Biola university residence life Videos

+Linda Marie Thank you, madam

very well said, have the same thoughts about it. ☺

+Ferinus Thank you, sir!

+J Danner If more people shared your idea on respectful disagreement we would have a much more fruitful intellectual community. Best wishes to you good sir.

Imperial:  your analogy makes no sense whatsoever.  Were you born with your specific religious beliefs?  That's something totally different from being afraid of the dark, or kid's imagining monsters under the bed.Those are probably residuals left over from when we used to be primitives in the wild.  Our brains are wired for self preservation.  All cultures have beliefs in the possibility of the spiritual realm and ghosts and deity's.  But every culture also has COMPLETELY different religious beliefs that totally contradict each other.You don't need to be indoctrinated as a child to be afraid of the dark, or imaginary monsters - but you did have to be indoctrinated into say, Christianity and the belief in Jesus, the crucifixion, and the Holy Trinity.  It's funny that Christians believe THEIR deity is everywhere, all powerful, and is constantly listening into their heads and judging their thoughts.  But He can't seem to get through to each individual and personally reveal to them all the necessary Christian dogma, required to stop Him from sending them to an eternity in Hell....they need to be taught all that stuff by humans, yet, they believe Satan has that power and is constantly getting into their heads, messing with their thoughts and tricking them away from God.

+audiotrax2000 Really? You don't have to teach children to be superstitious of monsters in their closets or monsters under their beds. Man has always believed in the unseen. EVERY ancient civilization has believed in the supernatural or the spiritual, of course, most of it was due to a lack of understanding of nature. But to make the claim that "religion and belief" is learned is incorrect. If it is learned culturally and does not come naturally, then who's doing the teaching? The ones who learned it naturally?

+weilin chen Its not directly cause they are Atheist. But they are all Evolutionists. And Hitler believed and brainwashed Germans into thinking they were the superior race. Everybody knows this.

+weilin chen It's not funny that they wen't to hell

+Tony Ingalise its obvious that you believe deeply in what you say and i can respect that but please dont make statements on my past faith. Its the biggest misconception i hear over and over again from theist. They say "oh you never were a real Christian" comeon man. I would gladly believe in a god if you can give me indisputable evidence of the existence of one. I consider myself agnostic btw. Meaning i dont know. However I highly doubt the bible is in any way written by god.

+Tony Ingalise "Unbiased" is not synonymous with "agnostic," or "tolerant." Bias says nothing about how you treat people who don't agree with you; it is when you decide before looking at evidence that if it doesn't agree with your current belief, you will ignore it. I think that Krauss and Dawkins are jerks, don't get me wrong, but they are not biased. You are so convinced that you are right, though, that to account for the cognitive dissonance you feel at the thought of being wrong, you must assume that they are biased.When all you say is "this smart guy was convinced," that is an appeal to authority. If he has compelling arguments, present them to me (giving him credit, of course), but don't expect me to agree with you just because someone with credentials does.If you go into a question looking for evidence for one specific answer, then you will unconsciously filter out any evidence that doesn't support what you are looking for. This is confirmation bias. So when you say "seek God and you will find him," that is telling me to go into the question already having the answer in mind, namely that I will find him. What you really should do is look at the evidence without presupposing an answer, and come out with whatever answer the evidence points me to.2+2=4 is uncontroversial and easy to check. It is not a valid example. A better example would be to say "if you honestly look for evidence that humanity was better off as hunter-gatherers, you'll find it to be true." How strongly you feel about something or how deep your conviction is have absolutely nothing to do with whether a belief is true or not.

+Masterofall I am going to try to make this somewhat brief because I have been trying to avoid debates recently (I spent a stretch of about 5 months or more debating at least 4 or 5 different devates everyday and need quite a break from it). First, you cannot say you were truly born again if you are now saying that "Christianity is no more true than any other religion", because had you truly been born again by God, you would see the truth of Christianity as clear as day. As C.S. Lewis put it, "I believe in Christianity as I believe in the Sun. Not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else". Christianity opens your eyes, and therefore your mind, to truth on a level we cannot experience otherwise, but this cannot happen until you are truly born again. Not trying to discredit your faith or amything of the sort. Just stating the facts. Secondly, and finally, these "ancient stories" that "predate" Christianity are in majority of cases not "predating at all" and in fact come far after Christianity (usually around 3 to 400 AD or more) or, in other cases, there are actually little to no similarities in these stories when compared with Christianity. Which is a perfect example of atheistic scholars (not scientists in this case, per se, but still) who have pushed out fraudulent information by claiming that Christianity was "plagerized from other religions", when upon actually looking into their claim, you find not a single thread of truth to it, other than there being at best, 1 or 2 similarities and nothing more. Far, far from plagerized and in majority of cases, its ironically the opposite where these stories actually plagerized Christianity. I could go on for hours about the historical accuracy of the Bible and the validity of Christ's deity and existence, but again I am trying to be brief.

+FirstRisingSouI If I could've, I would have had to stop you about half way through your second paragraph where you say "Look up almost any atheist scientist (Krauss, Dawkins), and you will find that they have stated that they could easily be persuaded to believe if evidence is provided, therefore they they are unbiased"...... Are you serious? First off, I can guarantee you I have researched far more atheists than you know, Dawkins and Krauss included, and I can assure you, Dawkins and Krauss are the epidemy of bias. Do you honestly think that simply because they have "claimed" open-mindedness, then that automatically makes it true...? What about their actions? Do their actions line up with their claim? Hmm, well, considering that both of these "open-minded" atheist scientists spend a good majority of their time debating God's existence on the side that He doesnt exist, while their opponents are arguing God does exist. Now, first off, if they were truly open-minded, then neither of them would be known as "militant atheists", but they are. They certaintly would not be aggressively arguing against God's existence, and (in at least Dawkins case) they DEFINITELY would NOT be telling atheists around the world and our nation to "Mock those of religious faith, especially Christianity". A direct quote from Dawkins at a fairly recent atheist rally, in which he clearly showed just how "open-minded" he is towards belief in God, considering that everyone knows that if someone is telling you, with a passion, to mock people who belief in God (essentially because, in his words, they are "stupid" for believing). If thats open-minded to you, then sure, they're open-minded... As to me telling you to research the men I did (Lewis, Wallace, Flew, etc.)again, this was no "appeal to authority" and it in fact was a presentation of evidence, considering that if you had actually researched them, you would see the long list of evidence that all of them have. Added to the fact that if there was not very strong evidence in favor of Gods existence, there would not be people like Flew or Lewis or Wallace, considering that all these men spent AT LEAST the first 27 years of their lives(or more)as a very strict atheist, yet after deep research(key word, DEEP, not just shallow surface level research as most atheists actually have)and evidence that is undeniable (if you are being honest with yourself and unbiased as they were). The very fact that these men were all once atheists (especially Flew) shows that they are the epidemy of being unbiased. To refuse t research these men would again be a perfect example of bias, especially since these men were practically militant atheists, and according to your logic then, they must've found some unbelievably good evidence to switch from atheism to Christianity (or at least theism in Flews case). Finally, there is no "insecurity" in me telling you what you will find. If you feel so strongly that I am wrong, then why feel insecure or threatened by Christians telling you that you will find God if you seek Him honestly? Its not insecurity, its the exact opposite. I say you will find God because I am secure (not insecure)knowing the facts and evidence enough that I know that if ANYONE honestly and deeply seeks out God and evidence, real evidence that He exists, they will find Him. And again, not in any way because of "confirmation bias", but entirely because it is the truth and nothing more. For you to tell me that if I know the truth, and tell someone that if they seek this truth they will find it is "confirmation bias" is oxymoronic, and overall completely false. So if someone who didnt know that 2 plus 2 equals 4 was told to seek this and they will find it....does this mean they couldn't actually find it and would only be accepting it from "confirmation bias"? No. Because if something is true, then it is true regardless of what you, me or anyone else thinks. So, if God existing is true (which I strongly hold that it is without a doubt true), then no matter what I say to someone or how or what I ask them to research, the truth I am asking them to seek cannot change and will not change.

+Tony Ingalise its ok Tony. Im right there with you man. I too was raised in a Christian home and taught to believe in the bible and pray and trust god..but even at a young age i always had a hard time believing everything. And i too was born again. I even preached to my friends. It wasnt until i got older and started reading books, listening to lectures and studying ancient history that i started to realize that there is about the same chance that Christianity is true as thor, or ra or budda are real gods. Humans have a difficult time processing the big questions so we insert what we dont know with god. Science has allowed us to learn more and more over the centuries. We now know how the tides come in, how the planets move and that stars are giant balls of burning gas. No historical evidence exist that proves anyone named Jesus claimed to be the son of god let alone went around performing miracles. The story of Horas and many others predate it and tell the same thing.

"These calculations were not based off of random speculatory numbers, they were based off of proven and testable constants that have been discovered by physicists and cosmologists"1: cosmologists are a type of physicist.2: I know what constants you're talking about. The gravitational constant. The electric and magnetic constants. Force couplings. The fine-structure constant. I know physics. And I can tell you with certainty that we don't even know whether they were random or if they have to be what they are by some undiscovered principle. All scientific estimates of unknowns are based on the data we have now, and does not factor in data we will acquire in the future (how could it?). So I maintain that these calculations are not at all conclusive, as they are based on knowledge, not facts."As for belief in God "allowing for bias" within science, does this somehow not apply to atheists?"No, because atheists don't assume they know the answer before they look at the data. I suppose it might be possible that an atheist would be completely closed to the idea of a god, but that atheist would be a bad scientist too. Look up almost any atheist scientist (e.g. Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins), and you will find that they have stated that they could easily be persuaded to believe if evidence is provided, therefore they are unbiased. The same cannot be said for most religious people, therefore they are biased."more so than not, the atheistic scientists are the ones found to be bias and fraudulent in their research"BS. Have you heard of Creationists? There's a reason they're not allowed into scientific circles. Fabricating evidence is a crime of the worst magnitude in science; your career will be ruined if you do it even once."If you have not heard of Antony Flew, I would recommend researching him, along with C.S Lewis and some others such as J. Warner Wallace."I have no interest in looking these people up. This is your argument; you are the one trying to change my mind. If you have evidence to present, do so. This is just an appeal to authority."I was not saying, 'believe God exists and you will find evidence'"Let's designate this statement with the shorthand, "not (p, then q)"."I was saying 'believe there is a possibility that God exists, seek Him honestly"this statement can be translated to 'p'."I can guarantee you that you will conclude that the scale is HEAVILY tipped in favor of God's existence'"and this is "then q".First you say "not (p, then q)"Then you say "p, then q".I really wish people would stop telling me that I am going to find God. Can't you people just let it go with "look at the facts unbiased" and then be fine with whatever I find? If the evidence is so tilted in favor of a god, then why do you feel insecure enough about it to have to tell me in words what I will find?

+FirstRisingSouI It is far from an "appeal to ignorace". These calculations were not based off of random speculatory numbers, they were based off of proven and testable constants that have been discovered by physicists and cosmologists, such as the force of gravity(just 1 of around 200 constants, or parameters that must be met in our universe for it to be possible to sustain intelligent life). The force of gravity is extremely precisely tuned in that if you were to change the force of gravity to be even a millionth of a fraction less powerful than it is, then during the big bang, the gravity would have been too weak and our universe would've expanded at a rate that would make the formation of even a solar system impossible, let alone a life sustaining planet. If the force of gravity were even a millionth of a fraction too strong, then our universe would've collapsed back in on itself during the big bang, and our universe itself would have never fully formed. You can look this up if you want, it is a fact at this point that is agreed upon by even atheistic scientists, which is exactly why said scientists have recently attempted to push the so called "multiverse theory", in an attempt to explain away these odds, when in actuality, the multiverse theory is practically the laughing stock of the scientific community because of how many holes are already in the theory. As for belief in God "allowing for bias" within science, does this somehow not apply to atheists? Does claiming and believing "there is no God" not allow for said individual to input their bias into any "evidence" they supposedly have against God? That argument is a two way street. And if you want to be brutally honest, more so than not, the atheistic scientists are the ones found to be bias and fraudulent in their research and supposed evidence, whereas you rarely hear of a Christian scientist presenting fraudulent and biased research and/or evidence. If you have not heard of Antony Flew, I would recommend researching him, along with C.S Lewis and some others such as J. Warner Wallace. Examples of how the claim "there is no evidence for God" is entirely false, otherwise you would not even have examples such as Flew, Lewis and Wallace, all very strict atheists, strongly believing there is no God until they decided, usually on a hunch, to actually take a look at the evidence without bias...usually after someone makes that decision, it doesnt take long for them to convert and realize on their own that they were wrong and that there is a plethora of increasingly strong evidence for God. As to your claim of "confirmation bias", this is again false. I was not saying, "believe God exists and you will find evidence", that would be clearly a biased approach. I was saying "believe there is a possibility that God exists, seek Him honestly, and take in all of the evidence you can find on BOTH sides of the fence, so to speak, and I can guarantee you that you will conclude that the scale is HEAVILY tipped in favor of God's existence. Look without bias, but genuinely look and you will find. I say this not as a confirmation bias, but as a truth that I have already discovered myself and am confident in(to say the least) and am confident therefore, that you will find the same truth.

That's quite a bit. First, let me clear up a misconception you seem to have about me. I identify first and foremost as a skeptic, as I am completely open to changing my mind about the existence of a god, if I am provided with sufficient evidence.The statement "there is a god" is a positive claim. Therefore the burden of proof is on the person claiming that the god exists (or on the god itself).The simple truth is that I do not seek a god because I have no reason to.Now, on to addressing your words."When did I once claim that you are an atheist because you love to do evil? "I quote:"This is the number 1 problem that keeps nearly anyone from believing. Not a lack of evidence, or "flawed logic", or any other reason that is purely intellectual in nature. But because of a condition of the heart. A refusal to detach from the sins that so many love, or even admit there are such a thing as sins to begin with. Because the only way to accept Jesus is a change of heart. A change towards your view of sin, and a change from that change, to realizing how badly you need help to overcome this condition, and only Jesus, only God can fit that role."This blatantly came across as you trying to guilt-trip me. The fact that you didn't outright say you were doesn't make it not so."a statistical fact that, more so than not, those who become atheistic often do so because they deal with a tramadic event of some kind"I consider this a bad reason. No belief decision should ever be based on emotion, but only on evidence."You want evidence for God? Then you will find it, IF you are sincere in seeking it."Replace "god" with anything, and the statement will still be true. The mechanism of cognitive bias allows for people to see and believe evidences that aren't there. I do not seek evidence for anything, rather I seek facts, and base my conclusions on those facts."if you come with the predecided bias that 'God does not exist', as every atheist does (otherwise they are agnostic)"Semantics. I identify as both atheist and agnostic. But as a skeptic before either of those."why are there any scientists at all who believe in God, let alone scientists that are in the top of their fields, professors at Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, etc. This would not be so, if belief in God contradicts science, as atheists claim."It doesn't contradict, so much as allow for bias. If a scientist can believe in a god without it affecting his interpretation of the data he takes, then that's fine with me."Flew especially being the worlds foremost philosophical atheist"I have never heard of this man before you brought him up."before you try to claim the universe is not fine tuned . . ."I make no such claim. I merely acknowledge that our understanding of the universe is incomplete, and other possibilities may exist."Advanced Science calculated the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for life. . . . With these odds, agreed upon by a good majority of physicists and cosmologists (considering that his calculations can be verified), you still think atheism makes sense? You still think that even with these odds that it is more plausible and logical to believe that the universe came together randomly?"This calculation deals with things currently outside of scientific knowledge, and as such is based on unknowns. It is easily possible that as our understanding improves, we will find the odds to be quite reasonable. Imagine trying to calculate these odds in the 1500s, when we understood pretty much nothing. This is an appeal to ignorance."How do you not see the truth when it is right in front of you?"Many have said that. From all different faiths, creeds, and superstitions. You are no different.

+FirstRisingSouI When did I once claim that you are an atheist because you love to do evil? This after you state that I should not assume I know things about people. Ironic. There is no cognitive dissonance involved, only deductive reasoning, logic and facts. Another assumption you make, as an atheist, is that because YOU have not found what YOU feel is viable evidence for God, then there therefore must no be a God. This is an extremely narrowminded and short sided view and it is, more so than anything else, the biggest contributing factor to your atheism. Added to it being a statistical fact that, more so than not, those who become atheistic often do so because they deal with a tramadic event of some kind; the lost of a loved one at a young age, dealing with false judgement and animosity from fellow church goers, etc. This is not an assumption, but a statistically backed deduction. You want evidence for God? Then you will find it, IF you are sincere in seeking it. However, if you come with the predecided bias that "God does not exist", as every atheist does(otherwise they are agnostic), then ofcourse you wouldn't find the evidence even if it was right in front of you. If science and religion(belief in God, specifically)are so incompatable according to atheists, then why are there any scientists at all who believe in God, let alone scientists that are in the top of their fields, professors at Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, etc. This would not be so, if belief in God contradicts science, as atheists claim. Yet it is so, so it logically follows then that belief in God must be compatable with science, which would also explain why so many atheists commonly convert to Christianity, and such famous and well esteemed ones as well such as C.S. Lewis or Antony Flew. Flew especially being the worlds foremost philosophical atheist, more high esteemed by atheists than Richard Dawkins today or any other atheist, yet Flew became a theist and realized that the evidence of design is becoming increasingly overwhelming, especially due to the fairly recent discovery of the fine tuning of our universe. Such a well respected atheist by atheists, while he remained an atheist. Held as being the "go-to" for theist defeating arguments, and yet, the second he became a theist, the atheist community exploded with dishonest, and disrespectful stories of Flew being "old and senial and unable to think properly anymore", when just a year prior, Flew was still praised by the atheistic community. Funny how that works, isn't it? But atheists only care about truth......right? Finally, before you try to claim the universe is not fine tuned(besides the ridiculousness of such a claim considering that you are essentially then saying that Flew suddenly did not understand science enough to know better than you whether fine tuning was present or not)take a look at this quote from a top physicist from Princeton on whether or not our universe could have formed by random chance alone(i.e. without God, such as the "multiverse theory")."Donald Page of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Science calculated the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for life as one in: 10,000,000,000124. One in ten billion to the 124th power! This is a number so large, it is safe to say that the universe did not come together randomly. It was created by an incredibly intelligent and powerful designer." –Charlie Campbell" With these odds, agreed upon by a good majority of physicists and cosmologists(considering that his calculations can be verified), you still think atheism makes sense? You still think that even with these odds that it is more plausible and logical to believe that the universe came together randomly? You would literally be more likely to win the lottery consecutively for every day the universe has existed in its 13.7 billion year existence. Yet somehow, you atheists claim that we theists are the irrational and illogical ones? How do you not see the truth when it is right in front of you?

Yes, I know well these teachings. I lived by them for over 20 years. You shouldn't assume you know things about people.But you have to assume you are right about me, because if you are wrong, it brings up the possibility that your worldview might not be correct, and you can't deal with that. With this cognitive dissonance, you feel compelled to assume that the reason I am an atheist is because I love to do evil and, like a stubborn child, cover my ears and sing whenever god is mentioned.I will say it plainly and clearly: You are wrong. I am an atheist because I seek truth above all else, and I have found none in religion. If you still claim that I am in denial, it is the cognitive dissonance speaking.

+FirstRisingSouI​ Then you haven't truly searched. God does not speak to us in an audible voice. Is that possible? Yes, but in the majority of cases, God is much more subtle. Even believing Christians have times where they wish God would just show himself to them, or speak directly to them, but we understand that isn't the way God communicates and reveals himself to us. I have even asked why God won't just speak to me. Ultimately, it is because only HE truly knows what will work best for us. We may think that "if only God would just show himself to me, I'd have no doubt of my faith in Him", but seeing is not believing, believing is seeing. "Blessed are those that believe in me, yet have not seen". Jesus said this to Thomas when Thomas was wrestling with the same thing. Even John the Baptist had a moment of doubt when he found himself in prison, staring certain execution in the face, and he wanted to be shown, physically, by Jesus that Jesus truly was the Son of God, and was the One that John had been preparing for. Jesus could have easily came to John and physically shown him any number of miracles, but he didn't. Instead, Jesus sent him word to remember what the Word said of Him(Jesus) and to remember the things he has heard of Jesus(the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are healed, etc.). Jesus himself encountered many individuals who had directly seen Jesus' divine abilities and authority, yet still did not believe in Him. Why? It clearly was not because they hadn't seen enough to know Jesus was who He claimed to be. It certainly wasn't an intellectual problem of the mind, rooted in pure logic and reason. It was a problem of their heart. They saw more than enough to know with their mind that Jesus is the Son of God. Yet they refused to believe because their hearts were unrepentant. They knew that if they did accept Jesus into their hearts, it would mean changing their heart and mind on things that they weren't willing to view differently(namely, sins). This is the number 1 problem that keeps nearly anyone from believing. Not a lack of evidence, or "flawed logic", or any other reason that is purely intellectual in nature. But because of a condition of the heart. A refusal to detach from the sins that so many love, or even admit there are such a thing as sins to begin with. Because the only way to accept Jesus is a change of heart. A change towards your view of sin, and a change from that change, to realizing how badly you need help to overcome this condition, and only Jesus, only God can fit that role.

+Tony Ingalise That's just it. I hear you, religious people, and religious texts saying "trust God." But not a whisper do I hear from God himself. So they aren't really telling me to trust God, they're telling me to trust them. I don't need you to prove to me that God exists; I'd settle for God revealing himself to me in a way that isn't more easily explained as imagination. But he doesn't.

+FirstRisingSouI I never said to trust your heart. I said to trust in God. The Bible also details essentially what you have just said. It basically says "for the heart is deceitful and wicked, who can know it?". Finally, if you sincerely feel that "God is indistinguishable from imagination", then you never truly knew God.

"The Bible clearly states, 'if you seek Him you will find Him, when you seek Him with all of your heart'"This is true about anything and everything. It is called "confirmation bias.""faith in God means 'trusting in God'"Yeah, I know. Why should I trust any stranger, let alone one who is indistinguishable from imagination?And don't talk to me about trusting your heart. I used to do this, back when I was a diehard Christian. I thought I felt little tugs this way and that, of God telling me to do and say things. This only got me in trouble, and put a wall of awkwardness between me and other people I could have called friends. Nothing good ever came of it. To this day, I am trying to overcome the psychological damage I visited upon myself by this lifestyle. My attitude toward thinking with your heart can be summed up in these two words: feelings lie. Don't you dare tell me again to go back to that dark age of isolation and depression.

+FirstRisingSouI​ Again it is an assumption that is false. And it is not that "God doesnt want to be known", that was not my point. It is that God does not want to be known PHYSICALLY, or in other words, through solely scientific methods involving only the mind, without the heart. The Bible clearly states, "if you seek Him you will find Him, when you seek Him with all of your heart", not with your mind. In no way is this to say that there is no evidence for Gods existence. It is to say that there is never going to be a scientific "proof" for or against Gods existence, because God does not want people to believe in Him as they do in gravity, or the big bang. God doesn't even want people to JUST believe in Him. This is a concept that the vast majority of atheists either do not grasp, or do not care to. Faith in God does not mean "believing that God exists", faith in God means "trusting in God", which is something that you obviously cannot do unless you have already accepted that God exists, and in no way is this a blind process.

"Your whole argument can be summed up with 'There is as much a possibility for Gods existence as there is in any other speculatory theory . . ."Yes . . ."the God "hypothesis" isn't what it is."'If you're going to claim I'm contradicting myself, show me what I said that is contradictory."why such strong resistance to God?"I have a strong resistance to people who claim I should automatically believe in a god because it is not impossible for one to exist. This expectation is ridiculous. I cite Russel's Teapot."Cosmologists . . . recently calculated the likelihood of our universe forming completely on its own with all of the exact parameters required for life"It is impossible to realistically perform this calculation with our current scientific understanding. I would guess that they calculated each constant with a random chance, which is highly unrealistic. For example, the electric and magnetic constants are directly linked to the speed of light, so they are not random relative to each other. It is quite possible that the other constants are similarly related, which would significantly raise the probability of a universe like ours."You should definitely broaden your research if you think that fine tuning is something you can just explain away."Back at you. I accept several options as possible, and I withhold subscription to any of them until evidence has been found. You only accept one, and do not wait for evidence."Stephen Hawking . . . agrees"1. Stephen Hawking is a militant atheist. Read anything he has ever written and you will see this.2. I could not find the original material in which Hawking said that quote. Give me primary sources, not quote-mining apologists."here is another good article you should read."Give me academic papers, not journalism. Anyone can say anything in a news article."you make a very large assumption of Gods nature by claiming 'if there was a God, there would be plenty of evidence of His existence.' By evidence I am sure you mean physical evidence"No, I mean verifiable evidence of any kind. Don't make assumptions about someone you're arguing against. And yes, I am assuming that this god wants to be known, and so would leave verifiable evidence. Because if there is a god who does not want to be known, then why would you care if I believe in him?

+FirstRisingSouI Your whole argument can be summed up with "There is as much a possibility for Gods existence as there is in any other speculatory theory, but the God "hypothesis" isn't what it is". This seems like quite a contradiction. If you truly feel that any of the theories is possible, then why such strong resistance to God? Secondly, your information pertaining to Intelligent Design is extremely inaccurate. Cosmologists at Princeton, I believe(ill have to double check), recently calculated the likelihood of our universe forming completely on its own with all of the exact parameters required for life, let alone intelligent life, and what they came up(if you are being honest with yourself) completely removes any reasonable doubt that our Universe was not a product of mindless, unguided forces. The odds are less than 1 in 10 times 10 to the 124th that a universe like ours could emerge completely through mindless and unguided processes. You should definitely broaden your research if you think that fine tuning is something you can just explain away. Stephen Hawking, the Einstein of our time, agrees: "The odds against a universe like ours coming out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications" (John Boslough, Stephen Hawking's Universe, p. 121). And on top of that quote from Stephen Hawking, here is another good article you should read.//www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568 Fine tuning is not an easily dismissible theory and it is steadily gaining support and momentum. Finally, you make a very large assumption of Gods nature by claiming "if there was a God, there would be plenty of evidence of His existence". By evidence I am sure you mean physical evidence and there is a major problem with such a statement. By even hypothesizing about God, you must take in the full description of said God. God, being all powerful and all knowing, can do anything. That is a parameter you are not taking into account. With this in mind, why should there be physical evidence of Gods existence? Are you claiming you accept hypothetically that God is powerful enough to create the entire Universe and everything in it, but that somehow then He is incapable of hiding His presence and not "leaving a trail" in the physical world that He created? This is a huge contradiction and logical flaw. If you accept hypothesizing about God, you accept the fundamentals, one of which is that He created the entire universe, so logically, He would most definitely be capable of remaining unseen unless He chose otherwise. To say He couldn't is idiocy.

+Tony Ingalise "There is NO math supporting the multiverse theory. Not even a sliver."Wrong. I cite this paper by the well-known cosmologist Alan Guth://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0002156v1.pdfBefore you speak, make sure you can back up your claims."YOU do not understand that the multiverse theory isn't even half way accepted by the scientific community"Actually I do. I myself don't accept it either. Any claim needs evidence before it can be believed."If . . . you accept the multiverse theory, then . . . you have answered . . . not . . . why it began at all."The multiverse is not intended to answer the question of why reality began."the evidence of design is steadily becoming overwhelmingly strong"Nope. As we learn more about the universe, more and more of the fine-tunings turn out to be inevitable. Take for instance the appearance of design in modern life. It can be completely accounted for by the phenomenon of evolution. No more design there. For an example of physical constants, take the electric and magnetic constants, and the speed of light. It turns out that they are all connected, so it is not a coincidence that they are what they are in relation to each other."The evidence . . . was . . . enough to convince the . . . philosophical atheist, Antony Flew, . . . that God exists."So what? I don't care about some smart person's opinion; I care about examining evidence myself.Fact: the universe appears to be designed for life. Fact: not a single one of the hypotheses to explain this has a shred of outside evidence to back it up. Multiverse? Can't test it. God? Can't test it. There is one difference though; if a god exists, there should be subsequent evidence of its existence. There is none; the universe, as far as we can tell, has spun along on its clockwork since the dawn of time. So while there is not sufficient evidence to believe the multiverse, there is sufficient evidence not to believe in a god.I should mention my favorite scientific hypothesis for the beginning of time: quantum spacetime foam. It would be like the quantum foam we know exists, but for space and time. Just like particles pop in and out of the particle-less quantum foam, so universes would pop in and out of the timeless, spaceless, quantum spacetime foam. Of course, without a quantum theory of gravity this hypothesis is no better than the multiverse, but it is also no worse than a creator god.As for why the quantum spacetime foam would exist, it would be from a complete theory of physics, which would come directly from the laws of mathematics, which are ontologically necessary. I know, this is all speculation and assumption, but so is the idea of a creator god.The bottom line is that the answer is completely unknown. The fact that it is unknown is not evidence for any of the possibilities, but means that all possibilities are equally likely or unlikely. The god hypothesis has no advantage whatsoever over the multiverse or quantum spacetime foam. Evidence is necessary to justify belief.

+FirstRisingSouI No, wrong. There is NO math supporting the multiverse theory. Not even a sliver. There is ONLY speculation, and even that speculation is only being done by outspokenly atheist scientists. I fully understood what you said. The problem is that YOU do not understand that the multiverse theory isn't even half way accepted by the scientific community and probably won't be as the majority of physicists agree that it is completely non sensical because it does nothing to answer the significant question being asked, it only rewords it. If, even hypothetically, you accept the multiverse theory, then yes you have answered why our universe is finely tuned, but not in the slightest why it began at all. You, instead of asking "why do we have a universe to begin with", then must ask "why do we have a seemingly infinite chain of universes?". This is not an answer in the slightest. Biggest reason being that the laws of logic constitute that you CANNOT have an infinite chain of regress and MUST have an end to the chain. Period. To claim otherwise is idiocy. Multiverse is just a theory, and it really isn't even that. And yes, it is an attempt to explain away the appearance of design. Why? Because the evidence of design is steadily becoming overwhelmingly strong, and many atheistic scientists cannot accept this. The evidence of design just barely 20 years ago was already strong enough to convince the worlds foremost philosophical atheist, Antony Flew, that there was no longer a doubt that there is a Creator behind the universe. That God exists. And please, show deceny to Flew(who I am sure you would not discredit as "senial" if he had remained an atheist) and do not try to claim the typical "he was too old and senial to think logically" because that is one of the saddest ad hominem fallacies you atheists commonly commit.

+Tony Ingalise No. Did you even read what I said? The various versions of the multiverse arise from the math, NOT from an attempt to explain away the appearance of design. I hate repeating myself, so don't make me do it again.

Actually these men's problem with the multi verse theory is actually due to the fact that even if you proved a multi verse existed, that would do nothing to answer the question of why is there a universe at all, but would only reword the question to why are there potentially infinite numbers of universes instead of nothing. It is nothing more than militant atheist scientists feeble attempt to do away with the immense evidence of design that fine tuning shows.