What is your Verdict?
In both civil and criminal trials, verdicts are rendered on the basis of evidence. The burden of proof differs—“beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal law, “preponderance of the evidence” in civil law—but the principle is the same: the jury weighs what is presented and determines whether it is sufficient.
I invite you, then, to act as jurors in the ultimate trial. The questions before you are these:
Is there empirical evidence for the existence of God?
Based upon your reason and the evidence, is it more likely than not that God exists?
Many object, “There is no evidence for God.” But the issue is not the absence of evidence; the issue is whether the evidence is sufficient. I submit to you that the universe does not merely hint at a designer—it declares Him. The precision of natural laws, the delicate balance of cosmic constants, and the intelligibility of the physical world are not gaps in knowledge but signposts of intelligence.
I. The Cosmic Lottery and the Illusion of Chance
Picture your neighbor buying one Powerball ticket with odds of 1 in 292 million. Now picture that same neighbor winning every major lottery on earth simultaneously. The odds are so fantastically small that no rational person would attribute it to mere luck; reason would compel the conclusion of tampering or design.
And yet, that picture understates the improbability of the universe’s life-friendly configuration. Fine-tuning is not a single “jackpot” but dozens of simultaneous jackpots. The values of physical constants fall into narrow corridors that make chemistry, stars, and life possible. Mathematically, the probability of such alignment by unguided chance is so vanishingly small as to be effectively zero.1
II. The Astonishing Precision of the Universe
A. Gravity’s Large Ratio (N)
The ratio of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force between two protons is:
N≈1.24×1036.N \approx 1.24 \times 10^{36}.N≈1.24×1036.
This is not a “1 in 10^36” precision requirement but a colossal ratio. Substantial deviations in this value would make stellar lifetimes impossible or prevent stars from forming altogether.2
To give perspective: if you covered the United States with grains of sand (≈10^19) and chose one at random, you would still fall 17 orders of magnitude short of this ratio.3
B. The Cosmological Constant
The cosmological constant (Λ), which dictates the expansion rate of the universe, is fine-tuned to about one part in 10^120.4
Analogies abound. To hit an atom-sized target across the observable universe corresponds to a precision of ~10^80. But Λ’s value requires 40 orders of magnitude tighter precision than that. The human mind can scarcely conceive such numbers.5
C. The Strong Nuclear Force
The strong nuclear force binds protons and neutrons in the nucleus. Calculations show that changes on the order of ±0.5% would drastically disrupt carbon and oxygen synthesis in stars.6 Without these building blocks, chemistry—and life—collapses.
D. Combining the Numbers
Some popular works claim a “probability” of 1 in 10^500. In fact, that figure originates from string theory’s landscape of possible vacua, not from a rigorous probability calculation.7 Assigning exact odds requires knowing how constants could vary and with what priors—questions physics cannot yet answer. But what can be said is this: the set of universes that permit life is astronomically small compared to the set that do not.
III. Aquinas and the Order of the Universe
St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Fifth Way, observed that non-intelligent things act toward consistent ends. Arrows do not fly toward a target without an archer. Likewise, the laws of physics do not aim at life-permitting outcomes without a lawgiver.
Modern physics strengthens his point:
The laws of nature display elegant mathematical form.
They govern matter in ways that allow for life.
These laws themselves lack intelligence.
The reasonable conclusion is that such laws proceed from an intelligent cause. Aquinas called this cause God.8
IV. Can the Multiverse Explain Fine-Tuning?
Some object: “Yes, the constants appear improbable, but what if there are infinite universes? Eventually one would look like ours.” This is the multiverse hypothesis.
But the argument fails:
No empirical support. The multiverse has never been observed. It requires as much faith as any creed.9
Fine-tuning is relocated, not resolved. What mechanism produces universes? What law governs the generator? A multiverse still requires order.
Randomness cannot deliver order within finite resources. Mathematically, infinite random monkeys will eventually type Shakespeare (the infinite-monkey theorem).10 But given finite trials—even unimaginably many—the probability of stumbling upon life-friendly laws remains essentially zero.
Thus the multiverse does not abolish fine-tuning; it presupposes it.
V. The Rational Options
We are left with three explanations:
Chance. The universe simply “got lucky.” Statistically absurd in light of the numbers above.
Necessity. The universe had to be this way. But no known principle requires constants to take their observed values.
Design. The universe was intentionally fine-tuned by intelligence.
Of these, only design makes sense of the data.
VI. The Sufficiency of Evidence
The claim that “there is no evidence for God” is not about data but about interpretation. If someone won every lottery on Earth the same day, we would never attribute it to luck. We would conclude deliberate agency.
And yet, the precision of the cosmos makes that scenario look trivial. The evidence is not absent—it is overwhelming. The question is whether we will acknowledge it.
So, gentlemen of the jury, the verdict is clear. The consideration of the evidence, weighed by reason, leads inexorably to the conclusion: God exists.
Footnotes
Luke A. Barnes, The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 29(4), 529–564 (2012). ↩
Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers (New York: Basic Books, 2000), ch. 1. ↩
Calculation: US ≈ 10^13 m²; 1 mm² grains ≈ 10^19 grains; compare with 10^36. ↩
Steven Weinberg, “The Cosmological Constant Problem,” Reviews of Modern Physics 61 (1989): 1–23. ↩
Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape (New York: Little, Brown, 2005), 5–8. ↩
H. Oberhummer, A. Csótó, and H. Schlattl, “Stellar Production Rates of Carbon and Its Abundance in the Universe,” Science 289 (2000): 88–90. ↩
Michael J. Douglas, “The Statistics of String/M Theory Vacua,” JHEP 05 (2003): 046; R. Bousso & J. Polchinski, JHEP 06 (2000): 006. ↩
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q.2, a.3 (Fifth Way). ↩
George Ellis, “Issues in the Philosophy of Cosmology,” in Handbook of the Philosophy of Physics (2006), 1183–1285. ↩
Émile Borel, Probabilities and Life (1939). ↩
You said:
build in simple analogies like used previously--cosmic lottery, skyscraper, etc. to demonstrate the precision for those who may not understand the math
ChatGPT said:
Excellent. The goal here is to preserve the jury-trial rhetorical force, keep the mathematical accuracy, and weave in everyday analogies so that even someone without a math background can follow. Below is the full rewritten article with analogies baked in at the right places.
The Ultimate Verdict: Does the Evidence Point to God?
Introduction
In every courtroom, jurors are asked to render a verdict based on the evidence. In criminal cases, the burden is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In civil cases, it is simply “more likely than not.”
I now ask you to sit as jurors in the greatest case of all. The questions are these:
Is there evidence for the existence of God?
Based upon that evidence, is it more likely than not that God exists?
Contrary to popular slogans, the issue is not the absence of evidence. The issue is whether the evidence is sufficient. I submit that the universe does not whisper but shouts design.
I. The Cosmic Lottery and the Illusion of Chance
Imagine your neighbor buys a single Powerball ticket (odds: 1 in 292 million). Now imagine he wins not only that jackpot, but every lottery on Earth at the same time. The odds are so astronomically small that no one would shrug and say, “Well, stranger things have happened.” We would rightly conclude: the game was fixed.
Yet this picture is child’s play compared to the odds of a life-permitting universe. Life depends not on one jackpot but dozens of them—all hitting simultaneously. The alignment of cosmic constants is so fantastically improbable that “luck” is no explanation.
The issue, then, is not a lack of evidence. It is our willingness to admit that evidence of design is staring us in the face.1
II. The Astonishing Precision of the Universe
A. Gravity’s Large Ratio (N)
The electromagnetic force is about:
N≈1.24×1036N \approx 1.24 \times 10^{36}N≈1.24×1036
times stronger than gravity between two protons. That’s a 1 followed by 36 zeroes.
Analogy: If every grain of sand on every beach in the world represented one possibility, you would need not one Earth, but a trillion-trillion Earths covered in sand to match the scale of that number.2
If gravity were much stronger, stars would burn too quickly. If weaker, stars would never ignite. In either case, life would be impossible.
B. The Cosmological Constant
The cosmological constant (Λ), which controls the expansion of the universe, is fine-tuned to about 1 part in 10^120.
Analogy: Suppose you had a dartboard as wide as the observable universe. Hitting any spot would be easy. But now imagine a target the size of a single atom hidden somewhere on that board. That would be an accuracy of ~10^80. And the cosmological constant? It is tuned 40 orders of magnitude tighter than that.
This is precision beyond comprehension.3
C. The Strong Nuclear Force
The strong nuclear force binds protons and neutrons. Calculations show that if it were just 0.5% stronger or weaker, stars would fail to produce carbon or oxygen in sufficient amounts.4
Analogy: It is like constructing a skyscraper where every steel beam must be placed with hair-width accuracy. Move one beam by the thickness of a fingernail, and the building collapses. That is the razor’s edge upon which chemistry stands.
D. Combining the Numbers
Sometimes people cite “1 in 10^500” as the odds of fine-tuning. In reality, that figure comes from estimates of possible universes in string theory, not from a neat multiplication of probabilities.5 Exact odds are unknowable without knowing how constants vary. What can be said with confidence is this: the set of life-permitting universes is vanishingly small compared to the set that are lifeless.
III. Aquinas and the Order of the Universe
St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Fifth Way, argued that unintelligent things reliably act toward ordered ends. An arrow does not fly to its target without an archer. Likewise, natural laws do not guide matter with mathematical precision without a Lawgiver.
Modern science has only deepened the case:
The laws of nature are mathematically elegant.
They consistently act to allow stable matter and life.
And yet these laws have no intelligence of their own.
The inference is unavoidable: intelligence lies behind them.6
IV. Can the Multiverse Explain Fine-Tuning?
Skeptics often say, “What if there are infinite universes? If enough are rolled, one will look like ours.” This is the multiverse hypothesis.
But it fails:
No evidence. Not a single other universe has been observed.7
Pushing the problem back. What mechanism generates universes? What laws govern the generator? The question of order is not removed but relocated.
Finite trials don’t guarantee order. Mathematically, an infinite number of monkeys typing forever would eventually produce Shakespeare.8 But with finite monkeys—or finite universes—the chance of producing meaningful order is effectively zero.
Thus the multiverse does not dissolve design. It merely restates the problem in a larger arena.
V. The Rational Options
We are left with three possibilities:
Chance. The universe just “got lucky.” Mathematically absurd.
Necessity. The universe had to be this way. But no law compels these constants.
Design. The universe was intentionally set to permit life.
The only rational conclusion is design.
VI. The Sufficiency of Evidence
The claim that “there is no evidence for God” is not about facts but about perception. If one man won every lottery on earth in a single day, we would not call it “luck.” We would call it rigged.
And yet, the fine-tuning of the universe makes that scenario look tame. The evidence is not only present; it is overwhelming.
So, gentlemen of the jury, I ask for your verdict: The evidence of reason points not merely to possibility but to the existence of God.
Endnotes
Luke A. Barnes, The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 29(4), 529–564 (2012). ↩
Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers (New York: Basic Books, 2000), ch. 1. ↩
Steven Weinberg, “The Cosmological Constant Problem,” Reviews of Modern Physics 61 (1989): 1–23. ↩
H. Oberhummer, A. Csótó, and H. Schlattl, “Stellar Production Rates of Carbon and Its Abundance in the Universe,” Science 289 (2000): 88–90. ↩
Michael J. Douglas, “The Statistics of String/M Theory Vacua,” JHEP 05 (2003): 046; R. Bousso & J. Polchinski, JHEP 06 (2000): 006. ↩
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q.2, a.3 (Fifth Way). ↩
George Ellis, “Issues in the Philosophy of Cosmology,” in Handbook of the Philosophy of Physics (2006), 1183–1285. ↩
Émile Borel, Probabilities and Life (1939).