Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Lionz]

1) Did you skip #1 for some reason?

2) Just knowing that no one wrote down His Name? Who knows what was written in the 1st century regardless of what we have access to now? Is there a single 1st century non-Christian religious work in general that you can name? A document surviving a couple thousand years or so is not the most common thing ever perhaps.

3) Do you have an internet source that refers to stuff said in tax documents? How many 1st century Galileans are there that are named in currently existing 1st century tax documents if there are some that currently exist?

4) Is there a 1st century document that mentions a name of anyone executed in Judaea? Not counting a Christian one obviously maybe.

5) Where is a date or killer mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud in regards to so called Yeshu the Nazerene? It's even blasphemously claimed that Mary was a descendant of princes and governors who played the harlot with carpenters in a section called Sanhedrin 106a maybe. There are various Orthodox Jewish organizations and some are more forthcoming than others and admit that the Talmud mentions Him perhaps. CTRL-F search Horrible Blasphemies here and read around and then look for a Lubavitch website link maybe... perhaps it would be better if some stuff is not repeated in a forum post.

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html

Sanhedrin 106a is mentioned pretty much just before the words Horrible Blasphemies and there is a Lubavitch website link a bit after the words maybe.

[Lionz]

Snorri,

I'm not convinced He's been covered by the shroud perhaps, but was there something specific claimed that you want a source for?

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's break this down. Your original post (pages and pages ago) doesn't include this conditional phrasing, so I'd like you to note that you've changed your mind throughout the course of this post. That's fine, but I'd like you to pay attention to what you just did.

SO yeah I might be acting on faith, but what I'm doing is saying that ...IF the shroud is authentic, THEN Jesus existed and THEN GOD exists. So what I did was give some support with different things that Scientists have found on the Shroud of Turin to - I will use my phrase earlier ... " 'leaning towards this or that' type feel " in favor of Evidence for God.

What you did was give evidence without any sources, so the validity of its content can't be debated. You're (perhaps unintentionally) being intellectually dishonest because you're hiding other factors from your conclusion. Please keep that in mind.

If you really want to throw this out of the post, I agree it should be done if and only if "evidence" is used in only a science matter, then go ahead fine.

Then as the human race...that we can ALL 100% agree on there is NO evidence (again, in science terms only) that can be shown for God that people will say...it is 100% clear and is as simple as the fact that A Baseball is used in the game of Baseball.

So..... this Title would be a contridiction basically or at least include results that are very very biased.

*Scratches head... What is it with you? You take my words and fling them to the far corners of the world and become frustrated because the meaning's been lost on you.

underlined parts: I never said that. You just did. What I posted earlier doesn't support that, so what exactly are you having trouble with understanding?

Does that satisfy you? Or can we be a bit more fair and converse with both parties regardless of opinion?

Yeah?

If you'd like to be fair, then show the sources of your information that supports your conclusion.

So using this new term of evidence that obviously I brought totaly out of left field for you, I think it's safe to say that IF the examples about the Shroud of Turin that I have given are true, THEN there is evidence for God.

I will leave it up to You and everyone to decide if what I have shown is true or false, because even if I did give you sources... there will always be someone who says "not good enough for me" Even in todays modern world there are still quite a few people who disagree with our most brightest people such as Stephen Hawking mentioned above.

Look, the whole point of bringing the sources of your information is to see if you've excluded something that the authors have written, or that you have mistaken their words for something else.

Faith is not something just for religion it is something you have to use here... you either will or wont TRUST what someone says about something not in your field of expertise regarless of the sources.

Right, and what that someone says is hidden behind your post. You presented your view of their words while keeping the words of those experts hidden. How can I take your information at face value? I can't because you're not an expert on this issue, so do you understand the importance of providing sources in this scenario?


EDIT: Sorry for the repitition, but it seems necessary with you.
________________________
I'm gonna take a guess and say you're around 16 (perhaps younger), and if you're older than 18, I'd be very surprised.

[Lionz]

Was there something specific claimed that you want a source for? Maybe we can search together.

[PLAYER57832]

[
What, exactly, do I deny as possible?

Basically, that if you cannot concieve of it, understand it, then neither can anyone else and so everyone who believes in God is just lying or stupid.

Just exactly as anyone who actually did believe in flying teapots would be.

[Calidus]

Bigballinstalin,

If you want to know why I have not given sources, it's because It wont make a difference at all. My sources come from audio recordings and video recordings that I recieved through the Catholic Church, BUT the people that were in the recordings are not nessicarily religious, many of them say they became Christian after reviewing the Shroud...So my recordings aren't biased. However I can't give you the exact source because There is no link to the internet or anything like that for you to listen to audio or video recordings yourself. The closest thing was a History Channel episode on the Shroud of Turin...but I will say I'm very picky about who I trust on that show, because they like to exagerate things for the viewers.

Going back to the "evidence" issue.... You took all of my quotes out of context. I put those there to say that we need to define the term "Evidence".

So bottom line here is, if we are going to get anywhere else in this discussion you have to tell me your definition of "evidence" in this post. If it is strictly scientific THEN you can refer to my quotes... that is what I mean by taking my quotes out of context.

I suggest, If you are an Atheist, you should still explore the ways of the Church by actually going for a year or something and really try to understand what it is all about before challenging it. In order to argue an issue, the best way is to approach it with FULL knowledge on both sides. I used to have doubts about my faith, and wouldn't go for a few years. I really challenged the faith from a nonbeliever point of view, but I found nothing to say that we just came here from nothing...that goes against the laws of physics..and I am a firm believer that we don't just cease to exist when we die. There is something more... these two things led me back into my faith along with a little help from a few others.

This is besides the point, but I'm 21 as I said before I'm a Mechanical Engineering student, notice my terrible spelling ... and you?

If there is any response from you, I hope it will be your definition of "evidence" in this posts context...I'm hoping it's not biased. Thanks.

[Snorri1234]

[
What, exactly, do I deny as possible?

Basically, that if you cannot concieve of it, understand it, then neither can anyone else and so everyone who believes in God is just lying or stupid.

Just exactly as anyone who actually did believe in flying teapots would be.

Way to ignore everything else I said.

The problem here is of course that I can conceive of it, I can understand it, I just don't think it's logical or rational. You seem to experience a reality where I somehow said that belief in God doesn't exist or some such nonsense.


But really, I don't feel like carrying on this conversation. You ignore almost everything I say and the small part you respond to you deliberately misunderstand. I'd accuse you of trolling but I know that's not what's behind this.

[PLAYER57832]

[
What, exactly, do I deny as possible?

Basically, that if you cannot concieve of it, understand it, then neither can anyone else and so everyone who believes in God is just lying or stupid.

Just exactly as anyone who actually did believe in flying teapots would be.

Way to ignore everything else I said.

The problem here is of course that I can conceive of it, I can understand it, I just don't think it's logical or rational. You seem to experience a reality where I somehow said that belief in God doesn't exist or some such nonsense.

No.

People did not believe the Earth was round, it was stupid to think it would be, many thought, until they saw the evidence. You think it is stupid to believe in God because you cannot see, have not seen the evidence. However, you don't know everything there is to know, have not experienced many things. You know this in other aspects. However, for some reason think its OK, when it comes to God to just say "well, I don't see it so anyone who does is just stupid".

[
But really, I don't feel like carrying on this conversation. You ignore almost everything I say and the small part you respond to you deliberately misunderstand. I'd accuse you of trolling but I know that's not what's behind this.

I don't ignore, but I most definitely do disagree.

[Juan_Bottom]

I didn't mean to skip #1, it's just unimportant. I can't name any pure Historians off the top of my head from... ever. And during these times that we are discussing, there wasn't a way for historians to have all the facts. A lot of weird stuff was recorded.

2) Just knowing that no one wrote down His Name? Who knows what was written in the 1st century regardless of what we have access to now? Is there a single 1st century non-Christian religious work in general that you can name? A document surviving a couple thousand years or so is not the most common thing ever perhaps.

Doesn't matter. We have nothing today outside of the Bible that indicates that there ever was a Jesus. Even collectors of religious antiquities have nothing.
Plus, we do have "documents" from Jesus's time that make no mention of him or any miracles witnessed by people near him. I am of course mainly referencing the Dead Sea Scrolls which were written by Religious Jews who were also waiting for their savior. Jesus just didn't seem to be him.

3) Do you have an internet source that refers to stuff said in Roman tax documents? How many 1st century Galileans are there that are named in currently existing 1st century Roman tax documents if there are some that currently exist?

I do not.
There is no need for ancient Roman Tax Documents on the Internet. But there are a few experts on the subject, which would likely be accessible to you. Historians aren't regarded as celebrities who need to be protected.
Though this is also likely a non-consequence. Temples were taxed, religious groups were taxed, citizens were taxed, and the bookkeepers kept records of all of that. After the Rise of Christianity, and the decline of the Roman Empire, taxes doubled. But it's then that records weren't so exact.

4) Is there a 1st century document that mentions a name of anyone executed in Judaea? Not counting a Christian one obviously maybe.

There are records written and etched of people who were executed, and the Romans themselves kept so-so records. Mainly they only kept them for criminals who were tried locally, and not for the ones they just didn't like. Though again, I'm not an authority on the subject and I don't have Internet resources.

Where is a date or killer mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud in regards to so called Yeshu the Nazerene?

Specifically, if I remember correctly, in the Talmud it is a Jewish Council that condemns Yeshu to death. In the Bible, the Romans are the ones executing him. Historians also say that the execution of Yeshu is about a century off from the Biblical record of Jesus's.

It's even blasphemously

Would it really be Blasphemy if it is a first-hand account?


I caught this on the site:

Christ condemned the traditions of the Mishnah (early Talmud) and those who taught it (Scribes and Pharisees), because the Talmud nullifies the teachings of the Holy Bible.

No he didn't. At least not for that reason. The Holy Bible was written after Jesus died.



And now we get to what you were talking about. These mentioning of Jesus and Mary in the Talmud:

Insults Against Blessed Mary

Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.

Gloats over Christ Dying Young

A passage from Sanhedrin 106 gloats over the early age at which Jesus died: "Hast thou heard how old Balaam (Jesus) was?--He replied: It is not actually stated but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days it follows that he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old."

"The Talmud (Babylonian edition) records other sins of 'Jesus the Nazarene':

1) He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a).

2) He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone (a brick is mentioned), was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent (Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a).

3) He learned witchcraft in Egypt and, to perform miracles, used procedures that involved cutting his flesh, which is also explicitly banned in the Bible (Shabbos 104b).

I see what is being driven at. The Talmud is some type of evil, blasphemous work that claims Jesus is a sinner in hell.
But it never shows that Yeshu the Nazerene is the same guy as Jesus. Nor does it show that Miriam is Mary. The site makes the leap.

[Snorri1234]

No.

People did not believe the Earth was round, it was stupid to think it would be, many thought, until they saw the evidence. You think it is stupid to believe in God because you cannot see, have not seen the evidence. However, you don't know everything there is to know, have not experienced many things. You know this in other aspects. However, for some reason think its OK, when it comes to God to just say "well, I don't see it so anyone who does is just stupid".

Except of course I DON'T DO THAT.

The point of the whole teapot/Santa/hindu pantheon argument is that a belief being held very strongly or not is irrelevant to the correctness of that belief. The ridiculousness of the example is intended to point out how ridiculous the argument is, not to point your belief as equally stupid.

[Neoteny]

That teapot is still flying way over PLAYER's head.

Note: if we were to trying to show you how we believe your god is silly, we would compare your religion to cargo cults. Russell's teapot is a tool used to convey an idea of the "burden of proof." Just because nobody believes in it does not make the argument less valid. Indeed, that's kinda the point.

[Frigidus]

That teapot is still flying way over PLAYER's head.

Note: if we were to trying to show you how we believe your god is silly, we would compare your religion to cargo cults. Russell's teapot is a tool used to convey an idea of the "burden of proof." Just because nobody believes in it does not make the argument less valid. Indeed, that's kinda the point.

I get the feeling that Player would take offense to any example of arguing from that point. I mean, it isn't like we're aiming to be dicks (at least in this case).

[PLAYER57832]

That teapot is still flying way over PLAYER's head.

Note: if we were to trying to show you how we believe your god is silly, we would compare your religion to cargo cults. Russell's teapot is a tool used to convey an idea of the "burden of proof." Just because nobody believes in it does not make the argument less valid. Indeed, that's kinda the point.

The point is that just because YOU fail to believe, does not make those who do believe illogical.

I get your point. You cannot understand mine, because you are so set that your ideas are right and those of us who believe in God are just wrong. That is not logic, that is a very heavy bias.

Your attempts to equate my real belief, based on evidence to something no one on earth believes to be true demonstrates not my lack of clarity, but your extrem bias. And yes, claiming that someone's deepest held beliefs are nothing better than belief in flying teapots is offensive to anyone. In fact, part of your refusal to acknowledge my point is your very heavy bias and firm belief that you are correct.

[PLAYER57832]

That teapot is still flying way over PLAYER's head.

Note: if we were to trying to show you how we believe your god is silly, we would compare your religion to cargo cults. Russell's teapot is a tool used to convey an idea of the "burden of proof." Just because nobody believes in it does not make the argument less valid. Indeed, that's kinda the point.

I get the feeling that Player would take offense to any example of arguing from that point. I mean, it isn't like we're aiming to be dicks (at least in this case).

I know you are not trying to be obtuse or rude, and I don't take it personnally. However, if you cannot understand this point now, then you will never be able to truly communicate with people who have religious beliefs. That is not just sad, it is harmful to science and the world.

[Lionz]

Juan,

1) What's a pure Historian if you claim you can't name a pure Historian from ever?

2) It's actually pretty amazing if you've somehow convinced yourself there's nothing outside a Bible that indicates He ever was perhaps.

You try to bring up the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence against Him? Is there a Dead Sea Scroll that non-prophetically refers to anything from the 1st Century? Is there even a single one that's from after 33 CE?

3) Do you have a source that refers to a tax document expert who tries to use tax documents as evidence against Him having existed?

4) Who was executed in 1st Century Judaea according to a non-Christian 1st Century record?

5) He was condemned to death by a Jewish Council and He was executed by others afterwards maybe.

Who claims the Babylonian Talmud refers to someone who was executed about 100 years off and what backs that up?

A first hand account of a woman having willing sexual intercourse with carpenters would likely be erotic literature maybe. Who claims to have actually seen her have sex with carpenters?

Not sure someone is trying to claim He condemned traditions of the Mishnah and individuals who taught it because the Talmud nullifies teachings from texts that came to exist after 33 CE perhaps... maybe it's likely trying to be argued that He did because it nullifies stuff in the so called OT specifically.

I'm not an expert on any Talmud perhaps, but do Talmuds refer to a famous religious leader who...

a) was a Nazarene with disciples?

b) was born to a woman who was a descendant of princes and had a sexual relationship with a carpenter?

c) lived some period of time in Egypt?

d) performed supernatural wonders?

e) was executed at the age of 33 or 34 years old?

f) was executed on the eve of Passover?

g) was executed by a rabbinical court after being accused of idolatry and inciting other Jews to idolatry and contempt of rabbinical authority?

How much of a leap is there if so? And did you check out a Lubavitch website link? Are there not even Orthodox Jews who claim that He's referred to in the Babylonian Talmud and who try to use the Babylonian Talmud to teach against Him?

[Neoteny]

That teapot is still flying way over PLAYER's head.

Note: if we were to trying to show you how we believe your god is silly, we would compare your religion to cargo cults. Russell's teapot is a tool used to convey an idea of the "burden of proof." Just because nobody believes in it does not make the argument less valid. Indeed, that's kinda the point.

The point is that just because YOU fail to believe, does not make those who do believe illogical.

Again, this has nothing to do with it. You're still getting offended for no reason. Russell's teapot is an instructive tool used to explain the lack of belief based on lack of evidence and parsimony. It is not a value judgment on those who believe without faith. It might be a perspective on how we might view a faith-based system, but it is, at its core, a purely explanatory metaphor. The teapot is not intended to be offensive. It is interchangeable with any other object/person/whatever that is claimed to exist without any evidence in its favor. I challenge you to find a metaphor for the absence of evidence + parsimony as a standard for disbelief in god that you would not find offensive. You scold us for not considering your belief; I wonder if you can consider ours?

I get your point. You cannot understand mine, because you are so set that your ideas are right and those of us who believe in God are just wrong. That is not logic, that is a very heavy bias.

You very obviously do not get my point, and you have failed to explain what yours is, or how it relates to mine. I don't know how you are getting the impression that I am just assuming you are wrong. All I have been trying to convey to you in our most recent discussions is that you have not actually given, or even defined what might possibly stand as, evidence for the existence of god. All you have done is accuse me of bias and conceit, while chastising me for "not understanding" your viewpoint. I cannot take that seriously.

Your attempts to equate my real belief, based on evidence to something no one on earth believes to be true demonstrates not my lack of clarity, but your extrem bias.

I am not equating anything. Like I said above, the teapot is not a value judgment. I do not think your concept of god is a shallow one, nor do I understand how you would come to that conclusion. I do think there is the same lack of evidence for the teapot and for your god. This does not mean your god is of equivalent value to a teapot. If the teapot were replaced with a capsule containing "the meaning of life," or a candy bar, or tomorrow's winning lotto numbers, it does not mean that all those things should be considered equal. It means there is no, or you have not demonstrated any, evidence for it.

And yes, claiming that someone's deepest held beliefs are nothing better than belief in flying teapots is offensive to anyone.

Except that's not what we're saying. It's purely an explanatory tool. Seriously, if you can think of a comparison that does not offend you and would better serve my goal, please give it.

In fact, part of your refusal to acknowledge my point is your very heavy bias and firm belief that you are correct.

I understand very clearly that you are offended and why you feel that way. My point is that you are missing the point we are actually trying to convey, therefore your response, though very likely true (I have no doubt that you find the metaphor offensive) does not actually comment on the point of the metaphor. Again with the "bias and conceit" thing.

[Neoteny]

That teapot is still flying way over PLAYER's head.

Note: if we were to trying to show you how we believe your god is silly, we would compare your religion to cargo cults. Russell's teapot is a tool used to convey an idea of the "burden of proof." Just because nobody believes in it does not make the argument less valid. Indeed, that's kinda the point.

I get the feeling that Player would take offense to any example of arguing from that point. I mean, it isn't like we're aiming to be dicks (at least in this case).

I know you are not trying to be obtuse or rude, and I don't take it personnally. However, if you cannot understand this point now, then you will never be able to truly communicate with people who have religious beliefs. That is not just sad, it is harmful to science and the world.

We already know religious people are overly sensitive. That's why we have people like Mooney and Kirschenbaum. It's also why we have draw Mo' day and other such nonsense. I'm not going to stop saying what I think is right just because other people are offended by it.

[Calidus]

Some people yes, but I don't think religous people are over sensitive in debate. I think that sometimes it's just a scary thought to us how high your confidence rises on the issue.

[Neoteny]

I don't know how that could be scary. An atheist is, kinda by definition, no more confident than a believer. Indeed, most atheists claim a type of agnosticism that allows for that opinion to be proven wrong, which many believers do not allow. Why is that scary?

[MatYahu]

Energy has always existed, the law of energy conservation proves this. Edwin Hubble proved in the 1940's the universe hasn't always existed. So if the only thing that existed before the universe was energy, that Energy is logically the cause to the effect of the creation of the universe. The Energy is the legendary "First Cause". The reason why this is, obviously, is because nothing else existed other than the Energy.

It's reasonable to conclude that the Eternal Energy has intelligence. Rather super intelligence. And the creation of the universe was a premeditated act. Nothing that has been created exists of itself (Colossians 1:17). According to science, and St. Paul's writings in Colossians the Eternal Energy holds all creation together. Everything comes from the Source of the Universe's Energy, and that Source holds the universe together. The universe was designed, by the Energy. Anything that functions for a purpose, and has reason behind it was designed. The laws of physics were set, designed. Rich Deem puts it quite elegantly " The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 1037 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 1040, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 1055 less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10120 would completely negate the effect." Mr. Deem goes on to demonstrate "

"Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 1080 baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years (1018 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10-45 sec), the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:

1080 x 1018 x 1045 =10143

So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history."

These facts prove that the Eternal Energy is Super Intelligent. Now an Eternal Super-Intelligent force has been demonstrated and proven to exist even on the physical plane. What would one call a Eternally Super-Intelligence that was the Cause to the Big Bang or creation of the universe? God.

Joshua 24:15 - "If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve YHWH, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve YHWH."

[Army of GOD]

Energy has always existed, the law of energy conservation proves this. Edwin Hubble proved in the 1940's the universe hasn't always existed. So if the only thing that existed before the universe was energy, that Energy is logically the cause to the effect of the creation of the universe. The Energy is the legendary "First Cause". The reason why this is, obviously, is because nothing else existed other than the Energy.

It's reasonable to conclude that the Eternal Energy has intelligence. Rather super intelligence. And the creation of the universe was a premeditated act. Nothing that has been created exists of itself (Colossians 1:17). According to science, and St. Paul's writings in Colossians the Eternal Energy holds all creation together. Everything comes from the Source of the Universe's Energy, and that Source holds the universe together. The universe was designed, by the Energy. Anything that functions for a purpose, and has reason behind it was designed. The laws of physics were set, designed. Rich Deem puts it quite elegantly " The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 1037 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 1040, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 1055 less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10120 would completely negate the effect." Mr. Deem goes on to demonstrate "

"Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 1080 baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years (1018 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10-45 sec), the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:

1080 x 1018 x 1045 =10143

So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history."

These facts prove that the Eternal Energy is Super Intelligent. Now an Eternal Super-Intelligent force has been demonstrated and proven to exist even on the physical plane. What would one call a Eternally Super-Intelligence that was the Cause to the Big Bang or creation of the universe? God.

Joshua 24:15 - "If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve YHWH, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve YHWH."

Oh, the logical fallacies! They hurt the brain!

[Army of GOD]

1080 x 1018 x 1045 =10143

Also, check your units. Though your numbers don't make any fucking sense (your notation is terrible), your product leaves you with a number that has units of seconds squared, not that of probability.

[greenoaks]

[MatYahu]

The numbers make sense if you consider the last two are numbers in the powers. This is something I assumed you would naturally realize. Other then that, the other comments that were in reference to my last post can't be replied to. The comment "the logical fallacies hurt the brain" can't be addressed because the author of that statement didn't demonstrate the alledged logical fallacies that are present.

Other evidence for the existence for the existence of "God" is the fact there is life. Simply but the law of biogenesis states all life comes from already existing life. With Energy being eternal, and the First Life all other life comes from that eternal Life. The theory that non-life can produce life, or abiogenesis has never been observed, and it requires blind faith to believe in it, where the knowledge of biogenesis requires no faith to "believe" in because it is a scientific fact.

[MeDeFe]

I'm putting every place where you write something fallacious, make wrong or unfounded assumptions, or draw conclusions that don't actually follow in red. I'm not claiming to mark every mistake, I'll just mark the ones I can recognize off the top of my head without using Google, Wikipedia, or the university library.

There's also a sign that can be used to denote "x to the power of y": ^
So "10 to the power of 80" is "10^80" and not "1080", that would be "one thousand and eighty".

Energy has always existed, the law of energy conservation proves this. Edwin Hubble proved in the 1940's the universe hasn't always existed. So if the only thing that existed before the universe was energy, that Energy is logically the cause to the effect of the creation of the universe. The Energy is the legendary "First Cause". The reason why this is, obviously, is because nothing else existed other than the Energy.

It's reasonable to conclude that the Eternal Energy has intelligence. Rather super intelligence. And the creation of the universe was a premeditated act. Nothing that has been created exists of itself (Colossians 1:17). According to science, and St. Paul's writings in Colossians the Eternal Energy holds all creation together. Everything comes from the Source of the Universe's Energy, and that Source holds the universe together. The universe was designed, by the Energy. Anything that functions for a purpose, and has reason behind it was designed. The laws of physics were set, designed. Rich Deem puts it quite elegantly " The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 1037 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 1040, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 1055 less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10120 would completely negate the effect." Mr. Deem goes on to demonstrate "

"Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 1080 baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years (1018 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10-45 sec), the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:

1080 x 1018 x 1045 =10143

So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history."

These facts prove that the Eternal Energy is Super Intelligent. Now an Eternal Super-Intelligent force has been demonstrated and proven to exist even on the physical plane. What would one call a Eternally Super-Intelligence that was the Cause to the Big Bang or creation of the universe? God.

Joshua 24:15 - "If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve YHWH, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve YHWH."