All your evidence is just words on a book. Made up by some guys nobody knows. For what we know, those tales might have been written to entertain bored Romans at home.
Not exactly just words. Applied science comes into play here and one of the things which has attracted me to Christianity more so than many of the other conflicting religions.
That is Archeology has and is up to the present continuing to "unearth" real tangible artifacts which attest to many of the events and places mentioned in Christian scripture. The scriptures have tangible connections to the real world made through scientific discoveries concerning the real people and places described within them. If you bar the supernatural parts...its fascinating how science is actually showing the bible to be a reliable historical source of information.
Not even the Jews, the closest we have in terms of eye witnesses, and expertise in prophecy, ever bought that.
I don't know if your not that familiar with the Judeo Christian scriptures but the early Christians were Jews. They did buy that. And many of them bought that despite the very real and life threatening dangers of doing so. The whole point of Jesus's trial and crucifixion was because so many of them were buying that that the Jewish leadership was getting very concerned.
So, what else do you have?
But wait....there's more
I find your picture somewhat comforting by the way. I like it.
Ok. That is an easy one. I might mention that the whole fine tuning argument is nothing more than an instance of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, but it would not be fun.
Here's why the fine tuning consideration is not a "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy". The data in considering such fine tuning is not epistemologically isolated from each other. In other words there is no emphasizing one set of data points by isolating other data from consideration. The universe is a closed system in that respect. Its a domino effect. Change the tuned characteristics of one facet of existence it effects the other facets of that existence. The main consideration is the suitability for life to exist in this universe the way it does. This is not the same as for instance judging two fields of crops both intelligently sewed because one crop displays characteristics of being sewn intelligently even though the other seems randomly sewn and chaotic. The characteristics of the fields, in this case, are not dependent upon each other for how their crops were sewn. These universe is a s
i will accept the premise that there is a fine tuning to accommodate life that begs for an explanation
That is a starting point. And important to note. It is a legitimate conundrum of scientific discovery which nags for an answer.
There are possibly infinite universes. Covering all possible combinations of tunings. So, our universe is just one of the relatively few that have the right conditions to host life.
Seems like a reasonable solution to the phenomena of fine tuning.
But just for the sake of covering all sides, let me take a swing at some problems that might not yet be covered....
I personally find it amusing that the best some scientists can come up with so far - instead of just saying "we're not sure" because they are so uncomfortable with the other possibility - is the multiverse theories which itself is untestable, unevidenced, and consequently purely faith based. Exactly what the theists are accused of doing.
From what I've studied, here may be some good reasons for finding the multiverse theories less scientifically tenable than the alternative; intelligent design. Here is some of many due to space
1) It is a speculative metaphysical hypothesis not a scientific one.
2) The theistic design hypothesis constitutes a simpler less ad hoc explanation...as argued by the Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne.
3) In accordance to 2...Ockham's razor, stating that when attempting to explain phenomena we should, as much as possible, avoid "multiplying (theoretical) entities."
The God hypothesis requires the postulation of only one explanatory agent rather than multiple entities, including an infinite number of causally separate universes and the various universe-generating mechanisms posited by multiverse advocates.
Swinburne argues, "It is the height of irrationality to postulate an infinite number of universes never causally connected with each other, merely to avoid the hypothesis of theism. Given that....a theory is simpler the fewer entities it postulates, it is far simpler to postulate one God than an infinite number of universes, each differing from each other."
4) Philosopher of physics Bruce Gordon points out that accepting the multiverse hypothesis requires accepting two distinct types of universe-generating mechanisms to explain two distinct types of fine tuning.
a) inflationary cosmology - can conceivably explain the fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe, but does not explain the origin of the fine tuning of the laws and constants of physics.
b) string theory - might be used to explain the fine tuning of the laws and constants of physics, but does not generate multiple sets of initial conditions for each choice of physical laws.
5) Thus from 4, 2 types of universe - generating mechanisms must be postulated operating in combination. Actually increasing the fine tuning problem
6) Science has as of yet had to postulate an extraordinary number of purely hypothetical and abstract entities with no direct evidence in order to seek an explanation for the fine tuning. Which is decidedly unscientific and exactly the behavior Atheists accuse theists of doing.
7) Both inflationary cosmology, and string theory (and the multiverse versions that combine them) posit universe-generating mechanisms that themselves require prior unexplained fine tuning making the fine tuning problem they were designed to solve actually much worse.
it takes a smaller leap of faith to believe in a multitude of what we know to exist, than in a single instance of something that has no reality track record at all.
Well...I think I've shown that it actually takes a greater leap of faith.
