Trav,

I'll agree that "fine tuning" in the Universe is a fascinating phenomenon, you read too much into it in my opinion, there is no reason to infer a Creator's hand behind it. We are made for the Universe, not the Universe for us. We shouldn't assume a supernatural hand just because our minds are not capable of understanding the Universe as an entity,perhaps only some supercomputer somewhere, some time, will understand the Universe, as science fiction writers have suggested.

As to the nature of a creator, assuming one exists, there is the problem of theodicy, which effectively refutes any concept of a personal, compassionate God, in my opinion. The Buddhists are closer to the truth, they have no need for a personal god.

In reference to the Bible, I would require unimpeachable evidence of Jesus's life, death and ministry in order to embrace Christianity, as I mentioned before, I am constitutionally sceptical. The books of the Bible are not independent, they are written by believers! As far as I understand, the Bible we have today is the creation of a 4th century Church council and the Emperor Constantine,we could have had a different Bible.

Re fine tuning- I can't buy your line of argument. You're saying that because our life is suited to the universe, we should just say that we're made for the universe and leave it at that. But the fact is, there are so many ridiculously balanced factors which, if changed a very small amount, would make the mere existence of intelligent life impossible.

Paul Davies captures my thoughts well here: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job.'"

So it isn't just that the universe is finely tuned for the existence of life. The other part of it is that the universe had to be impossible fine tuned for the universe itself to even exist.

As for theodicy, I can sympathise with your argument here because it's an emotionally charged argument that a lot of people have made throughout the years. But at it's base, I think it's illogical. You see, a perfect world is a contradiction in terms. If we have free will of any kind then our choices are what creates this problem.

Look at the world's poverty issue, for example. Many people say- Look at the millions of starving children- how can God let this happen? But they themselves are causing it by selfishly consuming the world's resources and/or not doing anything to solve the problem. There are enough resources in the world to feed us all. If we all spent our time and energy focusing on our own circle if influence (what we care about and CAN change) rather than talking about our circle of concern (what we care about but CAN't change- ie: What other people are doing)- then this poverty issue would be solved

However, I can sympathise with your point. A final note on this point- At the most, it challenges the nature of an all powerful God rather than the existence of an all powerful God- so no need for the jump to Buddhism or anything

Regarding the Bible, as I suspected previously, you're asking too much. Of course there's not going to be much evidence from non believers- why would there be!? Why would someone who DID NOT believe, write anything about Jesus miracles, or write anything claiming he was the Son of God!? I already explained- he was an obscure nodoby to most people- only those who came in contact with him and believed in him would be likely to write about him. Others might make passing references- which is exactly what we see from Josephus and Tacitus!

Also, of course the believers are biased! The Gospels authors admit as much in their writings. But does this mean we should completely write it off? No, of course not. If we write off everything which is biased, we should throw all our history textbooks out the window because there weren't many ancient writers, and those that did exist- most of them wrote with a purpose. Like writing Roman History or Jewish history etc etc.

"As far as I understand, the Bible we have today is the creation of a 4th century Church council and the Emperor Constantine,we could have had a different Bible."

Of course we could have a different Bible, anyone who has even briefly looked into New Testament history knows this. But you need to look at how the Bible was put together. The books which were canonised (ie: Chosen for the official Bible) were the ones believed to be written by Apostles, eyewitnesses or those very close to them. There are plenty of other ancient Gospels which claim different things about Jesus, but they were written later on, which is why we should trust the writings which were close to the events rather than the ones written 150 years later.

hey mac [dont think of naming 'it'
[that which it is is only able to be known by logic [or faith]]
if you must have a name call it universal logic
[logus] for short

or call it natural law
[in that i am it is ;..thus naturally some thing is
[thus something was[thus something will be]via the law of preceedance life begets life

i am that i am [nothing more [nothing less

names arnt important
but that we discover the limitations of the law of logic [and love]are

life is impossable without light

[any natural begining would occure in a flash of light then life then life finds the natural selection in times of darkness; we realise another law of logic
that light sustains life

we see by study of life that all living [usually love their own]
thus can infur a basic law[of logic must inbclude love

who is not here 'naturally',ie life born from life

who is not a part of nature[its not who' 'nature' is] but what is the nature of that which was, nature that came from it is mostr likely the same[damm the words are rubbing each other out]editing is deleting what i wrote[so figure it out yourself.....

aha a tip it is still in the previeuw box
so cut and paste [reasoned out by logic]
paste
who is not here 'naturally', who is not a part of nature[its not who's 'nature' but simply we being as our ..nature decrees us to be
[and that includes the next life after life# for science has measured the weight of the soul,'leaving' the body[but search out that for yourself]

if god is
is not the issue
[we are that is the fact]

how we are is not important
[you cant prove it anyhow]

what is important is that we realise we are
so now what can we do about it[we need do nothing]
but
[believe as you chose]

Trav,

I'll concede that the fine tuning argument is not easy to dismiss, however, to me your God is the god-of-the-gaps, science has made God more and more remote as our understanding of the cosmos becomes more sophisticated.

The problem of theodicy is not emotionally charged at all, you're misrepresenting the arguments if you believe that. I'll refer you to a site where a professional philosopher, presents a very strong case against the existence of the Christian god. "Could it be pretty obvious there's no God?"

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com

As to the New Testament, you're basically asking me to believe what you consider a profound truth without any real evidence, why those books rather than a thousand other religious texts , I am still a skeptic.

One under god,

I think you're asking me to simply believe without evidence, no chance!

im not asking you for nothing mac
the topic was death into life
you just go on ignoring stuff

[your proving you dont seek to explain a thing because you cant, thus you avoid that you got no hope of comprehending.

you wrote>>you are incorrect,the burden of proof is on those who believe in life after death not on the unbelievers,you present belief as "proof",which is nonsense>>

i presented proof that you chose to simply dismiss as

>>however I can't resist commenting--your statements are basically theological in nature.I cannot find common ground as,in my opinion, there is no proof that the object of study exists,..>>

i then realised you didnt even read the post , but you have haunted the post scince then[i return to it only to find your still blathering[proving not a real lot either way]

you fail to prove dead matter formed life
you failed to rebut life herafter
deneying god is your choice
[but not a choice based on fact it seems

only RE-interpritations of the question,but i will admit you shut down and obscured the topic the post was meant to be about affectivly with your destraction's

just as you intended
you affectivly killed off the topic
but im posting to bring it back to life

you conveniantly chose to ignore what i post[and travis posts,till you find a minor point to respond to[sometimes im wondering if your using two id's to just keep posting the same stuff and destraction

ok you found finetuning in a word search and found a blog
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com

The problem of A-theodicy is its emotionally charged in ignoring the bleeding obvious,

you're misrepresenting the arguments he himself puts as his'post'runs 20 pages

please specify what points you are making apart from god denial[in your own words[no one can correct his[the links]many errors without having the same space to put it correctly]

so you post your thoughts
[your proofs]

and write a response to the points i have allready posted

ignoring them proves your unable to rebut them
this is clearly revealed in what has allready been posted