>>52379093 I, as a confirmed catholic, thoroughly enjoy the opensource fire program. It allows me to destroy literature which defies our supreme being, while also letting me be blissfully ignorant since its human architecture compatible.
On a related note, I was searching Amazon for an annotated Bible--something that would have all sorts of historical footnotes. I thought something like that would be really interesting. All that showed up in the results were "Skeptics' Annotated Bibles" where some loser took the time to point out all the things that seem fantastical. I'm not even religious, but seriously how butthurt do you have to be to own something like that?
Anyway, will Bible study software provide the footnotes and stuff I'm looking for? Still would rather read a book than a screen.
>>52382605 >Anyway, will Bible study software provide the footnotes and stuff I'm looking for? Yes.
>Still would rather read a book than a screen. At over 2700 pages, The ESV Study Bible has a huge array of reference material included. I have the nice leather-bound one and am completely happy with it anon.
You do realize that your angsty disbelief in a higher power is almost exclusively due to the way you were raised, right? Your rejection of a supreme being isn't due to your lofty wisdom or intelligence, but is more accurately just one more link in a long and predictable chain of events that makes up your life. You don't actually have a free will to believe what you want to: you are the sum of the external influences on your life.
Anyway, I have absolutely no intention of changing your mind (as it would be impossible, right?) Continue on your life, anon. I hope that you are able to scrape by some happiness from this robotic, unfeeling world you call "existence".
>>52382740 Probably true, but the content exposes a lot of information about the people who were writing it who often had axes to grind against other groups. A lot of the New Testament is various early Christian groups sticking stuff in to attempt to bolster their own claims while knocking down their rivals.
So you get stuff like the Jesus saying he's hungry, an attempt by the people who thought Jesus was a human to reinforce their position. Only to then have him immediately turn around when presented with food and claim that he doesn't actually need to eat likely added by another group who thought that he wasn't attempting to refute it.
Then of course going back further you have the Israelites killing every last man woman and child in places and destroying them forever, only to have those same people turn up later exposing them as much the same as the Egyptians praising of their victorious military even when they lost.
>>52382811 >Implying I wasn't brought up by religious parents, but still chose to abandon religion partly due to the way all major religions have scriptures that are full of contradictions and the way priests, imams and rabbis simply cherry pick the parts that fit their views out off all the contradicting passages Projecting much?
>>52382827 Crazy to think that you couldn't not reply with that, right?
>>52382837 Same with the above statement. It is pretty fascinating to think that your inability to resist a response is due to external influences shaping your mind and character such that you are powerless to remain quiet. I, like you, have this same internal drive, and can do nothing to fight it.
>>52382849 Another response, another powerless individual, replying with almost robotic precision, according to the chemical markup of your brain.
>>52382867 It doesn't really matter what I think, right? To think that or not think that would merely be an outward projection of the internalized influence from those around me.
>>52382882 Crazy to think that your point only reinforces mine, no? Never did I say that you were brought up by atheistic or agnostic parents. Merely that the influences on your life completely shape your responses and reactions. You are a slave to them, as are we all
>>52382903 So seeing religion up close, with all of it's flaws and making your own decisions somehow makes you a slave to something? What makes you a slave is NOT making your own decisions and just choosing to ignore what you see.
Religion had a purpose before modern nations and politics, but now it's just a nasty relic from a bygone age that only serves to stifle scientific development and needlessly consume people's time and resources.
>>52382987 >Hurr durr... Free choice is an illusion so there's nothing wrong with me choosing not to exercise it >No it isn't >Oh I'm off to lunch now because I don't want to lose this argument Well bye then... Bowing out of an argument like that doesn't allow you to win it or at least not lose it in anyone's mind but your own.
>>52382899 Actually its not, the Bible still has a lot of docetic material in it. This was one of the major conflicts early on in Christianity, and the current orthodox position wasn't decided on until 325 CE. By then it was too late to change some of the works considered holy scriptures by removal so they had to add material to counter balance it. Its not surprising then that it took centuries to stamp out docetism in Christianity as it lingered in places where Roman authorities had little power.
Interestingly Islam was heavily influenced by Christian groups outside of what became orthodox including positions advanced by docetists.
>>52382605 You realize > 90% of muslim women don't like to go full burka or even hijab? They are attracted to western clothing and lifestyle. The internet and media are using stock photos from the 90s.
I really dislike people who go to foreign lands and don't assimilate. The irony is these people are so westernized in their home lands but when they go overseas, suddenly tradition and orthodox principles become important to them.
>>52383031 Meh, I've been around enough that I believe I understand all you're saying. But I still don't concur. The text of the New Testament Gospels has Jesus constantly calling Himself "The Son of man". He ate. He drank. He needed rest. He died. All of these are physical human characteristics.
While ofc He is *also* God (born of a virgin, direct prophetic and spiritual events, rose from the dead), they're's not reason at all textually not to consider him human as well during His Earthly ministry.
Ofc, now He's in a glorified body, so it goes without saying that's something different and special than the rest of us prior to resurrection.
All atheists in here are 15 year olds who haven't considered that religions are life systems of metaphor developed to their respective civilizations needs (without infallibility and with being conscious of their symbolic purpose), thus western religions evolved with more literalism as westernization spread (peaking contemporarily with the fundamentalist movement practically spawned in reaction to Neil Dindunfin Tyson tier atheist science fandoms) with pretty much the only lasting semblance of metaphoric Abrahamic religion surviving in gnosticism (which is either dismissed as heretical or merely esoteric mysticism) while eastern ones retained much of their metaphorical and symbolic roots with religions such as Shinto kind of resembling paganism. Religion cannot be generalized, not even Christianity.
Ideas are still 'real' in an intangible sense, you can't apply objective definitions to metaphor you retards; religion is outside of realms of scientific objectivity, that's why it's 'metaphysics'. Whether the Christian God or any other being is 'real' is irrelevant, either the mono-God or the pantheon as a whole represents everything and nothing simultaneously, ie Brahman, 'existence', the All. Throw out your guy fawkes mask and learn your shit instead of sucking off Bill Maher.
I prefer physical bibles desu, Orthodox study bible is the best, but I'm open to a digital annotated version if it's available.
>>52383146 > The text of the New Testament Gospels The text has been changed significantly through revisions and translations. Even with all those revisions not all traces of Docetism have been removed. For much the same reason that not all traces of Pre-Jewish polytheism were expunged from the Torah / Old Testament.
Understand I'm not an advocate of docetism, I'm just trying to share knowledge about earlier forms of the religion because I find it fascinating. In particular the idea that the Gnostic or Docetic works were first with the Gospel of Marcion being the first narrative which was later sanitized into the Gospel of Mark with some of the more scandalous material removed and a longer ending tacked on.
Personally I'm an advocate of the Jesus of the Bible being a legendary or mythical figure. That doesn't mean that I think a historical Jesus is impossible, but if there was one there is barely any trace of him left.
>>52383322 >chkd >The text has been changed significantly through revisions and translations Quite the contrary. It is by far the most extant of ancient documents, and has withstood the test of time remarkably well. The literature is full of references to this fact, no need to pursue this point further. We effectively have the same documents as the most ancient manuscripts in every case where it can be examined.
As a devout Christian I also know the Bible 'reads' me, even as I read it. No other book in the literally thousands I've read has had that capacity. I'm personally confident that. A) God is, and B) that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
If God is, then He's quite as capable of carefully shepherding the Biblical texts safely to us this day as He is capable of shepherding believers who call on him into eternal life with Him. I believe all three points are true and factual.
The Biblical text stands on it's own, quite apart from my own personal beliefs and mystical experiences however. As mentioned ITT, it's been the single most scrutinized set of texts in human history. The literature certainly validates them.
>>52383421 The oldest material that we have is often fragmentary making it difficult to determine what the full text may have said. There were also several systematic attempts to remove material deemed 'heretical'. In some cases we only have the most ancient manuscripts in the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the Nag Hamadi library because the groups deemed heretics hid their books.
We have some very interesting works today that were not available for more than a thousand years. Like the Gospel of Thomas which may be very similar to the 'Q' source.
>>52383421 If you read about all of the contradictions, all the people adding and removing material to use the bible for their own gain, all the inaccuracies (which are natural seeing how much of the new testament was written down decades after it supposedly took place) and still somehow say that the bible "stands up" and somehow "validates" christianity I don't what I can say to you...
You're like one of those art collectors who have clear evidence presented to them that a really valuable painting in their possession is a fake, but they still chose to believe that it's real despite the evidence proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the painting is fake.
You telling people who look at the same evidence and actually come to the obvious conclusion that the bible is a work of man, not any devine power, are somehow deluded and not following free will is quite frankly absurd.
>>52383501 >The oldest material that we have is often fragmentary making it difficult to determine what the full text may have said Well, when we have literally over 10,000 extant manuscripts that match right up with the fragmentary older portions it's quite reasonable to assume the younger material is faithfully reproduced.
As far as canon goes, my previous answer about God's ability to care for and preserve the text is my basic response. The Holy Spirit was certainly around during the great councils in both ancient and more modern eras.
It's rather amazing that it exists at all given the great attempts by despots through the ages to destroy it entirely. I find that simple truth quite provocative all on it's own.
>>52383577 >Serious attempts to destroy all evidence proving that the bible is false >These attempts making it very difficult rather than impossible to find this evidence centuries later somehow means that this evidence didn't exist Right... Is god somehow your go-to explanation for everything or are you really this deluded?
>>52383643 Heheh, God's foolishness is wiser than the 'wisdom' of men anon. I make no claims regarding these things whatsoever beyond the dual revelations He's provided for us. Both are great mysteries, and will never be fully uncovered in this life my friend.
But, the evidence of the documents themselves stands firm and completely outside of any 'influence' of my (or you're's) own. :)
>>52383603 The texts themselves may not have changed, but what's in the bible and what's not has changed significantly. If god really existed and cared about what is in the bible, it would have been written down correctly in the first place and never changed. We're talking about an entity that's literally almighty. Instead what we have is a scrambled mess of contradictions caused by different groups removing and adding scripture to suit their agenda and beliefs that today allow people to read the same bible and to find support for vastly different world views.
It's basically the same as today when special interest groups edit wikipedia. They generally don't add information that can easily be proven false, they remove information that doesn't suit their agenda and add information which does suit their agenda. It's basically lying without actually telling a single lie.
>>52383577 Not all of those manuscripts agree though. Which is to be expected when you're dealing with religious texts. Even to this day Christian groups routinely produce new editions of the bible with text modified to more clearly promote their particular sects doctrine which in many cases wasn't imagined by the original authors of the text. One of the key ways that Bible Scholars verify their hypothesis of interpolations is to identify earlier versions that are lacking particular verses.
>It's rather amazing that it exists at all given the great attempts by despots through the ages to destroy it entirely. I find that simple truth quite provocative all on it's own. Does this mean that the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas and other works that we have today despite attempts to destroy them were preserved by divine intervention and should be regarded as holy scripture?
>>52383705 >Something simply doesn't make sense or is just false >Means that god planned it that way and that it just doesn't make sense to us people I suppose this is just the essence of "faith", i.e blind belief in something with ether lacking or completely missing evidence.
If there's one thing I can't stand with religious people is the way they simply refuse to even consider that some part of their holy scriptures doesn't make sense or is most probably false. Instead they just block themselves from thinking about it with this "oh but it's god's divine plan that we will never understand" copout.
>>52383727 >The texts themselves may not have changed >but what's in the bible and what's not has changed significantly. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you anon, but these two comments strike me as contradictory.
>If god really existed and cared about what is in the bible, it would have been written down correctly in the first place and never changed. He does, and they were, and they didn't.
Remember, theology is no more God than science is nature. Man's ability to even understand a thing--much less describe it--is demonstrably flawed.
The manuscripts show themselves valid in the best exegetical and legal traditions. While that forms a solid basis for study and interpretation, man's abilities in these arenas will always be flawed in this life. I firmly believe that the original Words of God as given to the prophets themselves to be 100% true and correct (we have many, many manuscripts in these original ancient Hebrew and Greek texts, btw). As far as any shortcomings in the attempts by man to translate the originals into, say, English I'm not surprised if there are disagreements.
Again, theology is not the same as God Himself. >That's no fault of God, btw.
>>52383844 >chkd >'blind' faith. This idea isn't a Biblical concept, nor what I base my beliefs on anon. I'm firmly convinced there is a great weight of observational evidence for a divine Creator of this universe, quite apart from my own mystical and intellectual experiences.
>>52383800 >chkd the vast count agree in effectively every detail. i'm not claiming they're's not debate at all, and I've outlined (I think) clearly the reasons for the apparent discrepancies. I don't believe there are any at all in the oirginal Words of God handed down to the prophets and apostles anon.
>>52383926 So basically you want to live in ignorance of the great tradition of Biblical Scholarship and want to ignore every variant of the Bible other than the one advocated by your particular sect because you believe your version to be The Inspired Word of God.
That's really unfortunate. The tradition you were raised in is just one part of a diverse tapestry of interrelated faiths. Christianity was and is more diverse than you're pretending it is.
>>52384009 >So basically you want to live in ignorance of the great tradition Biblical Scholarship Quite the contrary, as I think I've shown. I've studied the Scripture for at least 30 years now anon, including in the originals.
>>52384009 >The tradition you were raised in is just one part of a diverse tapestry of interrelated faiths. Heh, granted. But I am quite certain of one thing anon--they're are no 'versions' of the truth. They're is only the truth.
Eventually it will all be uncovered for us I'm rather confident.
Unexpectedly nice discussion on /g/ today anons, but ima taek a break and feed now. :D
>>52383885 >Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you anon, but these two comments strike me as contradictory. You don't need to edit specific pieces of scripture to change what's in the bible. The contents of the bible are the sum of all the scriptures. Add one piece of scripture and remove another and the sum total of the bible changes without changing the remaining pieces of scripture.
>He does, and they were, and they didn't. There's plenty of contradictory accounts of events not only in the bible, but pieces of scripture that are not in the bible and I just remembered the editing of the gospel of mark.
>Remember, theology is no more God than science is nature. Man's ability to even understand a thing--much less describe it--is demonstrably flawed. Well do explain to me how our ability to observe nature is somehow demonstrably false. When we drop a ball and it falls on the floor actually false and that it instead floats to the ceiling despite us seeing it fall to the floor?
As we've established, there's LOADS of contradictions found not only in the bible itself, but other texts written around the same time about the same events. There's just too much evidence to be able to chalk it all up to translation errors. What you personally believe is completely irrelevant in this context, it's about what can be proven without reasonable doubt and the bible is full of this that can not only not be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but disproven without reasonable doubt.
>This idea isn't a Biblical concept, nor what I base my beliefs on anon Well it certainly seems so seeing how you've already dodged considering that some part of the bible might not make sense or even be false by talking about god's plan and it just not making sense to us humans.
>>52384076 >including in the originals. But we don't have the originals.
The version of Mark that we have has been changed significantly from the oldest extant versions, and there is some evidence of older and weirder versions, such as Secret Mark.
Then for the other synoptic gospels we're missing the sayings gospel that they used as the source of their material that they didn't get from Mark. As I said earlier, this sayings gospel would have been very similar to the Gospel of Thomas which we only rediscovered recently because of attempts to suppress it.
>>52384353 The diversity of absolute divine truths and the lack of knowledge in the texts of religions beyond the time when they were written seems clear enough evidence to me. Why when dealing with the sick does Jesus never explain the Germ Theory of Disease? Why does Jesus's healings, especially in Mark the earliest narrative resemble the same sort of mystical faith healing recorded as performed by other supposedly divine individuals?
There is no argument for Jesus or Yahweh that cannot similarly be made for Thor or Woden.
>>52384076 >I've studied the Scripture for at least 30 years now Fellow Christian, be my friend, I need more people to ask detailed Bible questions to as I study it
Also don't mind the fedorable internet atheists. They spout hypocrisy, but most of them are underage /b/ who temporarily fill the void in their life by being hateful to everything that isn't a dank meme or a videogame that they enjoy. Sadly in the newest age of internet shit, whether they're actually retarded, or trolling, they can "make up for it" by saying "herp derp ironic shit posting." They bitch about hate, etc, yet they're the ones who spread it.
Just remember they're the minority in the real world. This is just the internet.
>>52384467 >why does Jesus not use a term that wasn't invented until the 1500s
>>52384353 We're not here to prove God, or shove it down people's throats, we're just here to spread love. It's their decision. If they choose not to believe, it's not our problem, it's theirs. We're just here to show love. Hate the sin, not the sinner
>>52384992 Prove that its more likely that the big bang was created by nothing then by God or by a simulaton of a more advanced society or anything else. Athiesm is like saying "Theres probably no cat in schrodingers box" Agnosticism is like saying "I cant posibly know what kind of animal or lack of animal is in the box"
>>52384081 >Well do explain to me how our ability to observe nature is somehow demonstrably false OK, in response I'll relate a well-known example from science. Isaac Newton laid down an expansive description of the mechanical world that was suitable to launch men to the Moon, determine the orbits of every spacecraft ever, and describe pretty much any everyday physical experience any of us have during our lives. Along comes Einstein and he realizes that Newton's story--while powerful--isn't quite complete. After over a decade of incredible effort, he expanded on Newton's work in a way that revolutionized our view of the entire universe and all it's history. Newton was right, just incomplete. Einstein was right, but (very likely) incomplete. All human understanding is limited in this universe (cf. Godel's theorems). Even when theories eventually advance to the stature of 'laws', and are validated in a hundred different ways, they are always always provisional and science is constantly testing it's prior assumptions (and wisely so).
>considering that some part of the bible might not make sense or even be false I find it unsurprising that when man is in the mix (as he necessarily must be during the transmission of texts across millennia) that some error may be introduced, and I've already stated as much. God has made sufficient provision to ensure that every thing man needs to grasp the magnitude of God's freewill sacrifice. And by His death, burial, and resurrection man has gotten the possibility of eternal life through Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God.
>>52384186 >But we don't have the originals. My apologies. I meant ofc the original languages: ancient biblical Hebrew and Greek.
>Gospel of Thomas I don't consider the fact that certain texts that modern critics postulate as reasonable biblical candidates aren't in fact included in the canon of the biblical testaments of any concern at all as regards the validity of the books that *are* included in the canon.
God has certainly done much more than has been recorded in the entirety of the Biblical texts (as the book of John asserts). We have sufficient scripture and general revelation for anyone who seeks God earnestly to find Him. Even with no scripture whatsoever, we still have enough general revelation in the book of nature to find Him, and obtain the gift of eternal salvation has been given to us and preserved intact to this day.
>>52384195 haha, isn't that the huge amazing library located at the national university in Ireland?
>>52384601 >Fellow Christian, be my friend, I need more people to ask detailed Bible questions to as I study it Sure thing, I'd be happy to if I can. Have a way to stay in touch anon [protip: Don't share a realname email, etc]
And thanks about the tips. Yea, in the words of Mr. T "...I'm not Jesus Christ...", but I try to remember it's all about teh love (well, mostly haha). :)
Biblehub has proven an interesting resource for me personally as of late. You can compare translations right then and there. The commentaries also provide important contextual details about the time, place and culture associated with certain scriptures.
Granted, they don't have the NWT, but that's really easy to find otherwise.
With all due respect Considering the fact that Jesus is the only event that is linked to reality(and even his existence has been shown to be somewhat questionable), what proof do you Christians have to show that your belief is valid?
>>52379093 You really shouldn't ask about religious stuff on 4chan if you want a serious answer, this whole site is a giant fedora tipping contest. My 100% serious suggestion is to try a religious board on Reddit - for example, r/Catholicism if you're Catholic.
>>52384912 Ever heard of Occam's Razor? When there is no proof for either side, pick the one that requires the fewest assumptions. And if you ask me, assuming that there's an omnipresent, omnipotent entity such as a god is a huge fucking assumption.
>>52386737 >God >providing free will But in the Torah we specifically have TWO or more examples where YHWH eliminates the free will of people and controls them. Even if your god exists, I think humans are much more ethical, rational, logical, moral, and kind. I wouldn't care to follow him anyways.
>>52391144 >believing real discussion can occur on Reddit Due to the voting system and mods, you cannot have real discussion. You can only conform, or have your comment downvoted and deleted. Only on a system without voting, and with minimal moderation, can true discussion flourish. See 4chan and usenet.
>>52392059 I think we are done trolling here, you really sound like you want that discussion
so a God is a huge fucking assumption, but that the universe and everything just came from nothing through a big bang and then was there? Nice try mate, but next time don't be so fucking biased yourself when you call religious people dumb
And everyone knows Occam's fucking Razor, don't act intelligent just because you read about it on wikipedia this one time
I'm not really religious myself, but people like you are the same shit like annoying religious people >hurr I'm right ure all wron durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
>>52396915 >but that the universe and everything just came from nothing through a big bang and then was there? Which part of "fewest assumptions" do you not understand? The big bang was too long ago, what happened can only be guessed. But the assumption that there is an omnipresent being that couldn't be contacted for the last few billion years actually existing and being so powerful to create materia from nothing is a far greater.
>>52397025 What part of fewest assumptions? You just don't want a god to exist, that's very personal to you maybe and I accept that, but how do you see in one of the theories fewer assumptions? are you trolling again? I'm not even talking about a god in the biblical sense, that the earth was made a couple thousand years ago and mankind started with adam and eve just that there is someone or somewhat that created everything and that's just as likely as everything just coming from a big bang after there was nothing
>>52397192 >You just don't want a god to exist Nice assumption there. >how do you see in one of the theories fewer assumptions? The "we don't know what happened before the big bang" is not an assumption. The existence of an entity with powers that could in no shape or form ever be observed and, in fact, contradicts scientific knowledge is a huge assumption.
>>52383885 >I'm firmly convinced there is a great weight of observational evidence for a divine Creator of this universe, quite apart from my own mystical and intellectual experiences. Would you mind showing some of this evidence, and demonstrating that it is in fact evidence not just something merely consistent with some arbitrarily pre-asserted worldview?
>>52397192 I'm late to the party, I know, but can I take you back real quick to your earlier post >>52382811 ? K. So, I live in Tennessee. There are so many churches in this state, it's hard to find an establishment that isn't a church. They've gotten so popular, that they've retrofitted grocery stores, gyms, even fast food restaurants, with churches. The McDonald's locations that are still McDonald's paint religious shit on their windows every year. There is not a single influence that told me "there is no god". The problem is when you're staring down the barrel of a 12 gauge or two... or three... After asking "So where'd God come from then?" If you experienced that, then unless you're braindead, you'd ask yourself, "Is this how someone reacts to questions if they believe what they preach?"
Then you ask yourself, "Do good people do bad things?"
At this point, nobody told you "God doesn't exist", but their actions told you "Yeah I'm full of shit."
>>52397811 >when you're staring down the barrel of a 12 gauge or two... or three... Sounds rather dramatic anon. As a Christian, I'd like to apologize for that behavior if it was in fact done by another Christian. Please forgive me.
As to you're question "where'd God come from then?" He proclaims Himself self-existent, without beginning, without end. And if you think about it, that would basically be true of a being that was in fact actually God. All things have they're basis in Him, but He's not dependent on anything for His.
>Then you ask yourself, "Do good people do bad things?" Yea, ofc. If we weren't messed up then we wouldn't need a Savior. Jesus said "I've come to heal the sick, not those who are well."
>but their actions told you "Yeah I'm full of shit." Guilty as charged. I'd simply plead this one point on you're behalf (remember, God's not rejecting you, you're [understandably] angry because ppl who claim to be His did you wrong. That's not His fault anon.): In the words of Mr. T when asked by a reporter why he nearly beat to death 3 thugs who robbed and beat up his mother in her home, "I may be a Christian, but I'm NOT Jesus Christ--and nobody messes with my momma!!"
Please remember Christians aren't the same as Christ, and even those of us who are true are still messed up and trying to walk this faith thing out one step at a time, and usually stumbling along the way heh.
>>52398572 Reasonable idea, but that's obviously a overbroad sweeping statement. If you're referring to the Mr. T anecdote, he beat the shit out of those guys because of they're violence towards his family, not because of 'defending faith'.
Jesus plainly commanded otherwise ehh: "If someone strikes you on the cheek, turn to him the other one too".
>And oh yea, willingly died on the cross and suffered torment to offer you salvation.
>>52397637 >>52398280 Thanks for you're patience anon. I'll just make a couple of brief comments, and ask me if you'd like more info.
Evidence for design is everywhere in the sciences, but rather apparent in two domains in particular: Cosmology and Molecular Biology have some pretty notable examples for evidence of intentional design in creation. Both the very very large, and the very very small show some remarkable design characteristics.
1. Anthropic principle in the universe -Basically every constant in physics exhibits some degree of fine tuning, and a few extremely so.
2. Design evidence in molecular biology -Many, many straight up analogies to man-made machines. -A unique universal genetic code. Codes come from minds.
Thread replies: 201 Thread images: 30
Thread DB ID: 404165
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.