He claims that the big bang, or some other, perhaps unknown, physical thing would be a much better explanation for what all other things depend on to exist. In all honesty, the Big Bang theory is widely accepted as the origin of the universe as we know it. According to this theory, all matter and energy were once infinitely compressed into a single point, called a singularity, which then expanded into the universe we know. However, to say that the infinite regression described in the Third Way can be terminated by a singularity is, frankly, completely absurd. According to Dawkins' own definition, the regression described in the Third Way cannot be interrupted by a physical object. No physical thing can rely on itself or anything else to exist. A singularity, composed of all the matter and energy that has ever existed, and ever will exist, is still a physical thing. Putting the fundamental principle of the Third Way in his own terms, Dawkins states that "there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence." (77) A better argument could have been made refuting the claim that all things rely on something that is not physical to exist, but while Dawkins implies that this is wrong, he never provides evidence, nor elaborates on his theories. alternative explanation in any