredul to the Jerusalem one.

[00:17:18]>> Yeah. Yeah, I haven't tried to establish uh a link between, you know, my argument for God and my particular religion, but >> I know I'm not I'm not trying to criticize you for that. My argument is basically this that uh not only uh does the the matter have to exist but it has to be uh designed in such a way such a way that it interacts with other particles and and you know it's universal relations in a way that um in a specific way >> Anthony >> and Anthony let's say I agree with that when does that law start?

[00:17:56]Yeah, exactly. I ask that >> I would think it have to be eternal. It can't have just started at some point.

[00:18:04]>> The singularity violates the laws of physics because it isn't held by our universe's laws of physics. As far as we can tell, >> the moment of the big bang is when all of these things you're saying are limiters begin.

[00:18:19]>> So, right now, we're in a universe where matter doesn't isn't destroyed or isn't uh uh uh it can only change. It's never destroyed or created. But prior to that, if the concept of prior to that makes any sense when there wouldn't even have been time, we have no answers for.

[00:18:35]>> Yeah, that's that's kind of why I don't believe in the big bang because of this problem where you have to get to a point where the the current laws of physics don't apply to material objects that seem to be governed immutably by >> Wow.

[00:18:49]>> Not believing. That's a big that's a big one. Okay. So, I have two huge things.

[00:18:55]One, you're saying you don't accept big bang cosmology, but you do accept magic because your understanding of physics is that it's just too convenient.

[00:19:10]>> Well, I wouldn't call it. You're >> you you are going to reject all of the best findings of science and the best evidence from the best minds about the origin of the universe. You're going to reject all of that because you think there's an implication that can only be solved by appealing to a god.

[00:19:32]>> Well, yeah, but okay. There's two separate things going on there. All I needed was a yeah because I said all I needed was a yeah because I have to get to this other thing you literally said and I typed it down word for word. Not only does the matter have to exist but it has to be designed in such a way that it can interact with other particles.

[00:19:50]Why use the word designed there?

[00:19:52]Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the matter needed to exist and have the properties that result in the uniformity of physics that we perceive?

[00:20:03]>> That could be one way of looking at it.

[00:20:05]Yeah.

[00:20:06]>> Yeah. But when but when you use the word designed, don't don't things that are designed require a designer.

[00:20:13]>> I I think yes, that's that's correct. So wouldn't that be [clears throat] uh you smuggling the very concept in >> we have to I don't I think that it it it needs to be uh it it more or less follows because >> um the the when when you have matter >> um >> here's my problem Anthony when >> here's my problem Anthony when somebody says it more or less follows it either [ __ ] follows or it don't. You either have a logical argument where one thing follows directly from the premises or it doesn't. You don't we're not engaging in fuzziness here.

[00:20:54]>> Okay. I think it has to follow because a lot of people focus on how I think that I think that the the God designer needs to be there because a lot of people focus when they're talking about uh origins and the big bang. They just focus on how matter got there or if it always was there or how it existed in the in the in the singularity. They don't talk about how the laws that govern matter are a certain way.

[00:21:20]>> No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Anthony, Anthony, there are no laws that govern matter. There are no laws that govern matter. Physics is not prescriptive.

[00:21:31]It's not like there's a speed limit written for life for for light in a vacuum and it must follow that. Physics is descriptive of matter. And so when you say people focus on the matter and they ignore the laws that govern it, no, they focus on the matter and then they describe the laws as how that matter interacts with other matter. There is no prescriptive physics law. It is 100% descriptive.

[00:21:58]Matter is what matters and energy.

[00:22:03]Well, how do you how do you think that like okay you mentioned the speed of light like it is seems to be fixed in a vacuum it's fixed speed in a vacuum so we can conceive of it being different different than what it is so have scientists explain why >> Anthony we don't we don't Anthony we don't have to conceive of it being different than it is we can measure it we we know the maximum speed that light can travel and we know that light travels at different speeds in different medium and we can measure it.

[00:22:35]>> Right?

[00:22:37]So I guess my question is um do scientists have an explanation for why the speed of light is the is exactly what it is in a in a vacuum.

[00:22:47]>> Let's imagine for a second let's imagine for a second that scientists don't currently have an explanation for it.

[00:22:54]Your question is wrong and malformed because that's what it is. It is descriptive there. You you don't get to presume that it could be some other way.

[00:23:03]It is descriptive. But even if we thought that there was a reason and we didn't know it, how would that be relevant to an argument for God? Because our knowledge or lack of knowledge about something does not mean that you get to stick God in.

[00:23:20]>> Well, let's because let's let's think about conceivable. If if you could change the speed of light, then that means that it would >> Oh my god. No, Anthony. I'm done.

[00:23:29]>> I'm so absolutely done and bored with you ignoring the facts of physics, the the basics of physics, and going, "Yeah, but if we could do this, I don't give a [ __ ] about your hypotheticals when you don't even understand the physics."

[00:23:43]>> Anthony, is something possible if we can just conceive of it?

[00:23:48]>> No.

[00:23:49]>> Correct. So why is any of this relevant?

[00:23:52]We have no idea whether or not it is possible that the that the constant of the speed of light could be different.

[00:23:58]By the way, as we're talking about constants, it's weird that you said you don't believe in the big bang, but you defended this position of constants when I I wanted to know what the number was because I thought it was only five or six. There's actually dozens of constants that relate directly to and are part of the proofs of the Big Bang that the Big Bang happened isn't a hypothesis. It's a theory. You can look at the Big Bang. And you can also just play the universe in reverse. Do you expect the constant which is uh uh the formula what would it have been the plank collaboration constant of the formula of the expansion of the universe?

[00:24:33]No, >> you don't accept a thing that there is measured proof of that we can look out and measure the rate of expansion and have done multiple times starting in the '9s where scientists were shocked to find out because originally the idea was the big bang will eventually lead to a big crunch. They thought the rate of expansion would be slowing down and have since then found out it's actually speeding up and then discovered the source for that speed. Then they've gone back and shot [ __ ] telescopes into space and have actually looked back through time, which is what you do when you look, and found that the cosmic radiation is where you would expect it consistent with that. Like a thing that has been proved to be a literal fact.

[00:25:20]You're sitting there and saying, "I don't accept the constant, which is the formula for the expansion of the universe." But the constants of the universe is my defense of why God exists. Reconcile that for me, please, Anthony.

[00:25:36]>> Well, I do remember um about a year ago they they put that new telescope out there and I don't remember I guess it's called web telescope.

[00:25:45]>> Y >> yeah. And um when it started taking pictures of what they consider to be you know the extreme edges of the not the edges of the universe but as far as it could look didn't u match the predictions about what they had originally thought with how the big bang works and things like there was a big argument.

[00:26:03]>> Wow. What a [ __ ] shitty summary of what you just said because what they did was they looked out and much like many things were looking for specific answers. So like when they were measuring the Higs bosen they they had multiple things multiple hypotheses where it was if it is this mass that's more consistent with this theory if it's this mass it's this consistent with this theory and that one was fun because two of the main propositions for the universe it fell like cleanly in the middle of literally the same thing happening with James web where they were going we're going to look out and measure and we're we think we're going to find this here however there could be this here this here and the specific thing you are talking about is the way Christians will take a news article where it goes scientists very surprised to find this thing and rewrite that as scientists realize they were wrong about the big bang when in fact the subsequent information we have found from the James Webb telescope is some of the most beautiful and clear images of [ __ ] like background radiation and of the very things which prove you don't know [ __ ] about physics because the support for the big bang theory has only expanded since the James Webb telescope not retrieved Ed, what an absurd [ __ ] thing you would say and call in and say with confidence, good lord. I >> I would I'd like to try something.

[00:27:20]>> All right, >> Anthony, let's ignore everything we've said. Let's Let's ignore everything that we've said and everything that you've said just as an experiment.

[00:27:37]>> Mhm.

[00:27:39]I I I'm I'm trying to figure out the best way to phrase this so that it is most conducive to actually getting somewhere.

[00:27:48]If we were if we went back in time to where we didn't have today's understanding of physics and you were saying making and you were using some of these classical arguments for a god as a first cause etc. Do you think that should be more compelling at that time in the past than it is today? Or do you think it's more compelling today than it would have been then? Or do you think it's equally compelling irrespective of our knowledge of science?

[00:28:21]I think that uh some I think that uh I think that the argument for God is more compelling based on things we've discovered since you know the enlightenment period of science and exploration and things like that.

[00:28:36]>> Some some ideas about God have been disproved. Yeah.

[00:28:40]>> So so you think these these arguments are more compelling in the light of science? If that's the case, then why is it that the people who understand this the best tend to be less religious by far than the general public?

[00:28:58]I think it's because uh they haven't talked to the philosoph they they they believe that because our knowledge of the universe has expanded so greatly and uh we haven't you know found you know a guy you know sitting in behind a booth to to programming at all that they've eliminated the possibility of God. But I think it's it's flawed philosophy because it's like saying you've explored every inch of a car and you haven't found a designer in the car and so there's no designer.

[00:29:30]>> I thank you Anthony. Thank you Anthony for the absolute most telling cartoon dismissal of rationality ever. You think that the greatest thinkers who built cosmology, the greatest thinkers who built physics didn't bother to spend any time thinking about or talking about God uh and that they just decided that because we know so much and haven't actually found a dude that they've just dismissed God. You have constructed the most flammable straw man in the history of flammable straw men in order to dismiss the fact the undeniable fact that both belief in God diminishes among the people who understand science the best and that belief in God is on decline in the general public not because people have decided well if we haven't you think it's if we haven't found God by now it must not be there.

[00:30:25]Um, what a kindergarten cartoonish straw man of reality. Uh, in that allows you to dismiss the findings of science. Do you think there's a conspiracy amongst scientists to hide good evidence for God?

[00:30:40]>> Yeah, I do actually.

[00:30:42]>> Yeah. Cool. Thank you for demonstrating that you're a conspiracy theorist.

[00:30:45]That's exactly what I thought. What evidence do you have that there's a conspiracy amongst the elite scientists to hide evidence for God? I well I want to make a quick programming note since you said it Anthony uh I don't know how this call is going to end I imagine it'll be soon since we've been here for 32 minutes tomorrow on skept talk Dr. Aaron Adair who is a physicist who moonlights as a a scholar uh uh for Christianity I was going to say Christian scholar but that sort of implies he is himself a Christian which he is not.

[00:31:15]>> Yeah.

[00:31:16]>> Call him and tell him your ideas about the hidden evidence. Call him. Tell him your ideas about the constants. Call him and tell him about how you think it is merely that because he doesn't see a man in the clouds that that's why he eliminated the possibility of God.

[00:31:32]Somebody who actually has advanced knowledge and has written books on the topics that you are invoking for proof but then also saying you don't believe in when is convenient. Call and put up these arguments with somebody who actually has that advanced level knowledge. I look forward to not only you calling because surely your confidence and bravery won't only be with the two of us who are not scientists. I look forward to the the endlessly entertaining clip that it's going to result in that I will personally watch uh dozens of times.

[00:32:03]>> All right. Well, I I would love to have conversation. I know he was on last week too with Forest.

[00:32:08]>> No, Dr. was not on last week with Forest.

[00:32:10]>> Okay. I was I'm wrong. Okay. Sorry about that. I don't know why I thought that.

[00:32:13]But >> Austin Archer was on last with Forest.

[00:32:16]>> Okay. My bad. My bad. I'm sorry. Uh, but let me just give a closing statement. I just want to >> Wait, real quick. Do you believe in evolution?

[00:32:25]>> Actually, I think that's where the conspiracy is the greatest.

[00:32:27]>> Great. Because also, he will be joined with by evolutionary biologist Erica from Gutsick Gibbons. So, seriously, uh, call them. No need for a closing statement today. Save it for your introductory statement tomorrow. I'll give you like a liner. Matt, do you have any questions for him before you depart?

[00:32:43]>> No, I'm good.

[00:32:44]>> All right. Go ahead. you. I'm going to give you 15 seconds for your wrap-up and save the rest for tomorrow.

[00:32:49]>> All right. I want people to think about not just where the matter came from, but why why does it behave the way it does, where did the physical laws come from?

[00:32:56]Even if you get matter, you have to have you have to have they have to behave with certain according to certain fixed principles and and what we would call laws. So, >> yeah.

[00:33:04]>> How did that happen? Scientists can't answer that. Thank you. Bye.

[00:33:06]>> Thank you.

[00:33:07]>> Thank you, Anthony. Demon, >> you're aing liar. You're a liar, Anthony, when you end your thing with scientist can't answer that.

[00:33:16]>> Can't and haven't are quite different.

[00:33:19]>> The fact that you don't understand the physics and that maybe scientists have not yet explained something is not the same as scientists can't explain something. And it's very important for the audience to write to realize and recognize that what's just happened here ignores what I already said that these laws are not prescriptive but descriptive. So Anthony doesn't listen, doesn't argue honestly, and is desperate to try to paint science as if science fails to understand something while he actively repeatedly dismisses the science and the scientific evidence that would confirm that he's full of [ __ ] Yeah.

[00:34:02]Yeah, I that that was that that was what I was going to say at the end was thank you for proving you didn't actually listen to the other side of the conversation and we were extremely generous with letting you >> oh 35 minutes or something.

[00:34:16]>> Yeah, I should have asked that question.

[00:34:19]How what question did I just ask you? I should have asked it like six more times during that during that call at least.

[00:34:26]Um it >> it's bizarre to me. I mean granted I I didn't get my birthday wish yet of Let's uh let's have somebody who's actually willing to actually answer the question that's asked. Anthony can't even remember the question that's asked because he's only waiting for his turn to speak and he demonstrated it by even though we we answered his things and addressed him and gave him a number to call, he's got to get a last word in where he lies about science.

[00:34:49]>> There are few conversations that expose the tension between faith and skepticism quite like this one. Because beneath the interruptions and frustration, both sides are wrestling with the same mystery. The disagreement isn't really about whether the universe is astonishing. It is the disagreement is about what kind of explanation that astonishment deserves.

[00:35:12]Anony's central intuition is one that has appealed to philosophers for centuries. He looks at the order of nature, the apparent precision of physical constants, and the existence of consistent mathematical relationships throughout the universe and asks a perfectly understandable question. Why does reality behave this way instead of some other way? That's not an irrational question. In fact, it's one of the oldest philosophical questions humanity has ever asked. Long before modern science existed, thinkers wondered why there is something rather than nothing.

[00:35:46]Why the universe appears intelligible and whether order itself points beyond the physical world.

[00:35:53]But where Matt Dillahante refuses to follow Anthony is at the next step.

[00:35:58]Met's argument is that recognizing a profound mystery does not automatically justify filling that mystery with a supernatural explanation. From his perspective, saying we don't yet know is not intellectual weakness. It's intellectual honesty.

[00:36:14]Throughout history, many things once attributed to divine intervention, lightning, disease, planetary motion, eclipses, eventually received natural explanations. That historical pattern makes many skeptics cautious. Whenever someone argues that today's unanswered questions require God, they see a genuine gap in knowledge, but they don't see evidence that the gap is divine.

[00:36:40]And this is where one of the most important philosophical distinctions in the entire debate appears.

[00:36:46]There's a difference between asking a meaningful question and claiming to have the correct answer. Anthony repeatedly asks where the laws of physics came from. That's a legitimate question.

[00:36:58]Scientists themselves continue to investigate why the universe has the properties it does. There are active fields of research exploring cosmology, quantum gravity, inflation, and the possibility that our current understanding is incomplete.

[00:37:13]What science generally does not claim is that every one of those questions has already been answered.

[00:37:19]>> Science is a method of investigation, not a declaration that every mystery has been solved.

[00:37:26]>> Likewise, theology is not simply an admission of ignorance. For many believers, God is not merely inserted wherever science hasn't yet reached.

[00:37:36]Rather, God is understood as the ultimate ground of existence itself. The reason anything exists at all. That's a much broader philosophical claim than simply saying science doesn't know this yet. This is why conversations like these often miss each other. One side is asking, "What mechanism explains the universe?

[00:38:00]The other is asking why does any mechanism exist in the first place.

[00:38:06]Those are related questions but they are not identical questions.

[00:38:10]Another important moment came when the discussion shifted toward conspiracy.

[00:38:15]Anthony suggested that scientists are hiding evidence for God. That's an extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[00:38:24]Modern science is conducted by millions of researchers across countries, cultures, languages, religions, and political systems.

[00:38:34]Scientists routinely challenge one another because careers are built on overturning accepted ideas with better evidence. If compelling evidence for a revolutionary discovery existed, publishing it would likely make someone's reputation rather than destroy it. That doesn't mean scientists are free from bias. They're human.

[00:38:54]Institutions can make mistakes.

[00:38:56]Consensus can change. History contains many examples where accepted ideas were later revised or replaced. But revision happened because of stronger evidence, not because someone merely suspected a hidden conspiracy.

[00:39:10]Healthy skepticism should apply equally to scientific institutions and to claims about those institutions.

[00:39:17]Perhaps the deepest lesson from this discussion is about intellectual humility.

[00:39:23]Believers should recognize that invoking God does not remove the responsibility to explain why they think that conclusion follows logically from the evidence.

[00:39:32]Skeptics should recognize that science, powerful as it is, may never answer every metaphysical question human beings ask. Questions about meaning, purpose, consciousness, morality, and why there is a universe at all may always extend beyond laboratory measurements. Even if science continues expanding our understanding of the physical world, the most productive conversations happen when both sides are willing to admit the limits of what they currently know.

[00:40:02]Faith without reflection can become dogmatism.

[00:40:06]Skepticism without humility can become its own kind of certainty.

[00:40:11]Curiosity, however, keeps both honest.

[00:40:15]This conversation may be from several years ago, but that's exactly why it's still worth revisiting. New telescopes have gathered more data. Cosmology continues to evolve. Philosophers continue debating fine-tuning, contingency, and the foundations of reality. Yet, the central human question remains unchanged. What kind of explanation should satisfy us when we ask why the universe exists at all?

[00:40:42]There may never be a single answer that convinces everyone. But asking better questions and holding our own assumptions to the same standard we expect from others is how genuine understanding moves forward.

[00:40:56]If today's discussion challenged your thinking from either direction, please like this video, subscribe to Faith and Facts, and join us as we continue exploring the intersection of science, philosophy, history, and faith with an open mind, and a commitment to following the evidence wherever it leads. After all, the search for truth is rarely about winning an argument.

[00:41:19]Mora, it's about becoming willing to ask the next better question.