Wow, you do not understand evolution, get your mind out of the bible and go to a museum or any university!

I treat the bible like a fairy tale story! Snakes have "vestigial legs" and have evolved from lizards. Go check that out please.

You need to go to school!

Most concepts of God and religion are purely imagined and without any basis in reality. We can agree on that. Yet, your existence, your mind, and your ability to use language doesn't make sense without a Creator. There is no evolutionary basis or mechanism for human language. That's a fact.

@@gospelphysics I don't see a problem with your logic, I just fail to see where it follows which specific Creator (among the many that various traditions offer) is demonstrated by this argument.

​@@francescosegre you're correct. This argument does not point directly to the God of the Bible, but there is agreement with the biblical narrative. Realizing the existence of God is the beginning. Demonstrating the God of the Bible is a different argument.

Hi Robert. You don't seem familiar with the anthropic principle. Indeed, most of the universe is shockingly inhospitable to life. And yet, any modification to the laws of the universe and we wouldn't exist. None of this would exist. But here we are talking about our existence. Did we just get lucky? Let's work in the opposite direction, if you're willing. What evidence would you require to be convinced that the universe was created by God? I'd really like to hear a specific example.

@@gospelphysics As an introduction let me just say I'm a humanist and philosophical naturalist (until proven otherwise). That says much more than just saying I'm an atheist, I don't like using that as an identifier because I don't believe in bigfoot or ancient aliens or many other things and that lack of belief doesn't define me or form a worldview. I don't mind having these conversations as long as they are amicable. I have no hostility toward you or anyone else based on your beliefs. Actions are another story, whether they are a product of the persons' belief system or not. What are the chances of my parents meeting and just the right combination of sperm and egg to produce me. Take this back a couple generations and the odds of me are some billion billions to one. Yet here I exist, no miracle necessary. We don't know if the specific parameters in this universe could be any other way, or how many configurations are possible, we only have this universe to examine. If my conception was delayed a second some other zygote would have formed and someone else would be living their life. Likewise, if some different universe was formed some other incomprendably different lifeforms may be having this same discussion. This leads to the Puddle Analogy from Douglas Adams, if you are unfamiliar look it up. As far as proof for gods, most modern conceptions are designed to be impossible to demonstrate or dismiss with any confidence. I don't think anyone can prove or disprove a generic theistic god. I am pretty confident that some of the characteristics given to this god are not possible. I don't know of anything that is immaterial and an immaterial mind seems even more impossible. Our minds are an emergent property of the brain. As far as timeless, maybe some dimension exists without time (hard to conceive), but something equivalent to matter and energy could exist there just as likely as a mind, and whatever natural rules exist there could have resulted in our universe. As far as the Christian God, there are as many conceptions of it as there are Christians. But I don't think any of them are possible as the narrative around the religion be it the Bible or the added properties different Christian sects add make an incoherent story that is self conflicting and doesn't comport with reality. As far as what would convince me, it doesn't need to be technically scientific, but it would have to be a demonstration that could be independently confirmed and not be explained by any other means. The philosophical arguments aren't very convincing, they are almost all based on premises that are based on our intuitions but not on facts that can be confirmed. For instance, the idea that everything that begins to exist has a cause. This makes sense to most people, but it can't be proven. In fact, nothing at all has been proven to begin to exist, as far as I know everything we see has been the same matter and energy reconfigured in different configurations and I have no reason to believe that this universe is any different. With that said events occur and particles appear and disappear at the quantum level without apparent cause, I'm not prepared to defend that as what I know of quantum physics is very little.

@@robertvirnig638 thanks for your response. I still recommend you look further into the anthropic principle. The analogies you provide do not apply to this discussion. I'd really like a very specific example of something that would convince you that God exists.

@@gospelphysics So I see you don't want to have a conversation at all as you haven't made the slightest attempt at responding to any point I've made including the ones that relate to using the anthropic principle as a proof of God. I am not unfamiliar with the anthropic principle, it is just something I looked into and dismissed as something that has no significance to me whether it is true or not. Most proponents of the argument don't use it as a proof of God and when used as a proof of God it appears to be nothing more than the fine-tuning argument. The odds of the universe being the way it is 100%, we know of one universe that supports life and none that does not. Looking at it differently, there are an infinite number of universes (possible or actual) that support some sort of life and an infinite number that do not. Our presence in this universe necessitates that it has the properties to support life and this fact seems pretty meaningless. Regardless, if you are a Christian I don't know why you are trying to prove deism. Proving a creator doesn't prove any sort of god, and proving a deistic god doesn't get you anywhere close to Christianity. As I already said I don't think anything can prove the Christian god unless you radically redefine it from any of the myriad forms I am familiar with as they make as much sense as a square circle. If you could prove a deistic God, that would be interesting but wouldn't change my life in any meaningful way.

@@gospelphysics I am not unfamiliar with the anthology principle, I just don't find it very useful. It does not necessitate the existence of gods and using it in an attempt to prove a god is no different from the fine-tuning argument. The chances of this universe supporting us are 100%. We don't know if other conditions are possible and we have no examples of other universes to compare. Based on the Bible there is at least one other universe capable of supporting life, perhaps more. According to that myth, the angels existed before the creation of our universe and necessitated a universe for them to exist in that's capable of life. But you are arguing for a deistic god and I don't know how you could possibly prove this version, the best you have is a hypothesis that appears to me to be unfalsifiable. So for evidence, I can't see what would convince me, unless you think that this god is interacting with us on Earth. In that case, you are not talking about anything supernatural anymore and evidence for that interaction in the natural world should exist. So evidence that could not be otherwise explained would convince me.

Hi Daniel. What do you mean by "faith alone"? How would you prove that we are saved "forever"? Are you saying that there is no possibility of being lost?

Do you have an explanation for how the universe began that does not violate the laws of physics?

@@gospelphysics suppose I don’t. From that do you infer “therefore God exists”?

@@ChokeArtist411 If there is no mechanism for the creation of the universe, why and how do you exist? My answer is God. What is your answer?

@@gospelphysics who said there’s no mechanism? Your argument is a textbook god of the gaps fallacy. “I don’t know of a scientific explanation, therefore God did it”. Typically people are more deft in how they disguise their use of this fallacy, but you’ve put it plainly. To that extent it’s actually admirable, as you’re not engaged in obfuscation. It’s no less fallacious though.

@@ChokeArtist411 I appreciate that you've carried on in this conversation as long as you have. You're not reading/listening carefully. I am not saying that "we don't know of a mechanism, therefore God...". That would be a fallacy. I'm saying that a natural mechanism for creating everything out of nothing does not exist and cannot exist within the laws of the universe. This requires an outside agency. I'm still waiting for your explanation. Why and how do you exist?

If you're interested in evidence, you've joined the right series. I'll be posting videos with Christian evidences each week for several weeks.

Correct. Jesus was in every way tempted as we are, which must mean he had fleshly desires just as we do.

@@gospelphysics awesome. Thanks for your response.

Yes! www.ctphysicsandimaging.com/audio

Indeed, witnesses of the Father and the Son, whom Thomas called "My Lord and my God." While the Son is not equal in authority to the Father, He is equally God and is to be worshipped as God.

Yes, people have been adding & subtracting God's words in the Bible for centuries; & for centuries this has been wrong. God, said what he meant... & meant what he said. His words & His ideas are, were, & will always be perfect. And God does not need any one to rewrite them.

Let me guess Jesus spoke English too. You're a part of why we put labels on tide pods.

@@brialapoint2608 First of all I wanna say, God Bless You. You are so Loved by God, and by me. Second thing I wanna say, is, Labels are used by satin as cruel weapons of evil intent; And should not be placed upon anyone by anyone. Third thing I wanna say is, Jesus spoke Aramaic.

Good catch. This section should read: "If the rotation time is decreased, the dose to the patient and the exposure to the detectors will decrease by the same fraction. If the rotation time is increased, the dose to the patient and the exposure to the detectors will increase by the same fraction."