Of all the different arguments for the existence of God, only one gets mentioned again and again by modern atheists as being a powerful proof for God's existence.

And I won't leave you in suspense any longer.

That argument is the fine-tuning argument for God's existence.

And it goes like this.

According to the fine-tuning argument,

the odds the universe's laws of physics would be life permitting

are almost zero.

They're like the odds of winning 10 games of poker in a row, all

with royal flushes. If you suspect design in the case of that winning streak, then you

should suspect a similar design in the far more improbable laws that govern our universe.

But first, let's take a look at what atheists say about the fine-tuning argument and why so many

people find it compelling.

And then I'll address a relatively new objection to the

argument that I haven't covered before in previous episodes. First here's

Richard Dawkins. When you come on later to the origin of the physical constants. Now that's getting warm, getting close to a good

argument. And here's the late atheist Christopher Hitchins.

Essentially it says why are conditions so optimal for life in this terrestrial orb?

And I was surprised to find that Richard was impressed by that too. I mean we know what the arguments against it are and I can tell them to you if you're right and I consider them to be pretty conclusive arguments but there is something that has to impress you

I mean the likelihood that there could be nothing is so strong but not to be impressed by

the fact that we are here rather than not is to be well too easily

unimpressed. At some point certainly we all asked well which is the best

argument you've yet come up against

...