Board index ‹ God

[Darth Vader]

Why should I believe in god?

[jimwalton]

1. He wants a relationship with you.
2. He will change your life.
3. You will fulfill the purpose for which you were created.
4. The evidences for the existence of God are far stronger than the evidences against His existence.
5. What we see in the world makes better sense with theism than it does with atheism.

[Darth Vader]

> The evidences for the existence of God are far stronger than the evidences against His existence.

Do you have an example or a logical argument?

[jimwalton]

There are many logical arguments for the existence of God that I consider to be stronger than the refutations.

Cosmological argument: The universe had a beginning. The idea of an infinite universe is absurd. Something outside of the universe had to have caused it to bang.

Ontological argument: If God doesn't exist, his existence is logically impossible. If he does exist, his existence is necessary. Since we know God is not impossible, he must be necessary.

Teleological argument: We don't know of anything that shows evidence of being purposefully designed that was not indeed purposefully designed. Many parts of the universe exhibit purpose. Therefore it's logical to assume the universe could be the product of purposeful design.

Analogical argument: Everything we humans produce for a particular purpose is designed for that purpose by someone intelligent enough to have designed it. The universe has many characteristics that seem like it was produced for a particular purpose. It's reasonable to conclude that the universe was designed by an intelligent being.

The argument of other minds: I can't prove that other minds exist, but it's logical to believe that. I can't prove what other minds are thinking, and yet it's reasonable to assume they are. The bulk of my commonsense beliefs about others minds is more probably than not on my total evidence. Using that analogy, then, belief in God is rational, being more probable than not on the total evidence.

Argument from consciousness: Genuinely nonphysical mental states exist (feelings, thoughts, emotions). The explanation for such mental states is either personal or scientific. The explanation for nonphysical mental states is not a natural scientific one, for no naturalistic explanation postulated thus far has been capable of accounting for how the mental can arise from the physical. Therefore the best explanation for now of nonphysical mental states is a personal one. If the explanation is personal, then it is theistic.

Axiological argument: Since there is evil in the world, there must also be good (or we wouldn't know evil was evil). If those words mean anything, there must be a standard by which to measure them. And if there is a standard, there must be a source for that standard. That source must be moral, objective, and personal.

Linguistic argument: Language is effective only if endowed with meaning. Meaning is non-material; it is neither energy nor matter. The essence of meaning is entirely distinct from energy and matter. Language demands a non-material source, since meaning is non-material. Language therefore demonstrates that we as humans possess non-material attributes. The most plausible source for that is an entity with mental faculties qualitatively similar to our own but vastly superior.

God makes sense of the existence of abstract entities.
God makes sense of the origin of the universe.
God makes sense of the complex order in the universe.
God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.

The resurrection of Jesus. The established facts surrounding the resurrection, and the inferences that can be made from subsidiary arguments and evidences are more plausible than alternative explanations.

The credibility of the Bible: The historical evidences, its trueness to life, its value for life, and its spiritual power.

The testimonies of other people whom I respect. It's tough to deny when you can see people change right before your eyes from one kind of person to another, qualitatively different, kind of person.

My experiences of God. I am convinced God exists wholly apart from arguments. They are properly basic beliefs, just like my belief in and experience of the external world and the existence of minds besides my own, such as yours.

The arguments against the existence of God are usually (1) the problem of evil, and (2) science. But neither of those mount any kind of argument. It's very possible to have a good and all-powerful God who allows evil, and science squares better with theism than with atheism. Usually the arguments from atheists boil down to, "I don't find the evidence for God's existence convincing enough," and yet they can offer precious little evidence in rebuttal for what they believe.

On the basis of so many thoughts and angles, logic and evidences, I became convinced that God exists and that Christianity is true.

[Darth Vader]

> Cosmological argument: The universe had a beginning.

That doesn't mean a god created it though.

> If God doesn't exist, his existence is logically impossible.

True.

> If he does exist, his existence is necessary.

How do you know that?

> Since we know God is not impossible, he must be necessary.

If god is not impossible that doesn't mean he automatically exists now. It means that god potentially exists. Big difference.

> Many parts of the universe exhibit purpose.

I disagree, but do you have an example?

> The universe has many characteristics that seem like it was produced for a particular purpose.

Do you have an example?

> I can't prove that other minds exist, but it's logical to believe that. I can't prove what other minds are thinking, and yet it's reasonable to assume they are.

Agreed.

> The bulk of my commonsense beliefs about others minds is more probably than not on my total evidence. Using that analogy, then, belief in God is rational, being more probable than not on the total evidence.

Why can't we apply that to other things existing? It could be trolls, fairies, wizards, etc. Why do you assume out of all of the options that only 1 god is true?

> Genuinely nonphysical mental states exist (feelings, thoughts, emotions).

You're assuming that feelings or emotions aren't physical. Emotions get produced by chemicals in our brain. If god makes those chemicals in our bodies is another debate, but I don't think it should be assumed that emotions aren't physical because they are physical chemicals.

> no naturalistic explanation postulated thus far has been capable of accounting for how the mental can arise from the physical.

Even if that is true that doesn't mean god exists. Just because naturalists don't have an answer doesn't make your answer right.

> Therefore the best explanation for now of nonphysical mental states is a personal one. If the explanation is personal, then it is theistic.

How do you know it isn't fairies, wizards, curses, witches, and other magical creatures. Why do you assume it can only be theistic? I would like it if you didn't discredit my argument because I mentioned magical creatures.

> Since there is evil in the world, there must also be good (or we wouldn't know evil was evil). If those words mean anything, there must be a standard by which to measure them.

I don't think those words mean anything. I don't think morality exists because I have seen no proof or a convincing logical argument. If morality did objectively exist then yes I would agree, but we don't know if there is objective morality unless you have proof that would make you a billionaire.

> Meaning is non-material; it is neither energy nor matter.

I disagree with your premise how do you know that meaning is "non-material"?

> The resurrection of Jesus.

Has that been scientifically proven? or are we trusting about 12 people that say they saw it happen?

> The historical evidences, its trueness to life, its value for life, and its spiritual power.

History doesn't acknowledge the divine nature of the bible. It does acknowledge the naturalist parts of history that are within the bible, but you made a leap that wasn't there.

> The testimonies of other people whom I respect. It's tough to deny when you can see people change right before your eyes from one kind of person to another, qualitatively different, kind of person.

I see how that would be very convincing, but just because something supernatural happens that doesn't automatically mean god is real. It could be multiple gods or other magical sources.

> The arguments against the existence of God are usually (1) the problem of evil, and (2) science.

True, but that isn't my argument. One of my main arguments is how do you know it is just 1 god? why not 3 or 90? The answer is most likely that you don't know, and you are assuming that only 1 god exists. Is that fair, and if I offended you it was unintentional.

> Usually the arguments from atheists boil down to, "I don't find the evidence for God's existence convincing enough," and yet they can offer precious little evidence in rebuttal for what they believe.

Atheists don't need to offer a rebuttal you are making the claim god exists. Just because I don't have an answer doesn't mean your answer is right. It is possible that both of us don't know for sure whether a god exists or not agreed?

[jimwalton]

> "Cosmological": That doesn't mean a god created it though.

If the universe had a beginning, then its source is outside of nature and outside of time. And seeing what we have now, whatever started the universe would had to have been powerful. And since first causes are necessarily and only personal, the cause would have to be personal. And since we have intelligence, it makes sense that intelligence came from an intelligent source rather than through mindless processes. Logic tells us the cause of the universe was timeless, eternal, powerful, personal, and intelligent. If we are going to infer the most reasonable conclusion, God is the cause.

> "If he does exist, his existence is necessary." How do you know that?

Since God is defined as the supreme supernatural divine being, if God exists, He/She/It can't be optional. If there is such a being as God, then God has to be there. Let me try it in the obverse: If there is such a being as God, God can't stop existing or be peripheral to the universe.

> If god is not impossible that doesn't mean he automatically exists now. It means that god potentially exists.

You missed the point, then. There are only two choices: He is either impossible or necessary, by the logic. If He is not impossible, the only alternative is not that He maybe exists, but that He's necessary.

> "Many parts of the universe exhibit purpose." I disagree, but do you have an example?

Sure. The moon is at an exact distance from the Earth and of an exact size and an exact gravitational pull to exercise a purposeful influence on our climate, environment, and wellbeing. This means the moon has a great effect on the planet and very possibly is what makes life on Earth possible.

> "The universe has many characteristics that seem like it was produced for a particular purpose." Do you have an example?

Yes. Our universe is particularly suited for life: cosmic microwave background radiation, the magnitudes of fundamental constants, the speed of light, the ratio of protons to neutrons and protons to electrons, the strong nuclear force, the properties of the carbon atom, and the ratio of electromagnetic force to gravity, to name a few.

> Why can't we apply that to other things existing? It could be trolls, fairies, wizards, etc. Why do you assume out of all of the options that only 1 god is true?

We take all the arguments together, cumulatively. God fits the grand scenario and all the situations; fairies and trolls do not.

> Your're assuming that feelings or emotions aren't physical.

I'm not assuming it, but applying the evidence. If you take the position that intelligence is ultimately the product of the same basic physical processes that produce everything else in the universe—that is, intelligence is reducible to brain functions, which in turn are reducible to the processes chemists and physicists study—then we have no grounds for trusting intelligence. If intelligence is the product of physical and chemical processes that don’t aim at truth, cannot understand, and are incapable of making judgments, then reason is unreliable. Physical processes don’t lead us to meaning, judgments, values, and logic (entities that do not exist in the subatomic, chemical, biological, or molecular phenomena). This reductionist-materialist objection is self-defeating.

> Even if that is true that doesn't mean god exists.

We take the arguments cumulatively. Put them all together and you have a formidable case with no competing theory even close to the weight of evidence that theism has. If you object too strongly before you consider all the arguments (as you appear to be doing—drawing a conclusion too soon), that just shows bias. Play the whole argument through.

> I disagree with your premise how do you know that meaning is "non-material"?

If you can't hold it in your hand, smell it, or look at it through a microscope, it doesn't have materiality.

> Just because naturalists don't have an answer doesn't make your answer right.

That's true, but if we take the whole argument together and try to infer the most reasonable conclusion, theism clearly wins over naturalism. If you want to subscribe to what makes the most sense out of the evidence, and which is the stronger argument, then theism takes the cake.

> "Evil...good." I don't think those words mean anything.

Really. You don't think child sexual abuse is evil? You don't agree that punishing a rapist is good?

> "Resurrection." Has that been scientifically proven? or are we trusting about 12 people that say they saw it happen?

There are many convincing evidences for the resurrection of Jesus, and fewer against. The only honest argument against it is the presuppositional bias that says such things are impossible. But that's based on presuppositions, not logic or evidence.

> History doesn't acknowledge the divine nature of the bible.

That's correct. The divine nature of the Bible is inferred from other sources.

> I see how that would be very convincing, but just because something supernatural happens that doesn't automatically mean god is real.

That's true. We take the arguments as a group. This one cannot stand alone. None of them stand alone. Take the whole argument as a whole.

> One of my main arguments is how do you know it is just 1 god? why not 3 or 90?

God, by definition and logical understanding, can only be singular. If we have competing gods, both (or all 90) of whom are all-powerful, free-willed, and purposeful, eventually we are going to have a situation where an immovable object meets an unstoppable force.

On the other side of the coin, if they are all in perfect harmony, then we have nonsensical redundance, which is a negative characteristic.

> Atheists don't need to offer a rebuttal you are making the claim god exists. Just because I don't have an answer doesn't mean your answer is right. It is possible that both of us don't know for sure whether a god exists or not agreed?

All I ever ask atheists is to substantiate what you DO believe, whatever it is. I never get an answer.

So the task at hand is to consider the evidence and the logical arguments to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Taking these, say, 8 arguments that show the reasonableness, logic, and evidence of theism, against the mostly 0 arguments to substantiate atheism, if we are going to infer the most reasonable conclusion, theism is the more rational understanding.

> Just because I don't have an answer doesn't mean your answer is right.

But if my answer has a lot of merit, and your answer is non-existent, my answer is the more plausible, and we'd be remiss not to subscribe to the most plausible answer. That's why you should believe in God, to address your original question.

> It is possible that both of us don't know for sure whether a god exists or not agreed?

It's possible that you don't know, but the strength of logic, the weight of evidence, the cumulative power of the arguments taken together, combined with my experiences, make me certain that God exists.

[Darth Vader]

> If the universe had a beginning, then its source is outside of nature and outside of time.

Again that doesn't mean a god is responsible. My argument is really that simple. Just because something amazing happened doesn't mean god exists.

> And seeing what we have now, whatever started the universe would had to have been powerful.

Even if I agree I don't see how that changes anything. A volcano is powerful.

> Since God is defined as the supreme supernatural divine being, if God exists, He/She/It can't be optional.

Basically the bible says god created everything, so it had to be necessary?

> The moon is at an exact distance from the Earth and of an exact size and an exact gravitational pull to exercise a purposeful influence on our climate, environment, and wellbeing.

How do you know god is responsible for that? Lotteries exist, and there are winners of them. Even if things are as perfect as you suggest there are literally billions of stars, and planets, and you think it is impossible for one of them to get lucky, and have a very well placed moon?

> Our universe is particularly suited for life

Why is it then that space kills you mercilessly then?

> cosmic microwave background radiation, the magnitudes of fundamental constants, the speed of light, the ratio of protons to neutrons and protons to electrons, the strong nuclear force, the properties of the carbon atom, and the ratio of electromagnetic force to gravity, to name a few.

Those are a lot of names, but how do you know god is responsible for any of them? I keep asking that question because you aren't answering it.

> We take all the arguments together, cumulatively. God fits the grand scenario and all the situations; fairies and trolls do not.

How do you know god fits the grand scenario? or even that there is even a grand scenario by itself?

> I'm not assuming it, but applying the evidence.

You have no evidence that emotions aren't physical.

> If you take the position that intelligence is ultimately the product of the same basic physical processes that produce everything else in the universe—that is, intelligence is reducible to brain functions, which in turn are reducible to the processes chemists and physicists study—then we have no grounds for trusting intelligence. If intelligence is the product of physical and chemical processes that don’t aim at truth, cannot understand, and are incapable of making judgments, then reason is unreliable.

I don't take that position.

> We take the arguments cumulatively. Put them all together and you have a formidable case with no competing theory even close to the weight of evidence that theism has.

You seem to be missing something. Just because I don't have an answer doesn't make yours right even if you have more of it. The quantity of evidence isn't as valuable as the quality of it. The quality of your evidence, so far doesn't merit the belief in god.

> If you object too strongly before you consider all the arguments (as you appear to be doing—drawing a conclusion too soon), that just shows bias.

The fact that I am going out of my way to talk to Christians that I disagree with should show you that I am trying to hear all arguments before making my decisions.

> If you can't hold it in your hand, smell it, or look at it through a microscope, it doesn't have materiality.

What is your evidence for that assertion btw. Also if you don't like giving evidence for your claims that is on you not me.

> That's true, but if we take the whole argument together and try to infer the most reasonable conclusion, theism clearly wins over naturalism.

It isn't clear based on what you have said to me, so far, but enlighten me why is theism clearly the winner of the debate?

> You don't think child sexual abuse is evil?

I don't think there is an objective rule book that says that is evil. That doesn't mean I am okay with that shit. I think that behavior is, so f***ed up I would try to end it if I could. I don't do "Good" things because I must. I do them because I choose to. Isn't that want people want anyway?

> There are many convincing evidences for the resurrection of Jesus

If there are many can you name 3? I will wait even if it takes awhile.

> The only honest argument against it is the presuppositional bias that says such things are impossible.

Untrue you have just been talking to intellectually unskilled atheists.

I don't make the claim that the resurrection of jesus is impossible. I say it is highly unlikely big difference. I am open to the idea that it happened, but I need a very good logical argument or evidence you have provided neither.

> God, by definition and logical understanding, can only be singular.

Why?

> If we have competing gods

I didn't say they were competing. They could all love each other like brothers you don't know.

> On the other side of the coin, if they are all in perfect harmony, then we have nonsensical redundance, which is a negative characteristic.

How do you know it would be nonsensical or redundant?

> All I ever ask atheists is to substantiate what you DO believe, whatever it is. I never get an answer.

I am an agnostic, but I will try to give an answer.

I believe a person should navigate their life based on what is most likely going to happen or what is most likely to be true. If that leads me to god it will. If it leads me to agnosticism it will. I don't have loyalty to those ideas.

> But if my answer has a lot of merit

That is still being debated over.

[jimwalton]

> Again that doesn't mean a god is responsible.

This indicates several things to me. (1) You probably didn't read what I said, because I addressed this; (2) you're probably not honestly seeking the answer to your question, "Why should I believe in god?", but instead possibly just want to argue.

I've already addressed "that doesn't mean god is responsible." What I said was, "If the universe had a beginning, then its source is outside of nature and outside of time. And seeing what we have now, whatever started the universe would had to have been powerful. And since first causes are necessarily and only personal, the cause would have to be personal. And since we have intelligence, it makes sense that intelligence came from an intelligent source rather than through mindless processes. Logic tells us the cause of the universe was timeless, eternal, powerful, personal, and intelligent. If we are going to infer the most reasonable conclusion, God is the cause."

Are you interested in inferring the most reasonable conclusion?

> My argument is really that simple

It seems your argument is TOO simple, as if you're not going to give honest consideration to what I said.

> Just because something amazing happened doesn't mean god exists.

And here's the evidence. This is not the case I was making. Did you actually think about what I said? Give it any consideration, especially in comparison to your position?

> Even if I agree I don't see how that changes anything. A volcano is powerful.

You have missed my point. Power (like a volcano) itself doesn't start something like the universe, but only an extreme, exceedingly great, sovereign power.

> Basically the bible says god created everything, so it had to be necessary?

This isn't what I said at all. It was not part of my case that "the Bible says so." Please read what I wrote. You're giving the impression of prejudicial bias, in which case there's no call to continue the conversation.

> How do you know god is responsible for that?

My comments about the moon were in response to your request for example of something in the universe that shows purpose. As far as "how do you know God is responsible for that?", the answer is that if we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion, theism has a far stronger case than atheism.

> Lotteries exist, and there are winners of them.

Yes, but what we see in the universe, from a naturalist position would require winning the lottery about a million times in a row, and that's an understatement. Given theism, there is harmony between what we see and an intelligent, purposeful, powerful deity who brought it into existence and balance.

> Why is it then that space kills you mercilessly then?

You've missed the point. The point is not that death doesn't happen, but that the universe seems purposefully designed to support life.

> Those are a lot of names, but how do you know god is responsible for any of them? I keep asking that question because you aren't answering it.

I've answered it over and over. Because the effect should match the cause. Theism fits better with what we see than atheism. If we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion, the case for theism is far stronger than the case for naturalism. It seems that you are not in this conversation as an honest inquiry.

> How do you know god fits the grand scenario? or even that there is even a grand scenario by itself?

Because we examine the evidences and use our powers and principles of logic to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Theism fits the data better than naturalism.

> You have no evidence that emotions aren't physical.

My argument took a much larger-minded picture than that. I was speaking of principles, logic, and sensibility beyond a reasonable doubt, not of one thing in particular. But then, if my macro-picture is true, then it would also be true of emotions.

> You seem to be missing something. Just because I don't have an answer doesn't make yours right even if you have more of it.

I'm not missing that at all. I am giving you a formidable case, to which you see to have no rebuttal case. The weigh of evidence favors theism by a long shot over naturalism or atheism. If we're not going to follow the evidence or the logic, but rather just to say "because I don't have the answer doesn't make yours right" (which, by the way, I didn't even get close to asserting), then I'm guessing you don't care about the weight of evidence and logic. So it seems.

> The fact that I am going out of my way to talk to Christians that I disagree with should show you that I am trying to hear all arguments before making my decisions.

Good. And so it should be.

> I don't think there is an objective rule book that says that is evil

Wow, this is shocking to me that you don't think child sexual abuse and rape are evil, even though you're not OK with it.

>"Resurrection." If there are many can you name 3? I will wait even if it takes awhile.

Easy. Doesn't take much time. (1) The tomb was verifiably empty; (2) the disciples' belief in the empty tomb and the physical appearances of Jesus motivated a radical change in their entire lives; (3) the start of the Church (Christianity) in the city of Jesus's resurrection a mere month and a half after the event, and its thriving there.

This will do for now, since I'm not confident in the sincerity of your request for evidence and logic.

> "God, by definition and logical understanding, can only be singular." Why?

I explained it in my post. Did you read my post? This is frustrating.

> I didn't say they were competing.

I know you didn't. It was part of my explanation of how God can only be singular.

> How do you know it would be nonsensical or redundant?

Oh my goodness. A plurality of things existing simultaneously in the same place attempting to the same job in coincidence with each other is the very definition of redundancy.

> I believe a person should navigate their life based on what is most likely going to happen or what is most likely to be true. If that leads me to god it will. If it leads me to agnosticism it will. I don't have loyalty to those ideas.

That's a seemingly honest position statement, but it's not the substantiation for which I asked.

[Darth Vader]

> You probably didn't read what I said, because I addressed this

I read everything you said I just completely disagree with you.

> you're probably not honestly seeking the answer to your question

You're wrong. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am having a dialectic in bad faith.

> It seems your argument is TOO simple, as if you're not going to give honest consideration to what I said.

I could write a paper about how I disagree with you, but I have found people understand things better if I say it in a simple way. No offense intended.

> Did you actually think about what I said? Give it any consideration, especially in comparison to your position?

I did.

> Yes, but what we see in the universe, from a naturalist position would require winning the lottery about a million times in a row

You don't know that. You are unaware of the actual probability of that happening. You gave a rough estimation, and then presented it as fact. Do you see the problem with that? And if you don't read, and respond to this point I am making we can end the conversation, but I would like to keep the conversation going if you calmed down.

> Wow, this is shocking to me that you don't think child sexual abuse and rape are evil, even though you're not OK with it.

If I thought morals were true I think it would be evil, but I don't think it is likely that a objective morality exists. I still act kindly to people. You don't need morality to tell you how to be kind.

> Easy. Doesn't take much time. (1) The tomb was verifiably empty

How was the tomb verified to be empty?

> (2) the disciples' belief in the empty tomb and the physical appearances of Jesus motivated a radical change in their entire lives

I don't see the point you are trying to make. And any rude or passive aggressive statement mocking my ignorance will end the conversation. To me you are saying that because there was a drastic change in disciples lives that means something of worth?

> (3) the start of the Church (Christianity) in the city of Jesus's resurrection a mere month and a half after the event, and its thriving there.

Again I don't see how what you are saying is relevant.

> Oh my goodness. A plurality of things existing simultaneously in the same place attempting to the same job in coincidence with each other is the very definition of redundancy.

You are assuming that multiple gods would be trying to do the same thing. The problem is you don't know how gods would behave, so I suggest you don't make assertions like they are proof.

Again I disagree with everything you are saying. I am open minded, and I am still in the conversation, and it seems like you aren't giving me credit for that. I don't appreciate your assumption that I am not reading your post. It would make more sense that I didn't understand you which wouldn't create anger it should create pity because in your view I would be foolish. I don't agree with that, but if you keep saying I am not reading your points this dialectic will be over.

[jimwalton]

> You don't know that. You are unaware of the actual probability of that happening. You gave a rough estimation, and then presented it as fact. Do you see the problem with that? And if you don't read, and respond to this point I am making we can end the conversation, but I would like to keep the conversation going if you calmed down.

Actually I have good reason to conclude that. What are the odds, given naturalism?Could biological information have arisen on its own, as a chance event? And, subsequently, if it did, how could its existence have been maintained in the process of replication of the biomolecules?

Here's the math: Let the number of amino acids equal n. Since there are 20 amino acids, the probability of getting the first one right is one in 20. The probability of getting the second one correct is (1/20)^2. The shortest functional protein reported to date has n equal to 20, while most have n equal to 100 or more. If we choose a number in between (50), we get (1/20)^50 equal to 10^-65, an infinitesimally small number.

If we take our probability estimate the next level, we recognize that a single functional protein is not likely to be biofunctional. That is, it would take more than one biomolecule to carry out life-sustaining processes. How many would we need? The best estimates are a minimum of 250. Taking this number as our protein count, for all of them to occur together, we will make the outlandish assumption that they are all relatively short (50 amino acids). Thus our probability to have a working cell appear in the primordial soup using this rather conservative approach would be (10^-65)^250. That number comes to around 10^-16300. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, through their own calculations using their own particulars, arrived at 10^-40000. The bottom line is that the such a small probability “could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” If these calculations are even remotely accurate, abiogenesis is a hopeless cause.

Many pieces of the universe are fine-tuned for life within staggeringly small parameters. If the number of protons and electrons had not been equal to an accuracy of at least 1 part in 10^37, stars would not have formed. If the gravitation force were slightly weaker, matter would not clump together. If slightly stronger, stars would burn too quickly for life to be able to develop on a planet such as Earth. If the Earth's surface gravity were 0.1% weaker, water vapor would escape the atmosphere and there would be no life. If .1% stronger, too little methane and ammonia would escape, and the atmosphere would be toxic. If the ratio of electron/proton charge were just slightly different, there would be no atoms. There are dozens of these.

Given that scientific speculators dream that there may be approximately 10^500 universes in the multiverse, statistically speaking the odds are that one of those universes has exactly the laws of nature, fundamental constants, and initial conditions as our universe. As such, we happen to find ourselves in a lottery-winning universe. The odds of naturalism are so staggeringly low as to be considered impossible, or the result of a miracle.

> How was the tomb verified to be empty?

(1) By observation and confirmation, by both friends and enemies, (2) confirmed by the life change and the preaching of the apostles in the days immediately after, and (3) by the genesis of the church in the same city within 2 months. (4) There is no writing anywhere in antiquity disputing the empty tomb. (5) What writing we have tries to explain it, not dispute it.

> I don't see the point you are trying to make. And any rude or passive aggressive statement mocking my ignorance will end the conversation. To me you are saying that because there was a drastic change in disciples lives that means something of worth?

There was no expectation on the part of the disciples that Jesus would rise from the dead. In addition, the idea of an immediate bodily resurrection and return to earthly life was not part of their culture—not Greek, Roman, or any part of Judaism. No one can casually assert that, “Oh, those superstitious people always believed in that kind of stuff.” There is no cultural context for such an assertion. The claim of the resurrection of a man back to life on earth was culturally out of the blue, totally unexpected and unique. It was also regarded as impossible. And yet early Christianity was unashamedly a resurrection movement.

Tom Wright says, “Neither the empty tomb by itself…nor the appearances by themselves could have generated the early Christian belief. The empty tomb alone would be a puzzle and a tragedy. Sightings of an apparently alive Jesus, by themselves, would have been classified as visions or hallucinations, which were well enough known in the ancient world. However, an empty tomb and appearances of a living Jesus, taken together, would have presented a powerful reason for the emergence of the belief.”

> Again I disagree with everything you are saying.

OK, I gave you a strong case for theism. You give no rebuttal, but only, "I disagree." So you must have a case of your own for what you do believe. I'd like to see it. Let's talk.