DIEU EXISTE !? LES PREUVES SCIENTIFIQUES QU’ILS ONT TROUVÉES POUR PROUVER SON EXISTENCE

Hello everyone and welcome to Legends, an exceptional show today, you will see, philosophical too, and on religion. We will receive two people who have written a book called God, Science, the Test. They want to show the existence of God by the test that science could have brought.

Imagine a man who wakes up on a train, he doesn't remember when he got on the train. He asks people who are next to him, excuse me, where do we come from and where are we going? And people tell him, we don't know. You're all crazy, you don't know where we come from, you don't know where we're going, you don't know what we're doing here, and it doesn't bother you.

Hello everyone and welcome to Legends, an exceptional show. Today you will see, philosophical too, and on religion. We will receive two people who have written a book called God, Science, the Test in which they want to show the existence of God by the test that science could have brought. They have already sold 450,000 copies.

They are not trying to say that God is this or that person, that he is like that, or that it is such a religion that is right. It's just showing the existence of the creation of the universe, the beginning of the universe, which has a beginning and an end. So, according to them, God exists, precisely with this kind of live evidence, we dare to talk about it.

Feel free to comment to tell us your opinion, to say what you thought about it. So, it's Michel-Yves Bolloré and Olivier Bonatier who wrote this book, which has been translated into almost 10 languages today. Feel free, before starting the show. You are about 150,000-200,000 subscribers every month.

Don't hesitate to comment, to tell us what you thought about it, to react to the subject directly, to like the video for the algorithm, and in podcast audio on Spotify, Deezer, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Podcasts. You can also follow us, listen to us like that when we do sports, when we are in the car, on the podcast audio platforms, give us 5 stars, it helps us a lot on the reference and the algorithm. And just before we start, I wanted to thank our partner today,

it's Casadora. We did a show a while ago, we received André Ramos, who is an entrepreneur and who created Casadora. It allows you to buy and become the owner of a riad, so a holiday home in Morocco, starting from 20,000 euros. So the idea is to share this good with other people and to enjoy it for several weeks a year

for holidays or to rent it. We talked about Andre Ramos' career, his son-in-law, Corentin Aglaor, with whom he co-founded Casadora. We talked about Andre Ramos' 50 years of career, through several countries, several economic crises,

and very different projects. In this video, we also received Kim, who has a company that offers mystery clients. You may have heard of it before. They are people, employees, who come to test the hotels directly, without saying that they are mystery clients, to check the quality of the rooms, the service, the staff, and then they go back to the hotel. So, these are hotel companies that call on mystery clients,

and sometimes clothing stores. We put the link if you want to see the show on Casadora with André Ramos, the founder, it is directly in the description. So here it is, thank you very much to them for sponsoring this video. And let's go now with those who wrote the book God, Science, Proofs on Legend. Let's go!

Today we are going to talk about God, Science, Proofs, a book that we took three years to with Michel-Yves Bolloré. And we hope that we will convince you that there are many reasons to believe in God.

Welcome to both of you. I'll take the clap.

Thank you.

Welcome, Michel-Yves, Olivier, thank you for taking the time to come. I think you came from London, you did the round-trip. I came from London for you, exactly. Thank you very much. You are both... How can we introduce you, Michel? To introduce ourselves before talking about the book you wrote. I'm going to use my left arm, because it's a really big book. It's almost 600 pages.

One kilo, only one kilo.

One kilo? Really? Well, I don't have much to use my left arm for. No. I saw interviews of you, you were invited because you were in a lot of media, I even saw you on Beur FM four years ago, on a radio, we kiss them.

It's a very large audience, Beur FM. 2.5 million views of Muslims, only Muslims, it's incredible.

And everyone was interested in your book, because you are not trying to name God, you are trying to say, did he really exist? And why, in your opinion, did it exist with scientific evidence? We thought it was an interesting discussion. It interests those who believe in it, and those who don't. Everyone believes in it, everyone wants to be interested.

Yes, indeed. Our book is only one question. Is our universe a magnificent clock? Behind this magnificent clock, is there a clockmaker? This is a very important question. We don't want to know who the watchmaker is, what his name is, what he says, what he wants.

It's not our goal.

It's not our goal. Our goal is just to say, yes, now, today, we can say that science has found evidence that the universe is no longer explainable without the watchmaker.

Today, there is a watchmaker, but we'll know who we're dealing with. We'll spend some time together. Michel, you're an entrepreneur? I'm an entrepreneur. I have an engineering education. And I've worked all my life in the industry. So, I'm very interested. But I was born in a Catholic family. But I've always said that if I was Catholic,

it had to correspond to reality. I don't want to be Catholic just because I was born in a Catholic family. That's not enough for me. So, all my life I was very interested in the question of what could the science of God's existence say. It's a subject that fascinated me.

And you, Olivier, what do you do?

I am also an entrepreneur at a more modest level, but in any case I have launched companies since I left school. And there was a moment that was a turning point in my life, I converted to Catholicism, I wasn't a believer.

You didn't believe until how old?

Until 20. During the first 20 years of my life, I followed what I was told to do, to work hard at school, to do a number of things. But when you reach 20 and have to make choices, things are a bit different.

You have to ask yourself questions, you have to ask yourself where you come from, what you do, what you want as a life, what you want as a job, what you want as a companion.

Where do you want to go?

What kind of life do you want? Yes, these are questions that arise. But at one point I realized that we couldn't have a vision of the world that would allow us to determine the right choices. And in this vision, the question of God is fundamental. But at the time, I thought we couldn't answer it,

and then I was surprised to discover that we could answer it, so it changed a lot of things for me.

So we're going to talk about God, we're going to talk about the book right after, but why, what made you switch? How did you discover your faith?

It's a long story. I was convinced that there was no rational reason to believe in God. I was led to a book by a guy named Jean Doja. Was there a truth? I was asking myself questions. I had just started a business that was doing well.

I had a certain number of successes, but it didn't bring me the happiness or satisfaction that I hoped for before. And I thought, what are we doing here, what is the purpose of life? And at that moment, I read a book, also with a story that really struck me. It's a book by Messori, an Italian apologetist,

and he says, it's a parable of life, he says, imagine a man who wakes up in a train, who rushes in the night, but he doesn't remember when he got on the train. So he's very upset, he asks the people who are next to him, who knit or make crosswords, excuse me, where do we come from and where are we going?

And people tell him, but no one knows. He comes back and says, wait, you're all crazy. You don't know where we come from, where we're going, what we're doing here, and it doesn't bother you. That's exactly the situation I was in. I said to myself, wait, I never asked myself these questions. I never asked myself the question of knowing where we come from, where we're going,

what we're doing here, what's the goal of life? And pretty quickly, when I asked myself, I said to myself, there is no answer. That is, if there were answers, everyone would know them and they would tell me. And so, the surprise I had was that there were answers. And we're going to talk about it.

But suddenly, you met and you worked on this book. What was the objective?

Well, listen, the objective, basically, is to say to ourselves, but there is one book that is missing, which would be a book for everyone. A book for the general public, that is to say a book for people who are not scholars, who are also our children, our parents, our neighbors, friends. A book for the general public, but which is at the same time very exact, and which is at the same time above all at 180 degrees, that is to say, which is not only about science.

What are they? What can we say today, what can reason and science say about the existence of a creator God? Do we have proof of the existence of a creator God? Unlike Olivier, I was born in a Catholic Breton family, so we have always been Catholic, but as I was at the same time an engineer, a scientist, I would not have accepted to stay in life just with a faith, because I was given it when I was young,

without having to dig to ask myself why I believe in that, what are the rational foundations of what I believe in. So, I had always, during the decades that preceded our meeting, I had read a lot about it, I was very interested in the subject. So, I arrived when we started to discuss it, I already had an important background.

And I said to myself, we both said to ourselves, there is a book that is missing, that does not exist in the library, that is to say a book for everyone, but which is at the same time very exact, which gives on the table all the reasons to believe in God. This book does not exist, we absolutely have to do it. And there we were wrong, it was quite amusing because we thought we could do it in two and in one year.

You didn't do it in two at all.

And we didn't do it in two and we didn't do it in one year, it took us three and a half years and we created a circle of 25 experts and scientists. 25 who worked lot of mistakes. This one, of course. We thought, I personally thought

we would never sell this book. 450,000 sold.

Yes, we sold 450,000 today. But when I got home and said, listen, my children, I wrote pages, things about the reasons to believe in God. And my children were raising their arms to the sky

saying, Dad, stop, please, I don't care. There are pictures, there are diagrams, there are many quotes... It's easy to read. It seems big, but in fact it's easy to read.

It doesn't seem big, it's thick.

Yes, it seems a little big, but in fact it's easy to read. Because it's very airy, there are a lot of images, a lot of pictures. The quotes are in blue, the technical notes are well separated. So it's easy to read. We say that exactly, it's a book that seems thick and that seems about science, so people say it's not for me, but in fact it was written exactly for them because we wanted, without joking, without being Marseillais,

we rewrote the introduction 30 times, because people didn't understand, it wasn't fluid enough and everything, and each chapter is independent, so we can read, we can rummage through this book quite easily, so that's a bit what makes it a success. You say, God, science, evidence,

that is, today there are evidence and science, what does science think, God's existence, by the way, today?

Yes, absolutely, there are evidence, there are evidence that are not, what we call absolute evidence, are relative evidence, we will not go into this question, which is a proof is. There are two types of proofs, if you want a dictionary. You have absolute proofs in mathematics,

for example, a mathematical demonstration, or in limited universes, when in chess you do maths in three moves, that's an absolute proof. Because the data are limited. But in the real world,

what we call a proof, if you are Sherlock Holmes or Columbo and you do an investigation, you collect proofs, it's relative proofs, that is, it's elements, pieces of a puzzle, converging and convincing arguments that will lead to a certainty, in a way. And so that's what we call, so we distinguish things well because the proofs we're talking about,

are not proofs of mathematical demonstration type, even if there is a chapter on Gödel where he claims that he has an absolute, logical and mathematical demonstration of God. Well, but there are only very, very mathematicians who understand this proof. All the other proofs we present are relative proofs,

but like an investigation, exactly like an investigation. And what's interesting in this book is that we talk about science a lot, but we also talk about philosophy, morality, religion, the enigmas of the history of humanity. And it's the convergence of all these elements

that creates something convincing.

We'll get to that later. Why is it important to know that God exists, in your opinion? What is the first question?

That's a fundamental question. Of course, it's a very important question. If God doesn't exist, we are only particles organized by chance and physical laws. We are nothing. We are not different from animals. We are superior animals. But between a mosquito and us, there is no difference in nature.

We can crush a mosquito, we will be particles. The day we die, we are only particles that will go back to the hazard. So, if God does not exist, we are nothing, we do not count for anything, everyone will forget us, the world will disappear, the solar system will be destroyed, there will be nothing left of us. In this case, we have to do it on Earth, we have to know it, it is better to know it if it is true, and we have to do what pleases us, for some, in this case, the best is to sing, to dance, to drink. We have nothing else to do, because nothing matters.

So in a case of figure, if God does not exist, nothing matters. On the other hand, if there is a creator, according to all religions,

he made us a drawing to offer us an eternal life. This is what all religions propose. So if God exists, there may be a perspective of eternal life. There may be a perspective

of finding all the people we love. At that moment, everything matters. So, in fact, this question of God's existence, deep down, is fundamental. We don't think about it every day. But it's a question that we have to ask ourselves

at least once in your life. Am I nothing, or am I something? Does nothing matter? Or does everything matter? This question is essential. I think that a person who, once in his life, doesn't want to think about this question, is a weird person. So for all the people who want to think about this question,

because today in France, a little more than 50% of people don't believe in God, but a lot of people in not believe in God, but many of these people ask themselves questions. It is for these people that we wanted to present to them everything that science and reason can say today.

To give a meaning to his life, in fact? Because you say, if not, we can eat, drink, etc.

It's not that we give a meaning to his life, but it's that if God exists, yes, life has a meaning. What would that mean, exactly? The meaning, if God exists, is that there is a perspective of eternity. I go back to what Michel said, that is, it is obviously a fundamental question,

because if God exists or if God does not exist, it is not the same world. Often, we have done 150 conferences and debates, many in front of high school students or students, and in the end people said, well, okay, God exists, but what does it change? And in fact, if you think about it, it changes everything. That's what I said to myself at 20 years old.

I said to myself, I can't make a decision for my life, my general orientation, without having first answered this question. And in fact, if you think about it, it's pretty well-founded. Because as Michel-Yves said, and it really struck me, if there is no God, the only question we answer is a very limited one,

is there a God or not? If there is no God, it means that there is nothing else but the material universe. And so everything will pass. In 100,000 years, there will be nothing left of you, of me, of us. In 100 years, 50 years.

Even a little less. Yes, it will go very fast. So, that means there is no good and no bad. Atheists have a hard time understanding that. But Dostoevsky was very clear, and it was taken up by Camus, Sartre, Dawkins. All the coherent atheists say, indeed, if there is nothing other than the material universe, we are atoms in a certain configuration.

We are cells.

Who found themselves in this configuration by chance, laws of physics and chemistry. And then tomorrow it will be another configuration, but all of this has no value. There is nothing external that gives a transcendent value. So if there is no God, and I repeat, it's a subject that we debate, every time I debate with atheists on this, they have a hard time admitting it, but the reality is that if in an atheist vision of the world,

good and evil do not exist and coherent atheists say so. It's really important.

Why does good and and the bad exist? Can't we have a religion and say that what we do is bad?

Of course. Nobody can live in a really atheistic configuration. Because we know that there is a good and a bad. Deep down in our consciousness, we have the sense of good and evil.

We see it, we feel it.

It's more than a feeling, because if we thought... It's a notion. If we thought it was just a feeling, we could get over it by saying, I'm going to reason a little bit, there is no good and evil, I'm going to crush the child who is there, it's just a reorganization of atoms. It has no moral effect. No, no one can live like that, and if you really go to the end of the atheistic logic,

that is to say, there is nothing other than the material universe, you can't give a particular dignity to the human being, for example.

The dignity of the human being doesn't exist because it's just a randomness that created a configuration of atoms and tomorrow it will be another configuration, all of that at the same value. So it's very important. And again, it's very hard to perceive for an atheist, but coherent atheists... There is a very interesting book

by Dostoevsky, which is called The Karamazov Brothers, and it says this sentence, but if God does not exist, then everything is permitted. It's a terrible sentence, because we have taken it up

in our book, there is a chapter, everything is permitted. That's the question. If God does not exist, then everything is permitted, as long as we are not caught.

How do you represent God? What do you imagine? You talk about God, but according to you, it is a force, it is someone who looks like a human being.

The definition of a classical philosophical God is that it is a spiritual being, all-powerful, eternal, and knowing everything. That's his definition. He knows everything, he is all-powerful, he is eternal, and he is the cause of everything we see. That is to say, he is the cause, the creator of the universe. That's his definition.

Then, it is the religions through the revelations that will tell us more about him. So, of course, there are the greatest revelations, the one we are part of, we Christians, it is obviously the one that comes from the Bible. So, we have a God who revealed Himself through the Bible. But that is a choice, I would say,

which is something else that comes to us personally.

Yes, you are not here for that, in addition.

We are not here for that. We must be very clear about this because people people understand. If you see sand with footprints on the sand, you can, from these footprints, affirm that there is a cause, there is something that made these footprints, because because of the wind, the tide, etc.,

the sand does not usually have these footprints. So you can affirm the existence of a cause, but you can't say anything about its origin, its nature. You can't say who made these footprints. So when we analyze the world from a philosophical, scientific, or general point of view, we can conclude that there is an external cause that created this world,

but we can't say anything about this cause, unless it exists, that it is neither temporal, nor spatial, nor material, that it is outside time, space and matter, and that it is also, maybe, one, and we can go a little further to say two or three things, it is in action and not in power, a certain number of things.

But we don't say much. To go further on God, you need a second investigation, completely different, as Michel Yves said, is there a revelation?

What is there as proof? To understand well, proof, the word is strong, anyway.

Of course, there is proof, because what is very interesting is that the existence of God, as we do not have an absolute answer to that, opens the possibility of two possibilities, which make two theories. The first theory, God exists, he created the world. And the second possibility, God does not exist, and therefore the universe is only matter, space, time.

And there is nothing else besides that. But the theory that God does not exist and that there is only matter, space, time. And there is nothing else besides that. But the theory that God does not exist and that there is only matter, space and time, it has implications. It has consequences. If you want, the word implication

may not be clear for everyone. Let's say it has consequences that are verifiable. For example, if God does not exist, the universe cannot have an absolute beginning.

According to the principle that is called the principle of causality, which is the principle that Parmenides, a Greek philosopher from 2500 years ago, already said, nothing can come out of nothing.

Nothing can come out of nothing. In Latin, it was ex nihilo nihil, it is very well known. But, as we are here, the universe is here, and we are here, and we are not going to get out of nothing,

there are only two possibilities. Either the universe exists since all eternity, or if the universe does not exist for all eternity, there is someone else eternal, since necessarily there is someone eternal, there is an eternal being who is God who created the universe.

So you see, this is a logical implication that we explain precisely in the book, in what we call the implications. There are several implications for the non-existence of God. And so, today, what happened in modern science is that materialism needs to believe

that the universe did not have an absolute beginning. However, we have five or six scientific proofs today that the universe does not want to be eternal. There is an end to it. It cannot be eternal, at least in the past. If you want us to summarize the scientific part, because in this book there are philosophical proofs, moral proofs,

proofs related to religion and proofs related to the enigmas of history. So the big bang is the scientific version? Let's talk about the science aspect. In fact, we can summarize, in my opinion, in four points, the reason why there is strong evidence of God in science at the moment. The first point is Einstein. Einstein demonstrated that we are in a time-space,

what is called a time-space, that is to say a place where time, space and matter are linked. It was an intuition he had at the beginning of the 20th century. He made a theory out of it, which was modelled in mathematics. It allowed him to make predictions, which were verified in 1919. And to this day, no one disputes the idea that we are in a time-space.

It's a very curious place where, if you approach the sun, time slows down. If you go at the speed of light, time stops. Not for you, but for the people watching you. If you get closer to a mass like a black hole, for example, time slows down. Not for you, but if you look back, you will see time accelerate until the end of the world

before you reach the black hole. It's crazy. But that's the real world. All scientists agree. We are in a time-space. Secondly, this time-space had a beginning. It's very important because this beginning is not only the beginning of time and matter, it's the beginning of space. As soon as you have space,

what we call space, the thing that is around us, it was created. And in this space, there are quantum fields, there are particular things that make that as soon as there is space, there is time and matter. So the beginning we are talking about is a radical beginning.

It is the beginning of time, space and matter that supposes a cause that is neither temporal, nor spatial, nor material, that created this. And then the third point is that there are what are called finite settings. Finite settings at all levels. There are finite settings of the initial data of the universe, finite settings of the four laws of the universe, the forces, their values and their ratios are extremely well adjusted,

and all the laws of quantum mechanics, physics, chemistry and biology are also incredibly well adjusted. All this is uncontested, that is, people do not contest it at thequestioned. That is, people don't question it, at the scientific level. And so, it creates a... a... how to say... a diagram in which the answer of God

is the most coherent. Because if there is a beginning and a setting, there must be an intelligence and a force that has the power to create all this. And the fourth point is that all the theories that atheists imagined to respond to these two challenges

that are the beginning and the settlement, in a way, they don't work. The multiverse, we can go there, the multiverse, the theory of everything, the cyclic universes, the beginning from nothing,

a whole list of things that have been imagined, we have a chapter on that. In fact, nothing works. And so today, it's clearer than ever. You see, what fascinates me, what I find extraordinary in the situation we are in,

is that knowledge progresses in a brilliant way in all areas. Not only in science, but in all areas. And it's like when the fog dissipates. When you wake up in the morning and there's fog, you see nothing. And little by little, the fog dissipates, you see that there is a house, there is nothing, there is a forest. And so, things become more and more clear,

not only in science on the question of God, but on other questions of religion too, on, for me, the thousand reasons to believe in Jesus, or the reasons not to believe in everything else, all that becomes clearer. And thanks to the progression of knowledge. So that's why we continue the debates we've been having since... To tell you the truth, when we launched the English edition last October, we held conferences. We first made four documentaries with ten Nobel Prizes and 25 top-level scientists

on this question of God and science. And we followed up with conferences in Princeton, Berkeley, Cambridge, Oxford, where we were last week. We meet the greatest scientists, we expose our vision of things to them. At first, we were a greatest scientists, we expose our vision of things to them. At first we were a little afraid, they say, wait, you're idiots, go see elsewhere.

Not at all. Everything we say, they are not believers, but they say, yes, yes, the position is sharp.

Are there scientists, really, are they scientists who believe in God?

Of course, lots. It's not incompatible. In the book, we did, it's a very important question, in the book we did a chapter on who believes what. It's important.

So we did, we did surveys on what American scientists believe. So it's very interesting to know. Basically, in the United States today, people who have more than a doctorate, that is, a doctorate or more, so really the scholars, there are 50-50,

between believers and non-believers,

in America.

So there are people who believe, and people who don't believe.

There are great scholars, of course. So it's half and half. What is a little more interesting, it is mentioned, is that young American scholars are a little more believers

than their elders. So, can we draw the conclusion that, already, the new evidence of all these discoveries influence young scholars? It is possible. We must be wary of correlations, but in any case, we can know that, roughly speaking,

the proportion which is 50-50 on average becomes 60% for those under 40 years and 40% for those over 40 years. So, young American scholars are a little more believers in God than their elders. Isn't that interesting? Can you give me the American version of our book?

I'll show you.

In French, it's called God, the Science, the Evidence.

God, the Science, the Evidence. When you... We put a diagram, which is in the French version but in a less developed way, a diagram called the Great Turn of Science. This diagram is very important because it sums up what we have to say in this book. Basically, for four centuries, from Copernicus to Freud,

through to Galileo, Laplace, Darwin, a whole series of people, science seemed to be able to explain the world without the hypothesis of God. And at one point, Laplace goes to see Napoleon, he explains his deterministic system to him, and Napoleon says, I don't understand, Newton was talking about God, you're not talking about it, and he says, Sire, I didn't need this hypothesis.

So we had a science that, for four centuries, seemed to be able to answer fantastic questions that we never thought would have answers, without having to talk about God. And we thought, at the end of all this, there's Marx and Freud who say, religion not only doesn't need God to explain the world, but it's also toxic, because it's the opium of the people, so we have to get rid of all that.

So all this creates an extremely powerful materialist and scientist current that will dominate intellectually in the 19th and 20th centuries. But what happens is, what we tell in this book, it's a reversal, that is, a whole series of of discoveries thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, relativity, the discoveries of the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe, the discovery of the complexities in biology,

all the discoveries of the fine-tuning of the universe, all of this completely changes the landscape and it puts back in the middle of the game the hypothesis of God which today is more and more clear.

So, scientific discoveries have made the belief move forward or backward?

Move forward. So, scientific discoveries have moved the belief forward or backward? Forward. Forward, you mean? No, well, for a while, it moved it backward, because we thought we could explain the world without God. There's no need for God to explain the world. And so, taken in that momentum, we thought maybe science would explain everything. It would continue like that.

And not at all. That's not what happened. From entirely new questions, we have a very interesting chapter, where there are 100 scientists, we quote 100 great scientists. When you read that from start to finish, it's super impressive. Because even scientists who are completely atheistic or agnostic,

like many, they talk about God, they talk about miracles, they talk about extraordinary coincidences, and it naturally came in their scientific discourse because of their research. In some fields, not in all fields.

You said that some scientists didn't want to make their discoveries, and that Einstein wasn't happy to have discovered things and that he erased his work. What's that story?

So listen, it's absolutely true, and it's obvious. From 1900, as Olivier said, people said to themselves, in the end, we don't need God to explain the universe, we understood that there are physical laws, we understood how planets worked, we understood how to evolve the living so that man appears,

we understood that the earth was very ancient. So now, what explains the universe is science, it's not God. And then, finally, there were very important scientific discoveries that showed that it didn't work. That is to say, to explain the universe, God was essential.

So, if we take discoveries one after the other, there is a first one, which is thermodynamics, we didn't have time to talk about it, but thermodynamics shows that the universe is decaying. And if it's decaying, it will go out one day. We know today that our sun,

which is 4 billion years old, will go out in 5 billion years. It is half its life. Because it is a fuel tank. For this fuel, it is hydrogen. But whether it is hydrogen or fuel,

it is the same, it is a fuel tank. So this fuel tank burns. When it has finished same, it's a tank. So this tank burns. When it's finished burning, it will go out. And it won't be the only one. After the sun, all the stars in the universe will go out one after the other when they have consumed their fuel.

All the scientists in the world, even the materialists and atheists, of course, agree that our universe is coming to an end. That is to say that in a certain period of time, which is a long time, it's true, everything will end up being black, very cold, and with an extremely low density.

This is what we call the thermal death of the universe. And so everything that has an end, if we think about it, we have to think about it a little bit, but everything that has an end, everything that is coming to an end, has necessarily a beginning. If you take the analogy of a chimney, when you see a fire, you can see in a few minutes that this fire is consuming itself

and that in an hour or two it will be extinguished. This is a certain conclusion. You can stay to verify that your conclusion is certain. But you can make another conclusion. It is that since it is consuming itself and that it is not yet extinguished, it is that there was someone to light it not long ago.

But the universe is exactly like this chimney. We are in a universe that is consumed. And if it is consumed and will soon extinguish, even if it is in the hundreds of billions of years, it means that someone necessarily lit it up. So that was the first discovery that shocked scientists. There is a great Nobel Prize scientist called Arrhenius who says

I refuse to believe that because it would be assumed that there is a energy creation. So he's furious. But even Einstein, since that's what you raised, even Einstein will have trouble with thermodynamics. In the end, he will recognize that it is one of the greatest scientific discoveries of modern times. And then, when he sees the relativity

and that some people say, ah, but the universe is expanding, it is not stable, and so if it is expanding, well, it will have a beginning and an end, for Einstein, who has no religion, who is a deist, but who has no religion

and who, in any case, does't want to adhere to the Bible, it bothers him because everyone understands that this Big Bang theory is furiously similar to Genesis. There is a scholar who says that if the Big Bang theory wasn't as similar to the Bible, the Genesis of the Bible...

Because it is the Genesis of the Bible?

Genesis is the first chapter of the Bible, it's the moment when the creation is explained. And if it hadn't been invented by a priest, since George the Master was a priest of the Catholic Church, we could have believed it more easily. But the fact that it was invented by a priest of the Catholic Church, George the Master,

and that it looks furiously like the Bible, the theory was embarrassing. But in the end, it was proven. How fine are the universe's settings? It depends. There are settings... In fact, all the data, all the parameters that define the universe, for example, the density of the universe at its beginning, or the speed of expansion of the universe at its beginning,

or the forces of the universe, or the value of the mass of the proton, the charge of the electron, the speed of light, all these parameters, there are about thirty. In fact, we can see that they are regulated. If they didn't have this exact value, if they differed sometimes by 10% or 20%,

sometimes the 120th digit after the comma, for example, what we call the cosmological constant, it's a bit complicated, but there is a value of a constant in Einstein's equations which is extremely small, 120 orders of magnitude below what we could have imagined with the models we have.

And it has a very small value, but if it was 10 times or 100 times larger, simply, if there were not 120 zeros before the 1, 3 and 8 that are in this constant, if there were 119 zeros instead of 120, you would not be here to talk about it. And it's the people who discover that, they fall from their chairs, they say, but what's going on? Either it's random, basically, that's what you mean. So, here's the conclusion of this case, it's a bit like if you had shot a double six a hundred times in a row, or if you had won the lottery all year, every Sunday, against all humanity.

At one point, you have to ask yourself a question, there is something weird, how is it done? And then there are only two hypotheses. There's the hypothesis that you were very lucky.

The lottery?

Yeah. Frankly, if you win the lottery, if you organize a lottery against all the inhabitants of the planet, 8 billion inhabitants, there's one person who's going to win. So you interview him and he says, well, I was very lucky.

But if you do a lottery again the following week, and it's still the same one winning. And then the third time, it's still the same one. He'll say, I'm very lucky. No, no, no. The police will come and see him, saying, sir, you're cheating. And he says, no, no, I'm lucky. No, no, we need another explanation. Well, it's the same here.

We won the lottery everywhere, all the time. And so, in the end, the order of magnitude we reach, if we want to imagine that we were lucky, it's a chance of 10 to the power of 340,000. Which is a number that doesn't make any sense, actually. It's like, once again, it's like winning the lottery all your life, every day, against all humanity.

You could say, how come I'm so lucky? But it's not reasonable. That's what we say in our book. So, settings like that, there are everywhere. For example, so that the sun can burn for 10 billion years, you see, as we are at 4.5 and there is still 4.5, stars that burn for 10 billion years, it depends on a completely crazy setting

between the electromagnetic force which is responsible for the thermonuclear fusion at the heart of the stars, that is, the nuclear reactions that produce energy, and the force of gravity that makes the Sun burn at low heat. It doesn't explode until it does. It's like a combustion chamber.

If the ratio between these two forces was not exactly 10 to the power of 39, if it was 10 to the power of 40 or 10 to the power of 38, we wouldn't be here to talk about it because the Sun would burn in three years. So, people who discover this, in the 60s, we start with Robert Dick in the United States, he calculates that the value of the speed of expansion of the universe, a moment after the Big Bang, is adjusted to the 15th decimal.

If you change the 6 into 7 or 5 the universe is going too fast or too slowly. Guy says, what is this thing? And behind him, there are dozens of scientists who will make dozens of comparable discoveries. And so today we come to this new question that science asks,

because science works, as Michelie said, with the principle of causality. It discovers an effect, it looks for the cause. Here we discover something, which is the setting, and we say, but what can be the cause? So there are only two causes. Either it was created by an intelligent being who set things so that we are there, a believing hypothesis, Einstein says that, Einstein says, any person

seriously involved in science will eventually discover that a mind superior to the intelligence, infinitely greater than that of man, manifests itself in the laws of the universe. So that's the believing position. But if you refuse that and you look for an atheistic position, you have to imagine that there is a natural system,

a machine that creates universes, and that there are 10 to the power of 340,000 universes that are sterile, and we are the only one that is. Do you think there are other planets with other lives around other suns,

so stars?

Open question. We have no opinion on that. Okay, you stay, okay. No, in fact, there are reasons to believe one and the other. To make it very short, our planet is an ultra-privileged planet. There is a documentary that came documentary called The Privileged Planet that shows how much, for it to work,

there has to be the Moon, there has to be... the...

It's a mayonnaise!

...the volcano, there has to be a lot of incredible things. So there are people who say, it's so incredible that it's unique in the universe. Well, that's one position. But there are others who say, wait, there are 10 to the power of 23, so in fact you have 2000 billion galaxies in which there are between 100 and 200 billion stars in each galaxy. So in fact you have 10 to the power of 23 stars and practically all the stars have a planet.

So there are many planets. So it is possible that there is the same configuration as the Earth. So it is possible that life was developed by the same configuration as the Earth. So it's possible that life was developed by laws that were created by God for the universe that works on Earth but that also works elsewhere, it's possible. And the other, but for now we don't know.

I saw that if the Earth was a little bit further from the Sun, it would be very cold.

Exactly.

It's really, I think, set...

Exactly. But that, but this position of the Earth in relation to the Sun is not the most important thing, because in other galaxies, there are other planets that are at the right distance to produce liquid water. In fact, liquid water is necessary. If you're on Mars, the water is ice,

and if you're on Venus, it's steam. So, to produce liquid water, which is the middle of life, you have to be at a certain distance. But there are many planets that are at a certain distance. So there are many, many other things that make Earth absolutely unique. How do we explain the arrival of life on Earth today?

According to you, according to what you have found.

So, the arrival of life is a very, very important question. We must remember the past. In 1870, Darwin explains that life appeared in a small hot spot at the foot of a volcano. There was smoke, there were thunderbolts, there were chemical products, there was sulfur, etc. And so with the wind, all that was shaken and that there was a cell that came out of this little hot spot, and then, with the Darwinian laws of evolution, by chance and necessity, all animals formed.

And people believed, most people adhered to this Darwin theory on the appearance of life, and in 1950, that is, 80 years later, there were a lot of laboratories in the United States, there were at least 6 or 7, that were doing experiments on what we call

this primitive soup. Primitive soup, yes. It was called the primitive soup or the primordial soup, which is this hot flake. So they were reconstituting hot flakes in the lab by adding loads of electric current,

electromagnetics, etc. and they were looking for what could come of it.

Who thinks that?

All scientists until 1950.

Practically.

And then what happened? Something extraordinary happened. It's the discovery of DNA.

You don't believe in this theory, do you?

Nobody believes in it anymore. I'll get to it.

Nobody believes in it anymore. Life appeared, but not like that. What happened? In 1953, there's a great American scientist named Crick discovered DNA, RNA and ribosome. And what did he discover?

Well, we understand better and better. What did he discover? He discovered that in the smallest living cell, there are at least several computers and at least one or two computer languages, extremely complicated,

which are similar two computer languages, extremely complicated, which look like our languages, and which are like a real space ship with a tiny cell. And when we discover that, we understand that it is not by shaking a primitive soup

that we will be able to make a living cell appear. And from that moment on, all these laboratories disappear. Because everyone understands that there is no chance by shaking a primitive soup that a cell appears.

It's way too complicated. To give you an analogy, the density of information of a living cell is several billion times denser than in a complex computer. Several billion times more complex.

So we understand that it doesn't work. So today, there is a complex computer, several billion times more complex. So we understand that it doesn't work. So today, there is a real problem, which is that there is no more theory, there is no more valid theory on the appearance of life. But as it is there, because we are there and we are alive, it has appeared.

So now people think that there are probably fine, extraordinary and even more complex settings than in cosmology. And then people are calling for the idea that these RNA-DNA could have appeared for them more easily, maybe in space and appear with... Yes, but it doesn't change anything. ... appear with... but it doesn't change anything. We don't know about that. But it doesn't change anything. Today, let's say that before, there was a space between matter and the living,

and we thought that we could jump over this space, and now we don't have a space, we have a hollow between inert matter and the smallest living cell.

It's a hollow.

We don't understand.

So today there is no more theory to explain how we went from inert matter to the first living. We don't know how it happened. That's exactly it. Everything that is alive on Earth is made up of cells. You're talking about bacteria, plants, animals, humans, it's the cells.

And all the cells are coded by DNA. By the same code. It's the same code. There's only one code for all the cells. All the cells of all the living things.

Are there common points between our cells and the cells of...

Of course, that's what we call the LUCA, that is, the Last Universal Common Ancestor, that is, there are pieces of DNA that are...

Common.

Common to all living beings on the planet. The computer, the computers in a bunch of grass, the computers that are in the cells of a bunch of grass, or in us, use the same computers and the same language, whether it's a bunch of herbs or not.

That's obvious.

Yes, yes. That's absolutely obvious. It's even crazier than that. You, like us, have a human DNA which is composed of 3.5 billion letters which are in a certain order.

It must be a precise order, like a sentence. If you write something, if you change a letter by a letter, it means nothing. Here it's the same, if you modify too many things in the DNA, it means nothing and it doesn't code a human being. So there is information

that is transmitted from father to son or mother to daughter by DNA and that is an informative, intelligent message. And that's completely crazy because at first DNA was more in bacteria and everything, it is more modest, but the DNA language that Michel-Yves was talking about, it's a marvel of technology, as he said, 44 billion times more dense than what we do today. And this language, which is a marvel of technology,

was born from the laws of the universe 3.8 billion years ago. Perfect.

Right away.

Perfect. It codes everything that is alive. And people say to themselves, but how are the laws of the universe before life? There is no natural selection before life. So before life, it's dinosaurs and all that, it was really the first. That's why you see, we talked a lot in the test of the existence of God,

we talked a lot about cosmology, thermodynamics, the Big Bang, the end of the world, all that is cosmology. But there is not only cosmology The living is in fact a field which is extremely rich in discoveries that show that to explain the world without the existence of God becomes impossible. The living is really a very essential chapter.

It is a really very important question.

What do you think of the theory of evolution, the fact that we come from monkeys that have evolved, or that species of animals evolve as they go along.

Once the real problem is the passage of the inert, that is, of the inert matter, that's difficult. After that, we can more or less, but roughly, that there is an evolution since the first living cell that scientists usually call LUCA. In English, Last Universal Common Ancestor.

Our oldest ancestor. Our oldest ancestor is a living cell that scientists call LUCA. The first cell. But from the moment there is this first living cell, that there is an evolution,

it is neither doubt nor problem for does not make any doubt, no problem for believers and Christians. It does not pose any problem. Simply, there are thousands, let's say a few hundred years ago or a few thousand years ago,

people thought that maybe humans had come out of the hands of God. No, God took a more progressive path. Just as the universe is very old, it is 14 billion years old, life was born 3.8 billion years ago,

and between the moment when Luca was born and the moment when the first Homo Sapiens appeared, well, it took time. But in fact, it doesn't change anything, it doesn't pose any problem.

So you think that this cell, this first cell, it would be God who created it?

It's like our vision of the universe. It is possibly derived from the laws of the universe, but from laws of the universe that are so favorable and complex that they cannot explain themselves, the laws of the universe,

without a clock behind them. I'll give you an analogy. If you want to create Vivaldi,

either you are Vivaldi,

either you're Vivaldi, that is, you're the author and you create, you write the music, or you're David Cope, who on the internet, we can go see him, EMI, he set up an artificial intelligence that creates Vivaldi, that is, he sets up laws

that will create the same type of music. So in fact, God had two solutions. Either he put his hands in the ground and did things himself, or he decided to create laws of the universe which, like potential wells, brought things in a certain direction with constraints. Constraints in the laws of the universe.

We had a very interesting exchange in Cambridge with Simon Convey-Morris, who is the greatest paleontologist in the world today, who insists a lot on the convergence of laws in evolution, that is, the fact that physical or biological constraints make everything impossible and that the laws of the universe lead to a certain type of life or being. So, to sum up, we are not questioning evolution at all, which is a fact.

Evolution, we can say that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, life began at 3.8, for 2 billion years it was only unicellular bacteria, then it started to get more complex, there was the Cambrian explosion, there were many things. All of this is so documented that it's very, very hard to dispute it, nobody really disputes it.

So, the question is, how can such complexity be born without regulation? And what we conclude in our book is that the regulations in biology are even crazier than the regulations in physics. That's it.

Is human DNA evolving? Are we evolving? Are we changing as we go along? You said before that you are a father and son. Is it a child when you have children?

Of course. We discovered the genome in 2003.

It's very recent.

And just after that, there is IBM and National Geographic made a program called Genographic, where they analyzed 20,000 human genomes in fairly stable populations, the Australian arboreal, the African pygmies, to try to see what was common in all humans.

They tried to trace the tree. The program was called Adam's search. We were looking for the Y chromosome, because the Y chromosome is the only chromosome that we receive from our father, when we are a man. And so the father transmits to his son,

and the son transmits to his son. So in the opposite direction, when we are there, our father transmitted the Y chromosome to us, which he received from his grandfather, and so on. And each time there are small modifications, because the transmission is not perfect.

So when we look at the proximity of a Y chromosome to you, to me, or to a Pygmy, we can see what it is, when we analyze the sequence, we can see those who are close to each other. And they were able to trace that Genghis Khan, for example, had a completely crazy ancestry in Asia.

Genghis Khan, the Mongol conqueror who at one point dominated the three quarters of the world, known in the 13th century, I think, something like that. So, we were able to go back up in population and we have what we call a chromosomal Adam-Y. That is, if you go to Wikipedia, you will see that

all men seem to descend from a unique being, a unique father, and a unique mother. Because we have the same thing as the Y on men, we have the mitochondria. The mitochondria, boys and girls, receive their mitochondria only from their mother. So we have the same mitochondria as our mother, which itself has the same as her mother, and so on. And the same can be traced back to a mitochondrial Eve, which is quite surprising.

So, basically, the conclusion to which science is heading today, which can be found on Wikipedia, if you type in Adam Y Chromosome...

What do you mean, Adam and Eve?

Adam and Eve, yes.

The first two?

So, it's not exactly... It says something fundamental that Christian faith has always affirmed, that we are all brothers on Earth. That is, we all come from a single couple, from a single parent. And that's very beautiful because there is a fundamental fraternity, while other philosophical trends had contested by saying, for example, in the time of the Enlightenment,

the philosophers of the Enlightenment said, no, no, no, Europeans have nothing to do with Africans, who have nothing to do with Africans, that they had nothing to do with Asians, and all that. So there was a kind of fundamental racism that is swept away by science today.

For example, you think that it's not just our brain or cells, there's something else, the soul, that's it. For example, we could not find living species in other people's bodies?

So that's not part of our book, but what would really differentiate man from the animal is not so much that he is conscious or that he can say goodbye, or things like that, or that he is able to calculate or that he is able to think. Not so much that. If there is really a big difference between man and the animal, if God exists, it is that we have a soul that is immortal, that is, that survives our death.

This is a big question, and that's why we need to know if God exists, because if we have a soul that survives our body and that has an immortal destiny, that's what's important for us, that's why we need to know it. And so there is a chapter that we didn't include, because unfortunately the book was already too long, but for a subject that you probably know very well, and that probably all the listeners know,

which is what we call the experiences of imminent death. Because a huge number of people have experienced the experiences of imminent death. We were, three months ago, in a conference with Eben Alexander, who is a very famous neurosurgeon,

who experienced an experience of extremely strong imminent death, which was unbelievable, when he had this experience, and when he woke up, he became a believer and he stopped his job, I think, as neurosurgeon, and he spends his time talking to everyone to explain to them that there is a spiritual reality

beyond the temporal reality. If we had the chance to do a second volume or something else, it's surely one of the most important chapters today. It's the experiences of the imminent death, because they have, if you will, a very strong cohesion between all the experiences of what people have lived.

People have all lived the same experience.

It's fascinating, the survival.

Including someone of a believer. Ben Alexander was totally of a believer. So it's a near-death experience.

Sorry, it's a near-death experience. It's people who sometimes lose their lives on a operating table, or we had a soldier who happened to be injured, he saw himself from above, he saw people talking, he saw people reanimating him,

he came back to his body. Some of them even see in the room next door to the hospital. I would like to do a show on it, we are preparing one more. We are looking for cases, so if it ever tells you, you can send me your phone number with your coordinates and some anecdotes on contact.legendegroupe.fr

directly on the email that appears on the screen. I wanted us to talk about miracles, if you don't mind. To finish, especially on Fatima in Portugal in 1917. Can you talk to us about it? We will perhaps share. Why first put a chapter on a miracle?

Our book, we have to go back to the basics, our book is made for people who ask themselves the question of the existence of God, who really ask themselves the question of the existence of God. There are many, we see many, we have seen many around us now,

especially in a century where people no longer have natural faith. So, if we ask ourselves the question of God, if God exists, it is obvious that all domains of knowledge, whether it's science, philosophy, morality, history, etc., must point in the same direction. We cannot imagine that science can say, God exists, and philosophy says otherwise.

So, if God exists, all indicators must give

things that go in the same direction and that go in the same direction. When the fog rises. When the fog rises, we start by seeing everything. So, we had to give an example of something that is quite spectacular, which is actually a miracle. We could have taken others, there are others. But this one, the miracle of Fatima, it had a characteristic that is quite extraordinary, there are even several.

The first is that it was announced in advance. This is very rare, miracles that are announced in advance. In a country that at the time was very anti-Christian, it was in 1917, Portugal was in the hands of atheists, Catholic schools had been banned, religious orders had been dissolved, the country was ruled by people who were extremely violently anti-Christian. It's important to see that.

And so, there is a miracle that is announced very long in advance, roughly three or four months in advance. It allows a lot of people, believers and a lot of unbelieving people to surrender. And so we know that at the moment predicted by the miracle, there are between 30,000 and 100,000 people according to the sources. Let's say there are 70,000, which is the most often recorded figure. It's a considerable crowd. It's a considerable crowd.

And so something happened.

What is announced?

Because we see the sun going down, moving, dancing, seemed to fall, etc. People are terrified. And this miracle, so it is announced in advance.

But how is it announced? By whom?

By three children. There are three children who are 10, 8 and 7 years old. They are Lucy, who will live a very long time, since she will live almost up to 100 years. They are Jacinta and Francisco, the two youngest, will die very soon.

So they will announce, they will say that they saw someone who will announce?

Yes, they see the Blessed Virgin

who told them that she was going to do a miracle in October. Every 13th of the month, they see the Virgin since May 13th, May 13th, June 13th, July 13th, she said, in three months I'll give a sign so that everyone can believe. So they report that, and people get more and more every 13th of the month.

And on October 13th, that's when the crowd that Michel Hivre is talking about.

Everyone gathers following the testimonies of his three children.

Three children.

Everyone believes them.

There are even devices. So, as it's wrong. There are a lot of people who are there, we tell them in the book, etc. There are a lot of testimonies that come to show that it's stupid

and that nothing is going to happen.

It was in 1917, yes.

1917. And there are photos, there are a lot of photos, we give a lot of them in the book. Photos of people at the time. primitive, because it was on big boxes, on tripods, with plates, very slow, indeed. But there are still a lot of photos, so we know there is a huge crowd, we know something is happening. So we present it as a police investigation, and we propose to the reader

to be a bit of a detective, telling him, but what could have happened? So, the number of possible hypotheses of what could have happened is actually quite low. The first hypothesis is that nothing happened at all. The second hypothesis is that there was a collective hallucination. The third is that there is a cosmological event.

The fourth is that there is a meteorological event. The fifth is that it was a witchcraft. And if none of these five hypotheses are possible, then at that moment, we have to accept the idea that there was a miracle. So what we want to show...

But why a miracle?

If it's just the sun, they saw it, they moved.

It's to see something that is contrary to the laws of normal nature.

And people would have only seen it there?

So, no... Because the sun, everyone sees it. No, what's interesting is that at the other end of the world, or in observatories, no one has seen the sun change. But on the other hand, in a fairly large radius, up to 34 km,

34 km from there, there was the greatest poet in Portugal, who was completely atheist at the time, Alfonso López. He was in his house by the sea, and he saw the sun change color, turn on itself, come to Earth, and he said, what is this? He knew nothing. And when he learned that the Virgin Mary had announced this in advance,

he converted, but there is another one on the other side, 18 kilometers away, who saw the same testimony. So it's in a certain area, so it's not a hallucination caused by psychological disorders linked to the crowd, since there are people outside who were completely... individuals who saw him from a very far distance.

So, a unique phenomenon happened in the history of humanity. One day, I met a priest who said to me, yes, yes, yes, but no, Fatima, don't insist too much. When I was in the Alps, I saw the sun through the fog one day. You can see it changing color, you feel like you can see it and all that. A kind of mist. Yes, yes, he said it was the same phenomenon, but completely accentuated, much stronger.

I said, OK, you can believe it's a meteorological phenomenon, but how do you explain in a rational way that three 10-year-old children, you plan three months in advance, the day, the time, the place and the time... They had given the time too, the children? Yes, it had to be at noon. So it was midday, it happened a little delay, as we say in our book. Everyone was waiting for midday, and it happened at midday, that is, an hour later. But overall, if a meteorological phenomenon...

Today, we know from a scientific point of view that we will never be able to predict the weather 15 days in advance. It's called the butterfly effect, we studied it. No one can predict the weather 15 days in advance. That's why it often usually limited to 12 days. Yes, it's impossible. For mathematical reasons.

And so, we know that people announced 3 months in advance something that... You can believe that they were lucky, but it's not very rational. After, everyone decides as they want. We put on the table the subjects.

And I can tell you something. After 4 years, after, after four years, after more than 30 years, what fascinates me is that the conclusions are extremely strong and extremely simple.

A child can understand. If at any time you describe miraculous things, that is, the laws of nature that have changed, you describe a beginning of the universe, you describe, you have philosophical evidence, we didn't have time to talk about them,

but there are many things to say about it. All of this, are things that are both very convincing, but at the same time very simple. And that's it. And you see, life is a puzzle.

When we get into existence, we haven't asked anyone, we arrived without a job. We're there, we look around us, there are parents who give us food.

We discover.

We discover everything and we ask ourselves questions. After a while, what is this, what is that? But we investigate. And in this investigation, we are lucky to be a bit like Newton. Newton said,

I was on the shoulders of the giants who preceded me. And we too, we are not alone, we have our brain to think about the world, but we are lucky to have philosophers, scientists, and now scientists who have discovered very strong things and we can rely on these things to think.

And we can rely on these things to think in a simple way. You were talking about, what was it, philosophical proofs? Yes, philosophical proofs. Why? What are they? When I was not a believer at all,

and I was put in a book that argued on rational reasons to believe, there are two things that caught me right away. The first is the great philosophical proof of the existence of God, which convinced me personally,

and which I told all my friends, and no one was convinced by this proof. So I tell it anyway, this anyway because it's fundamental to me. It's the proof of Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz, the greats. What does it mean? Everything that is around us, Leibniz asks the question, why is there something rather than nothing?

There are things that exist around us, but they may not exist. They are not necessary, they are contingent. And so, if they exist because of a cause, maybe this cause has a cause, which itself has a cause, but at some point, there must be a primary cause that gives existence to everything that exists. I'll give you an analogy. If you're in a train, in a car, and this car is moving forward,

and you don't see the end of the train, you wonder if there's an infinity of cars. Why is your car moving forward? Because the car because the front car is pulling it. But there can't be an infinity of cars pulling each other if there isn't a locomotive at the end that gives the movement. Well, it's the same here. You can't have causes that succeed if there isn't a cause that gives existence. And if there wasn't a cause that gives existence to everything that exists at any given moment, that is, now, everything would disappear.

So God supports in existence everything that exists in existence. There has to be a cause. I found that to be extremely clear, extremely powerful. Unfortunately, it doesn't affect anyone. It affects a small number of people. But think about it, because this proof is very strong. And then the second thing that completely upset me, if I may say so,

are the biblical prophecies. Because there is the book I was reading, it argues... What is a prophecy? A prophecy is an announcement in advance of what could happen, an announcement from God.

And there is a people called the Jewish people, a Hebrew people, which waited for 20 centuries because of an announcement that did not come from one person, but from a dozen people over a very long period of time. She was waiting for the coming of a man who would change the course of the history of the world,

even though it was a very small people, and his prophecies announced the birth, the death, the life, the destiny of this person. And there were even six prophecies that gave the date or the period of his coming. And then Jean Dojal argued by saying, it's unique in the history of humanity. So I investigated, and indeed it's completely unique.

It exists in Terminator, in the cinema, or things like that, but in the real world, the only case of prophecies that created a documented expectation, that made a whole people wait, because in the time of Jesus, when Jesus, when John the Baptist arrives, we say, is he the one who must come?

Because there is someone who must come at that moment. The kings of the Magi. The kings of the Magi say, that's it, it's the time, and the conjunction of the stars has put themselves in a situation. There is someone who must come. There is someone who must come, and is he the one who must come?

Because we are waiting for someone. or Gamaliel, or a lot of people, they say, there's something that came, they said they were the Messiah, and all that, and the Jews themselves say, it must have happened at that time. Well, in short, these two things, philosophical proof and prophecy, are two things that put me in my 20s,

and that immediately put me in difficulty. That is, right away I had no answer. But on these questions, I mean, it took me 3-4 years to study the thing and everything to admit that it was true. So that's a point, what he says is an important point. It is very difficult to change an intellectual panorama. And so for people who are looking, etc.

They shouldn't say that even by reading a book, it's in a minute or by snapping their fingers that we say, well, I was atheist and then I became a believer. A change of intellectual landscape, we call it a paradigm, it takes time. That is to say that in general,

it takes an evolution and a time of evolution to absorb and accept a new reality.

Why are we becoming less and less believers in France?

First, it's the result, as Olivier explained earlier, of 400 years, from the Renaissance to 1900, of scientific discoveries that seemed to say, we no longer need God. We no longer need God to explain the world. But there was not only to explain the world.

We no longer need God because there is no more famine. Before, people prayed for good harvest. Because if there were bad weather, there would be no more harvest and we would starve. So people prayed for good harvest, people prayed when people were sick, for healing.

But no more fear.

And now there is no more fear because if you are sick, you go to the hospital. If you no longer have a job, you go to the employment center. And so there is a feeling of a much longer life, very secure, and where people no longer need, it seems, not only God to explain the world, but God to live. So that's why I think it's a ... But, but, we have reached a point where people are not happy today.

This void, which was joyful, if I may say, in my youth, in the 60s or 70s, with the music Peace and Love, where people were raised like that, and then cigarettes in marijuana, that time did not bring happiness to people.

We feel that people live in anxiety, they are in a great spiritual void, they are in great anxiety, and I think that's why they are happy today to hear people, not just us, I think, but to hear other people talk about the reasons for God's existence

and the reasons that make us be able to answer this fundamental question, are we nothing, or are we more than nothing? So that's it. And our answer is that we are not nothing, we are more than nothing? So that's the question. And our answer is that we are not nothing, we are more than nothing,

and after our life, there is something else, there is great hope, and we just have to think about that,

because we have to work for it.

You understand people who don't believe in God, Olivier?

Yes, of course, I was one of them, so I understand them very well. Besides, I debate with atheists, agnostics, the free thinkers, the atheists, the irreducible atheists, the abstainers, whatever you want. And we're very good friends because I understand them very well. But what I live is a paradox. What I experienced, the surprise I had at 20 years old,

is what many readers of this book have. Because in fact, we have a real paradox. As you said, there is a fall of Christian faith, a fall of the belief in God in the West. I read that in the 60s, 82% of French people thought they were Catholic.

Today, it's 27%. Imagine the decline. It's continuous. And the belief in God is the same. And so, we have that on one side, the world evolving as if God didn't exist,

and on the other side, there has never been so much evidence of God and Jesus, for me, clearly, the fog is dissipating. And this distance between these two things, is the reason for this book and other actions we take. Because I want to say, when I was young,

I was not particularly worried about death and all that, but still at one point, you think...

It happens.

I knew that very well. I remember, I was 7 or 8 years old, and I thought, it's weird, one day I'm going to die. What is this thing? It's going to be really weird. And I had no information about it.

And so, when you grow up, at some point, you have to ask yourself if there are reasons to believe that something is happening or not, because it determines a lot of things. And my huge surprise, I was convinced that believers were irrational people, and in fact, the paradox is no.

It's rationality, it's the conclusion of our book. We, as authors, conclude that materialism has become an irrational belief today. Given the accumulation of elements that all go in the same direction, frankly, it's unbearable. Well, after, everyone will judge as they want, but for me, that's the real conclusion.

And we have this disconnection between scientific reality and rationality and people's belief today, and that's why we're trying to make bridges.

Are there any detractors, people who disagree with you?

There are many, of course. What is their main argument? Very few arguments, that's what's surprising. And we, what we proposed, we proposed debates to all those who... Every time there were articles against us, there were 500 articles, and internet, and press, everything we want on this book.

Every time we contacted people saying, if you don't agree, we can have a debate. Very few people accepted. If we take, for example, Fatima, a somewhat provocative subject, we received a lot of letters or things from people saying,

how dare you, in a serious science book, put a chapter on a miracle, what a shame, etc. But there was not a single letter or a single person who has told us that Fatima's solution is this one.

So, in fact, that people tell us what a shame it is, it doesn't matter. What we would like, we could almost give them a bonus, is that someone tells us that they have a solution to explain what happened. And this one,

we never received. So that's what's very interesting.

Why is it called Fatima, by the way?

It's the village's name. It was the village's name in Portugal?

It still is, by the way.

Last question, what do you think... Can I ask you a personal question? What do you think is after death? How does it happen? How does it materialize?

It's out of the book, but we'll each give an explanation. Our body is a vehicle. Our reality, the three of us, is not our body, it's our soul, which is immortal. Our soul is immortal, it inhabits a body. Our body goes towards the whole universe,

to its decline and its death, but after death there is indeed God, paradise and a resurrection of the bodies. So if we believe in that, we have to work so that we go in the right direction, but it's a perspective that is very exceptional, very exciting and very happy. Does it scare you, being a believer? Death and old age are always scary,

because it's, of course, bad times to spend. That's for sure. I don't know if Olivier, as we are in the conclusion, wants to add on what death is and what's next. Yes. What religion presents,

and what science reveals for us in different ways with the EMIs or other fields of science, it presents itself as a fairy tale. It presents itself as a fairy tale. The Christian religion explains to us that after death, there is an eternal life, which will be a life of happiness,

where the good will be rewarded, the bad will be punished, but with mercy, and then we will have an eternity of happiness in a kingdom where we will know our parents, our friends, and all justice will be done, all tears will be dried, all the last judgment will give an understanding of everything that was for us

weird things and all, that's it. The absolute fact count. We want to believe it, but I, once again, I didn't want to believe in something that was just to do me good. It's not a medicine.

So the idea is to say to ourselves, is it true or not? That's the question. And in fact, everything agrees. And I come back to this image of the fog that dissipates, because for me it is fundamental. Knowledge progresses at a lightning speed. Everything we know about the experiences of imminent death,

about the beginning of the universe, about the final settings, about all that, we didn't know that 70 years ago. 70 years ago, have information on this. So, many things are new, many things converge, and what is missing is the information. And so, Jesus gives a piece of advice, he says,

whoever asks, receive, whoever searches, find, and whoever strikes, we will open. And basically, he says, do an investigation and you will see, there are things. And that's exactly what we say. We say, document yourself, look at the subject again, because, do the investigation again, because there are new things, and position yourself in a reasonable way.

But in the end, honestly, it's great news.

In the Gospel of Saint Matthew, it is written, it is easier for a camel to pass through a needle hole than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. That is, you have to give before... It's funny, I talked about that with... This sentence has been repeated many times.

I talked about that with friends who specialize in Aramaic, just yesterday. So it's not exactly in Aramaic, it's not a camel, it's a rope, but it's still a complicated thing. It means that you have to unhook yourself to get to the Kingdom of God. That is, you have to give. Yes, you have to reduce yourself. It's humility.

If you want, in the Christian vision of the world, what is the quality that inevitably leads to paradise and the flaw that inevitably leads to hell? It's humility that leads to paradise because if you're humble, you'll accept

to be deceived, you'll correct yourself, you'll recognize the truth about you and the world. And if you're proud, you will correct yourself, you will recognize the truth about you and the world. And if you are proud, you risk failing. So I tell people to be humble and look for the truth with humility.

And when you look for it, you find it. You released your book in France in 2021, it was very successful,

and you released English versions.

Are there other versions?

How many languages are there today?

A dozen, maybe. It is in Russian, Japanese, Arabic, Egyptian, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, Romanian, etc. So it has been sold in many languages. So the surprising character of the success of this book continues.

It proves that there is an expectation. There is really an expectation among people to try to read something like that.

What do you want for the future? What is the next step?

We are really very enthusiastic about discovering that people want us to talk about it. So of course we will continue. We have done conferences, we have done big conferences with great scientists. We have been to Princeton, we have been to Berkeley, we have been to Cambridge, we are coming back from Oxford. There was, I am very surprised if you want, in Princeton, it was a Saturday, it was very beautiful,

the conference lasted from 9am to 6pm. Well, in this conference, where there was a very large amphitheater, it was the Einstein Room, well, in this conference, there were 130 people from 9am to 6pm, including many young people. A Saturday where it is sunny, it's extraordinary. So, it proves that people want to hear about this subject.

They have an appetite for this subject. I'll put the link, it's Guy Tresdaniel, the editor, if you go to the description of the YouTube video, you'll have the link to take the book. And if you go, if you listen to us in. Sorry for my voice, which is coming a bit to an end, like at the end of the show. Thank you, Michel-Yves Bolland.

Thank you for coming.

Thank you very much, it's very nice. And thank you, Olivier Benassi. Thank you, Guillaume. It was a pleasure to come and present your book. And between two conferences, I send you a big hug, we'll see you again very soon, every Wednesday, Friday and Sunday for an interview or a documentary. Don't hesitate to subscribe, you are about 150,000 to join us every month.

You just have to click on subscribe, don't hesitate to comment too, to tell us what you thought of the show, to react to the subject we talked about throughout the show. You just have to click on subscribe, don't hesitate to comment too, to tell us what you thought of the show, to react to the subject we talked about throughout the show. And see you soon anyway for a next video on Legends. Ciao everyone ! Thanks for watching!