Hello, Dr. Craig. I have learned so much from your work over the years, and am greatly enjoying volume one of your systematic philosophical theology with volume

two already on advance order. When, after a 25-year career in marketing, I decided to go back to

school to earn a graduate degree in theology. You were one of the key reasons I chose Wheaton College.

I am also planning to study Christian philosophy at Biola,

hopefully interacting with J.P. Morland, because of your influence. I tried to find a way to

study with you directly, but it seems your focus on this multi-volume work means you are no longer

teaching there or in Houston. How unfortunate for me. In any case, my question for you is about

Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe hypothesis, M.U.H. Recently, the rationalist blogger,

psychiatrist, and public intellectual Scott Alexander, has claimed that Tegmark's MU.H-H defeats most proofs of God's existence.

Alexander writes, as far as I can tell, this hypothesis obviates the top five classical

arguments for God and goes on to list them.

1. Cosmological. Why is there something rather than nothing?

2. Fine-tuning. Why are the values of various cosmological constants exactly perfect for life? Three. Argument from comprehensibility. Why is the universe so simple that we can

understand it? Four. First cause argument. All things must

have a cause. And five. Teleological argument. Why does the world have interesting structures like

living things? I know this is a deep topic that cannot be adequately covered in a short podcast response,

but I would love to get your initial reaction to his article,

especially where it touches on the classical arguments you have explored over the course of your academic career.

Thank you, and may God bless you, Jordan from the United States.

Thank you for your kind remarks on my systematic philosophical theology, Jordan.

I'm glad you're enjoying it.

It's worth noting in passing that Alexander tacitly recognizes the irrelevance of Tigmark's mathematical universe hypothesis, or M-U-H, for the moral argument

...