Easter: The silliest story ever told

Of course the universe looks finely tuned. It's very complex.

Many more top scientists would disagree with you than agree.

 

jem is just doing his usual convoluted bs. the guy said "it looks finely tuned but it is not designed"

 

Its really odd seeing the et dopey atheists mis represent the argument... just to support an irrational ideal like atheism.

1. Be logical be agnostic.

2. Stop lying about the facts - here is one of many quotes I have produced.


Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: “Everyone has their own reason why they’re keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.”

But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isn’t conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?

Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it “an abdication of human intelligence.” That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.” But even if you don’t go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why.

http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137

 

Can anybody who was told about the life of Jesus explain WHY he had to be crucified (and not give the pat answer "To forgive our sins")?

Seems I don't hear the actual reason ever mentioned when those preachers are on tv....

 

He was a teacher following the guidance of his Teacher. He taught largely through parables. I call it a parody...a metaphor told with actions. The cross is a metaphor. It pictures what sin does to *the Truth* through us. It pictures us and our world. It serves as one of many lessons that accumulate to dismantle a world of sin over time, as the lessons are learned.

 

Jem you said: "Its really odd seeing the et dopey atheists mis represent the argument... just to support an irrational ideal like atheism.

1. Be logical be agnostic. "

Jem are you agnostic about the Islam religion how about Hindi, what about vodoo. My guess is you are an atheist when it comes to all other religions except your own.

There are many wild mystical claims that most are not agnostic about. Mind reading, time travel, aliens kidnapping people, the earth being populated by aliens. The list goes on and on. Are you agnostic about all these ideas, you can't prove none of them aren't true so you must be at the least agnostic.

But there is no proof, just like the atheist... you don't believe.

 

Abraham was going to provide his son as a sacrifice. He was told God will provide the sacrifice.

Jesus needed to shed his blood. Because the wages of sin is death. And leviticus blood sacrifice is the atonement for the soul.

It is all part a big plan.

In the old testament on Friday the 13 the first born of Egypt were killed (saturday the 14th to jews because it was after sundown)

The jews were saved if they put the blood of an unblemished lamb (in the sign of cross in the door frame) and ate the lamb.

God did not question if they were good jews. Only that they cover themselves with the sign of the cross and eat the lamb. Notice the requirement to eat the lamb. This was not symbolic.


1 Corinthians 11:27-29, "Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body."

 

All anyone has to do is consider the following. jem and peil believe that the Earth is 6,785 years old.

That's not a joke or a misprint. They actually believe this, literally.

It's nearly impossible to imagine what kind of mind would be capable of believing something so stupid as this.

To me, the beginning and the end of the discussion about these pathetic brainwashed losers begins and ends right there.

 

another lying atheist.
I have no idea how old the universe is.
Note the bible does not say how old the universe is.

by the way - I notice after years of stating that there is no evidence of a designer - you have stayed away lately.

Why is that - have you begun to learn about the evidence of fine tuning?


Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. ...

But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.”



http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137

 

Jem he didn't say the universe he said the age of the earth. How old do you think the earth is? And I'm curious are you agnostic about Islam ?