640 replies to this topic

[Arbitran]

Paranoid Android, on 20 April 2012 - 02:37 AM, said:

Oh the irony, how often around the boards has Mr Masada made empirical statements about the beliefs of Christianity to other Christians (come to think of it, how often have you made empirical statements about the beliefs of Christianity to Christians).  Tall order, much?

Just saying



Just a minor point, but you do realise that the first evidence of Jesus' father being a Roman centurion comes from the 3rd Century, at least two hundred years after Jesus' alleged existence.  Oh, and the "immaculate conception" has nothing to do with the virgin birth.  They are totally separate concepts, but they are often confused as to be the same thing.  

~ Regards,

I do realize that the Roman centurion idea is later; I was merely stating that it is far more plausible than a ghost impregnating Mary.

[Mr. Smith]

Arbitran, on 08 April 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

Jesus of Nazareth was crucified for sedition against the Roman Empire. Enough said.

Pretty much be the symbolic equivelant of taking the crown off the kings head and tossing it to the people.  
That and going after the greedy money changers (bankers in todays terms) on the temple mount disrupting a cash flow that went to top officials and religious figures.  

He didn't die for us. He died because most governments and religions are run by corrupt, greedy, lazy, manipulative  people who don't want anyone messing with their status quo.

[Jor-el]

Arbitran, on 19 April 2012 - 11:34 PM, said:

Except that Joseph was Jesus' biological father. This absurd notion of his being his adopted father is baseless. Who was his true father otherwise? A ghost? Or, more likely, a Roman centurion, if indeed Joseph was not his actual father. In any case, let's leave out these ridiculous ideas about "the Holy Ghost" or "immaculate conception" until some tangible evidence is offered up, alright? If only Mary had told the truth, none of us would be talking about this...

Joseph is not the father. It says so right there in the bible, This whole debate and most others revolve around the reliability of the bible as a historical witness. I accept that reliability, others do not. Yet there is evidence enough for both views to exist. I have made my choice, you have made yours. In my view there is a God, there is a spiritual world, or higher plane of existence, than our own. There is the ability of God to manipulate matter and energy at will. In my view, the virgin birth is a necessity of the bible, not an excuse.

Without it, we do not have Jesus, we do not have the Jewish Messiah, and Gods word is broken.

[Arbitran]

Jor-el, on 20 April 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

Joseph is not the father. It says so right there in the bible, This whole debate and most others revolve around the reliability of the bible as a historical witness. I accept that reliability, others do not. Yet there is evidence enough for both views to exist. I have made my choice, you have made yours. In my view there is a God, there is a spiritual world, or higher plane of existence, than our own. There is the ability of God to manipulate matter and energy at will. In my view, the virgin birth is a necessity of the bible, not an excuse.

Without it, we do not have Jesus, we do not have the Jewish Messiah, and Gods word is broken.

Well... it isn't hard to break. And it has been broken. Or rather, perhaps it was never stitched together terribly well.

Joseph was almost certainly the father of Jesus; though, as I've said, a Roman centurion, or some figure unknown to us, are equally possible as well. One answer that I don't buy is that Mary was impregnated by a ghost. Frankly, it's about the least probable explanation she could have come up with.

The Jewish Messiah is never predicted to be born of a virgin. Regardless, Jesus doesn't fit the prophecies very well on multiple other points besides this.

If you can present some shred of evidence which cannot be refuted which indicates the existence of your God, your "spiritual world", your "virgin birth", and the historical reliability of your holy book, then perhaps there will be some room for discussion. So far, this all relies entirely on whether or not one of us believes or disbelieves the stories. I'm open to reconsider it all: but you have to provide some evidence first. On this point, there can be no debate. Show me the evidence, then we'll talk.

[Jor-el]

Arbitran, on 20 April 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

Well... it isn't hard to break. And it has been broken. Or rather, perhaps it was never stitched together terribly well.

Joseph was almost certainly the father of Jesus; though, as I've said, a Roman centurion, or some figure unknown to us, are equally possible as well. One answer that I don't buy is that Mary was impregnated by a ghost. Frankly, it's about the least probable explanation she could have come up with.

The Jewish Messiah is never predicted to be born of a virgin. Regardless, Jesus doesn't fit the prophecies very well on multiple other points besides this.

If you can present some shred of evidence which cannot be refuted which indicates the existence of your God, your "spiritual world", your "virgin birth", and the historical reliability of your holy book, then perhaps there will be some room for discussion. So far, this all relies entirely on whether or not one of us believes or disbelieves the stories. I'm open to reconsider it all: but you have to provide some evidence first. On this point, there can be no debate. Show me the evidence, then we'll talk.

So what seperates people from belief is "belief"?

You want emperical evidence to a question on belief, that sounds a little strange. Thomas didn't believe either, most people are like him nowadays, "I will only believe if I see with my own eyes".

Either one allows God to talk to us, or one doesn't.

Either way there is more than enough evidence for God and the spiritual world. You simply don't accept it, you will always find an "out", not to accept it.
We could add a list of that evidence, and you would come right back with excuses as to why those things do not constitute evidence...

1. The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
2. The universe had a start, what caused it?
3. The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?
4. All life is connected by the golden ratio, Why?
5. The very nature of our universe implies a world with definite edges to it. In fact it can be compared quite literally to a computer simulation.

Do you actually think that the Jewish Messiah could be born of anyone else beside a virgin? Show me how?

Jesus fit every prophecy perfectly and I can demonstrate it through the bible and through History.

Last, Mary was not impregnated by a ghost of any kind. The scientific reason as how it happened doesn't mean that it can't happen with Gods intervention. You are only correct if we look to a natural biological explanation. God by his very nature can create and manipulate any biological matter fully.

Edited by Jor-el, 21 April 2012 - 10:51 AM.

[Ben Masada]

Jor-el, on 19 April 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

Well I pretty much demonstrated that she wasn't of Levi, thus we go back to basics. Women were encouraged to marry within their own tribes, especially if they were the older daughter... or in this case a single daughter.

Logic dictates that Mary would be marrying within her own tribe. The geneological table, supports that view. It is simply your own choice to dibelieve it. There are no grounds that you can use that allows you to support the contrary.

Since you say you are a man of logic, then that should be quite acceptable... unless...

Luke is not reporting the genealogy of Mary but that of Joseph's. You can't accept this truth because of the implications on the identity of Jesus.
Christian preconceived notions, therefore. There is nothing closer than Luke 1:5,36 to approach Mary to any Tribe but that of Levi. But, for the same
forementioned reason, you can't go for that. I have told you already, and more than several times; even if Mary had been of the Tribe of Judah, it would be of no help in the case of Jesus. He had to be a biological son of Joseph's. Do you know something? This kind of Christian stubborness is what has given reason to suppose that Jesus was born out of rape by a Roman soldier. Josephus says that rapes of young Jewish ladies in Israel in the First Century was an almost every-day tragedy. Take a look at my thread about "The Alleged Sons of God."
Ben

[Ben Masada]

Beckys_Mom, on 19 April 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Actually  it is true  ( the story telling part )  there was never any eye witnesses.. that's how the story goes...And the part of your post  I highlight in bold, it does not surprise me... Women  were so little thought of by the sounds of it...

The rest of your post.. I find very interesting Ben.........  But can you do  me a small favour..?    Space out out a little more..  my eyes cannot focus  on text all stuck together...  I would like to read more on this from you...but  only if you can space it out like I have above...I spaced out your quote  for me to be able to read it better...and when I did, I liked what I was reading...

It would be so helpful...and I would be grateful too

Thanks in advance...

Sorry Mom, I'll try to abide for your request next time.

Ben

[SikFly]

Actually, there were so many people being crucified during his time, that they ran out of wood and began using Ash trees to crucify people on. He could have done nothing more than say the wrong thing to the wrong person and got crucified in that time frame, so it should be no suprise that he was as well. If there were such things as pictures, you would see Jesus among hundreds of others in a small area being crucified, So don't believe fully of the so many paintings and drawsings showing him as the only one.

Edited by SikFly, 21 April 2012 - 06:44 PM.

[Jor-el]

Ben Masada, on 21 April 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

Luke is not reporting the genealogy of Mary but that of Joseph's. You can't accept this truth because of the implications on the identity of Jesus.
Christian preconceived notions, therefore. There is nothing closer than Luke 1:5,36 to approach Mary to any Tribe but that of Levi. But, for the same
forementioned reason, you can't go for that. I have told you already, and more than several times; even if Mary had been of the Tribe of Judah, it would be of no help in the case of Jesus. He had to be a biological son of Joseph's. Do you know something? This kind of Christian stubborness is what has given reason to suppose that Jesus was born out of rape by a Roman soldier. Josephus says that rapes of young Jewish ladies in Israel in the First Century was an almost every-day tragedy. Take a look at my thread about "The Alleged Sons of God."
Ben

Demonstrate please how it wouldn't have helped that she was of the tribe of Judah. You say that but what you can't do is demonstrate it.

The fact that Mary married Joseph who then adopted Jesus and raised him as his son, giving him a legitamate heritage as a son of David, to the blood he already had in fact, gives you no leg to stand on.

And it becomes repetitive... if you have nothing further to add then we should move on. The bible clearly demonstrates that he is a son of David.

Luke 1:32

He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.
The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.

You don't believe it, then join the other thousands who don't. The bible is clear on this issue.

Edited by Jor-el, 21 April 2012 - 07:03 PM.

[THE INTERPETER]

From 20 April 2012 - 08:09 PM:

Well... it isn't hard to break. And it has been broken. Or rather, perhaps it was never stitched together terribly well.

Joseph was almost certainly the father of Jesus; though, as I've said, a Roman centurion, or some figure unknown to us, are equally possible as well. One answer that I don't buy is that Mary was impregnated by a ghost. Frankly, it's about the least probable explanation she could have come up with.

The Jewish Messiah is never predicted to be born of a virgin. Regardless, Jesus doesn't fit the prophecies very well on multiple other points besides this.

If you can present some shred of evidence which cannot be refuted which indicates the existence of your God, your "spiritual world", your "virgin birth", and the historical reliability of your holy book, then perhaps there will be some room for discussion. So far, this all relies entirely on whether or not one of us believes or disbelieves the stories. I'm open to reconsider it all: but you have to provide some evidence first. On this point, there can be no debate. Show me the evidence, then we'll talk.

Isa_7:14  
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Immanuel means God with us. So If the Son is God, he certainly is the messiah, as prophesied, straight out of the Jewish testaments.

Young man, why are you so argumentive when it comes to the Holy scriptures? I pray God will open your eyes someday, no offense meant, however.

[Arbitran]

Jor-el, on 21 April 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

So what seperates people from belief is "belief"?

You want emperical evidence to a question on belief, that sounds a little strange. Thomas didn't believe either, most people are like him nowadays, "I will only believe if I see with my own eyes".

Either one allows God to talk to us, or one doesn't.

Either way there is more than enough evidence for God and the spiritual world. You simply don't accept it, you will always find an "out", not to accept it.
We could add a list of that evidence, and you would come right back with excuses as to why those things do not constitute evidence...

1. The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
2. The universe had a start, what caused it?
3. The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?
4. All life is connected by the golden ratio, Why?
5. The very nature of our universe implies a world with definite edges to it. In fact it can be compared quite literally to a computer simulation.

Do you actually think that the Jewish Messiah could be born of anyone else beside a virgin? Show me how?

Jesus fit every prophecy perfectly and I can demonstrate it through the bible and through History.

Last, Mary was not impregnated by a ghost of any kind. The scientific reason as how it happened doesn't mean that it can't happen with Gods intervention. You are only correct if we look to a natural biological explanation. God by his very nature can create and manipulate any biological matter fully.

Any actual evidence for any of this?

1 ~ The complexity of our planet is a thin layer on its surface, which constitutes about 0.0001% of Earth's total area. Human life is only suited to 1% of this 0.0001% area. This is hardly "fine-tuned" for life.
2 ~ The universe's process of inflation from the Big Bang began circa 13.7 billion years ago; it is not clear whether the universe before this had a beginning. It is theoretically possible that it is eternal. The most pressing question is what create the "creator", if there were one? You have merely created an infinite regress of "what created that?" by including God in the equations; and you cannot merely insist that it doesn't need a creator: that would be contradicting your own "everything needs a beginning" argument.
3 ~ It is generally thought that the laws of nature which operate in our universe are one set among an infinite array of alternative arrangements in other universes. There is nothing unique about them: and they certainly can't be used as evidence that "God must have made them".
4 ~ Could you elaborate on this point? So far you haven't demonstrated a very keen knowledge of science. It seems clear that anyone who simply claims that "God did it" instead of seeking real answers is merely copping-out.
5 ~ And what does this demonstrate about the alleged existence of your God? All it might conceivably indicate is that our universe is finite; and possibly even an actual computer simulation. This is no evidence whatsoever towards the existence of your deity.

Please demonstrate somehow that the Jewish Messiah has to be born of a virgin. There are no messianic prophecies which deal with this topic; if you believe that there are, please cite them.

You are simply asserting that God can "by his very nature" manipulate biological matter. Please demonstrate this through evidence. Of course, it would be necessary to first prove the existence of your God before you begin to ascribe abilities and attributes to it.

I don't have to see God with my own eyes: but there ought to be some tangible evidence of him if he exists. And you can't simply say that he is "supernatural". Supernatural is defined as being outside of nature, being intangible, being unknowable. Therefore, how it this somehow distinct from abject nonexistence? If it can't be shown to exist, how are we intended to know that it exists? And an ancient book scribbled by Bronze Age Palestinian superstitious herdsman cannot be used as evidence. You can't use a book to prove the veracity of the book, to prove the book's story that it was written by a Middle Eastern deity, who must be taken for his word, because it is true, because it was written by him... Can you not see the sheer idiocy of this sort of circular, illogical reasoning?

I would be more than willing to believe in your God if you could provide some real evidence of its existence. You haven't shown any real evidence yet. You can't simply invent your own evidence: it has to be agreed to be valid evidence. Yours is not, as of yet.

[Arbitran]

Ben Masada, on 21 April 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

Luke is not reporting the genealogy of Mary but that of Joseph's. You can't accept this truth because of the implications on the identity of Jesus.
Christian preconceived notions, therefore. There is nothing closer than Luke 1:5,36 to approach Mary to any Tribe but that of Levi. But, for the same
forementioned reason, you can't go for that. I have told you already, and more than several times; even if Mary had been of the Tribe of Judah, it would be of no help in the case of Jesus. He had to be a biological son of Joseph's. Do you know something? This kind of Christian stubborness is what has given reason to suppose that Jesus was born out of rape by a Roman soldier. Josephus says that rapes of young Jewish ladies in Israel in the First Century was an almost every-day tragedy. Take a look at my thread about "The Alleged Sons of God."
Ben

Very well-stated sir.

[Arbitran]

Jor-el, on 21 April 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

Demonstrate please how it wouldn't have helped that she was of the tribe of Judah. You say that but what you can't do is demonstrate it.

The fact that Mary married Joseph who then adopted Jesus and raised him as his son, giving him a legitamate heritage as a son of David, to the blood he already had in fact, gives you no leg to stand on.

And it becomes repetitive... if you have nothing further to add then we should move on. The bible clearly demonstrates that he is a son of David.

Luke 1:32

He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.
The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.

You don't believe it, then join the other thousands who don't. The bible is clear on this issue.

Belief doesn't cut it. Just because it's written in a book, doesn't mean that it's automatically true. What about when it says in the Koran that Jesus survived the crucifixion, because Judas was magically transformed to look exactly like him and was crucified in his stead? What, you mean that isn't true? But it's written in a book! A book that claims to be God's word!

[Arbitran]

Pixie Kisses, on 21 April 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

Isa_7:14  
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Immanuel means God with us. So If the Son is God, he certainly is the messiah, as prophesied, straight out of the Jewish testaments.

Young man, why are you so argumentive when it comes to the Holy scriptures? I pray God will open your eyes someday, no offense meant, however.

I am sometimes argumentative in regards to the scriptures, because I am often irritated by the astonishingly-poor understanding of the Bible demonstrated by Christians. Isaiah 7:14 is not a messianic prophecy: it's barely even a prophecy, since the young lady in question was already pregnant. It doesn't take a surgeon to point out that a woman that's pregnant is going to give birth; even giving birth to a son isn't specifically hard to predict. There are many methods. Could you also please cite your source as to the translation as "God with us"? I was a Christian for the grater part of my life, and am well-aware that that is what Christians are taught it means: however, I also speak Hebrew, and know better than that. The Messiah was not prophesied to be the Son of God, but a king. There is no reference anywhere in the messianic prophecies that the Messiah would be divine, a Son of God, born of a virgin, rise from the dead, etc. These are mostly taken from other mythologies: they can be compared directly with figures such as Horus and Osiris from Egyptian legend, Dionysus from Greco-Roman, and Krishan, Kalki, and Buddha from India.

God opened my eyes many, many years ago; it took me most of my life to remove the cataracts he had also inserted. There is no more truth in the Bible than the suggestion that the world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster with his noodly appendage. And notions that one can only understand the Bible if they already believe it... are absurd. It's just a self-reinforcing delusion. I don't need an imaginary friend to give me morality, explain the origins of the universe, or comfort me. I am an independent, adult human being. Let's leave the fairy tales out of things. There is almost certainly no God: and the only other option is for you to present some evidence for your claims. If you can show that God exists, then we can begin to discuss what properties and attributes that entity or force might have; not before.

In any case, a meaningless quote from Isaiah doesn't prove anything at all.

[Jor-el]

Arbitran, on 21 April 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

Any actual evidence for any of this?

1 ~ The complexity of our planet is a thin layer on its surface, which constitutes about 0.0001% of Earth's total area. Human life is only suited to 1% of this 0.0001% area. This is hardly "fine-tuned" for life.

Yet here we are against all odds. We live in every single place on this planet, from the coldest to the hottest regions. We live on the sea, we even live under the sea.

Quote

2 ~ The universe's process of inflation from the Big Bang began circa 13.7 billion years ago; it is not clear whether the universe before this had a beginning. It is theoretically possible that it is eternal. The most pressing question is what create the "creator", if there were one? You have merely created an infinite regress of "what created that?" by including God in the equations; and you cannot merely insist that it doesn't need a creator: that would be contradicting your own "everything needs a beginning" argument.

It is clear this universe has an end. It also had a beginning. I don't know of a single scientist that would state otherwise. The beginning is called the Big Bang and is the only possible explanation for the universes inflation. Since matter is a transitionary state of energy and we live under the rule of entropy, where there is no constant renewal of energy to the universe, at some time in the future it will die as maximum entropy takes place. Temperatures will cool to 0 degrees Kelvin or absolute Zero.

Unfortunately for the universe, Heat death is its ultimate fate. Matter itself will cease to exist as energy is diluted and lost due to radiation into space and matter itself will die. Proton decay has not yet been verified but is the natural process as energy states whither over the ages.

Quote

3 ~ It is generally thought that the laws of nature which operate in our universe are one set among an infinite array of alternative arrangements in other universes. There is nothing unique about them: and they certainly can't be used as evidence that "God must have made them".

Ye it is though, the problem in the theory is just that, it cannot be demonstrated to be so. We only have evidence of one universe, there may be others, but they are irrelevant, since they are completely unreachable and thus can only exist in theory. As such what concerns us is this particular universe and in it we have an exact set of laws that allow life to exist.

Take, for instance, the neutron. It is 1.00137841870 times heavier than the proton, which is what allows it to decay into a proton, electron and neutrino, a process that determined the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium after the big bang and gave us a universe dominated by hydrogen. If the neutron-to-proton mass ratio were even slightly different, we would be living in a very different universe: one, perhaps, with far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too quickly for life to evolve, or one in which protons decayed into neutrons rather than the other way around, leaving the universe without atoms. So, in fact, we wouldn’t be living here at all—we wouldn’t exist.

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

1.strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry

2.weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible

3.gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form

4.electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry

5.ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements

6.ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above

7.ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above

8.expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed

9.entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form

10.mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements

11.velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support

12.age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed

13.initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space

14.average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit

15.density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material

16.average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life

17.fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun

18.decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life

19.12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life

20.ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above

21.decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry

22.ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes

23.initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation

24.polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result

25.supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form

26.white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry

27.ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form

28.number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result

29.number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result

30.mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense

31.big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form

32.size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result

33.uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable

34.cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

Source: Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe

Now you can argue as you will, but too many coincidences mount to credible evidence. How does that saying go?

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action." (or in this case Godly action... )

Quote

4 ~ Could you elaborate on this point? So far you haven't demonstrated a very keen knowledge of science. It seems clear that anyone who simply claims that "God did it" instead of seeking real answers is merely copping-out.

Why is it that anything that actually points to Gods handiwork is suddenly copping out? I could interpret that as being biased toward the evidence... God gave us brains to use, but they are not the end all and be all of existence.

The Golden ratio is a little difficult to explain, but it is based on the Fibonacci sequence. As such all living things are based structurally on the same ratio, and this ratio not only covers our shapes and that of all animals and plants, but also our internal structure, from organs to cells.

I would watch the video, it explains it all in a way that we can understand it...

Quote

5 ~ And what does this demonstrate about the alleged existence of your God? All it might conceivably indicate is that our universe is finite; and possibly even an actual computer simulation. This is no evidence whatsoever towards the existence of your deity.

No it means you and I don't live in a real world, we are for all intents and purposes living in a computer simulation, which means that there is a computer out ther and a controller. It means you cannot rely on your senses to tell you the truth and that this universe is not the simple and apparent object you see around you.

Quote

Please demonstrate somehow that the Jewish Messiah has to be born of a virgin. There are no messianic prophecies which deal with this topic; if you believe that there are, please cite them.

The Jewish Messiah has to be a descendent of David, but he cannot be a direct descendent of the kingly line by blood. There is a curse on that line, the Curse of Jeconiah. The only possible way for such a curse to be overcome is to have a davidic bloodline that did not go through him, but that would also bar the davidic descendant from attaining the throne, since only the direct bloodline or the royal bloodline had a right to the throne, from which they are barred.

The virgin birth overcomes this issue. The issue is so important that Jews today use it as an argumant against Jesus. It is so important that Zerubbabel, one of the most highly regarded men in Israel, after the exilic return, could not become king because of it.

Quote

You are simply asserting that God can "by his very nature" manipulate biological matter. Please demonstrate this through evidence. Of course, it would be necessary to first prove the existence of your God before you begin to ascribe abilities and attributes to it.

I don't have to see God with my own eyes: but there ought to be some tangible evidence of him if he exists. And you can't simply say that he is "supernatural". Supernatural is defined as being outside of nature, being intangible, being unknowable. Therefore, how it this somehow distinct from abject nonexistence? If it can't be shown to exist, how are we intended to know that it exists? And an ancient book scribbled by Bronze Age Palestinian superstitious herdsman cannot be used as evidence. You can't use a book to prove the veracity of the book, to prove the book's story that it was written by a Middle Eastern deity, who must be taken for his word, because it is true, because it was written by him... Can you not see the sheer idiocy of this sort of circular, illogical reasoning?

I would be more than willing to believe in your God if you could provide some real evidence of its existence. You haven't shown any real evidence yet. You can't simply invent your own evidence: it has to be agreed to be valid evidence. Yours is not, as of yet.

The universe as we know it has 4 identifiable and tangible dimensions, their conjunction, we call the space-time continuum. Mathematically there are 11 dimensions, and these form part of what we call M-Theory. What you call the supernatural, I call higher dimensions, or higher planes of existence. So we may not be able to see them, but we know they exist.

God has left his tracks all over the place, you can refuse to see the evidence, or you can choose to interpret the evidence in a more convenient way to you, but that evidence is there for the seeing. Ultimately, the choice to believe is yours alone. None can compel another to believe, not even God... why should he, wouldn't you just explain it away anyhow?

Edited by Jor-el, 21 April 2012 - 11:57 PM.