Evidence (E): There exists a complex physical system of material objects of varying sizes and characteristics that are connected in space and time, and which behave and interact according to a relatively small number of basic physical laws.

Does this evidence support the claim that (G) there is a God? (Let God = df. an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly free being).

Inference to Best Explanation: E supports G (i..e, makes G probable) to the extent to which

1. G would lead us to expect E.
2. G is a simple hypothesis.
3. We would not expect E if G were not true.

Are these conditions satisfied?

First, it seems that G is a simple hypothesis since (i) the hypothesis postulates only one entity, (ii) although the entity in question appears to have many properties, in fact they are all deducible from three properties (omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect freedom), and (iii) the properties involve infinite knowledge, power, and freedom (and hence zero limits on knowledge, power, and freedom). The properties of knowledge, power, and freedom imply beliefs, intentions, and purposes - the fundamental properties of a person (or personal being). So G appears to postulate the simplest person there could be.

Is this simpler than the alternatives? (cf.materialism)

Secondly, it seems that E is what we would expect if G were true. (i) Being all powerful, God could create such a Universe as described in E. (ii) Being all knowing, God would know how to create such a Universe, and (iii) Being all good, God would have good reason to create such a world.

Elaboration on (iii): The world exhibits many intrinsically good states of affairs, such as consciousness, human freedom, knowledge, and beauty, and if God is all-good we would expect him to create a world that exhibits such qualities. Being generous, God would desire to share his creative activity of choosing and relating to other intelligent beings. But all such choices and personal relations, if they are to be genuine, presuppose a world in which there are observable spatial and temporal regularities, which allow humans to act upon their environment and relate to each other in predictable and consistent ways. In fact, all such regularities depend on more fundamental unobservable regularities (see below).

Are such things likely given chance (which would be the materialist view)? It seems not. For instance, there are more ways a system can be disorderly than orderly. Hence, it is more likely than chance will throw up a disorderly system than an orderly system.

Thirdly, it seems that we would not expect E if G were not true.

E includes many facts that are unlikely on the materialist hypothesis, for on that hypothesis the existence of the Universe and its order is ultimately a chance phenomenon. But this would require an amazing series of coincidences. Although natural processes (e.g., evolution) may explain the development of complex life forms from more simple ones, all such explanations presuppose very fundamental laws of physics. Such scientific explanations are not ultimate explanations of E. We are still faced with a dazzling array of coordinated physical laws that make our universe and many of its important features possible.

Life => Carbon =>Stars (stable and massive) =>Hydrogen atoms and gravitational force

1. The velocity of recession and expansion of the Universe could not vary one part in a million from its actual values if carbon based life could ever evolve in the Universe at any point in its history. But if rate of expansion could not vary much, neither could gravitational forces, for the rate of expansion depends on gravitational forces.

(2) If strong nuclear force is increased by 2%, there would be no protons (and hence no atoms)

(3) If the weak nuclear force is slightly stronger or weaker, there would be no hydrogen.

1. If slightly stronger, then hydrogen would be turned to helium.
2. If slightly weaker, then neutrons would not decay into protons.

1. If electromagnetism was slightly increased or decreased, stars would either be too cold or too hot. Gravity is 10³⁹ weaker than electromagnetism. If it were 10³³ weaker, then stars would be a billion times less massive and burn a million times faster.
2. Electrons must be much less massive than the proton for solids to exist.
3. Stable nucleides (basis for chemistry and biology) require neutron-proton mass difference to be exactly twice the electron's mass (otherwise neutrons would all be turned into protons or vice-versa).

The existence of the universe today can be explained with reference to its state yesterday (along with the relevant physical laws). And the mere existence of material objects and physical laws can lead us to expect many of the phenomena exhibited in the history of our Universe. But what leads us to expect that there should be anything at all? And why should the Universe that has existed and exists today be the way it is with respect to its most fundamental laws? Chance and theism are the two primary explanations to these ultimate cosmic questions.

Hawking's Self-Contained Universe Thesis: If the Universe had a beginning, we can suppose that it had a creator, but if is self-contained, without a beginning, there is no place for a creator.

Anthropic Principle: If the Universe were not an orderly place, we would not be here to notice that fact. Hence, the order is no surprise. The only observation humans could have would be of an orderly universe.

Many-Worlds Hypothesis: If there are trillions of universes, then it is highly probable that one will exhibit the order ours. So the order is no surprise and need not be explained with reference to theism.