There is A God

Yes", maths can be a product of a super smart mind, it's not [a] supernatural miracle," EXCEPT for a case where trees and animals in nature have been around long before human beings were around to plant them, so WHO'S super smart mind engineered the Fibonacci sequence and used it as a foundation blueprint upon which these living things should grow? You might assume aliens did it, but then no ailens could have been around all the way back at the very beginning of the universe to fine-tune things like the expansion rate of the universe, the strength of the force of gravity, etc. Also, since the Big Bang is the beginning of all the matter in the universe, the cause of the universe would have to be immaterial, but also unimaginably powerful and intelligent. Sorry, but it looks like you'll still have to imagine something like a God to get this done. You talk about the low chance of coincidences doesn't mean they can't happen, even if its 0.01%. THis shows how little math you know. At some point, the odds of something happening are so small, that its dismissed as an impossibility! Imagine a tub filled with billions of white ping pong balls, and a single black one. There are at least 50 constants in the universe that need to be finely tuned for us to exist, and the Big Bang only gives one chance to get all 50 of them. So our universe being the way it is, is like picking the black ball 50 times in a row without ever picking a white one, because that would like placing the force of gavity to high or low which would mean we don't exist! How could blind forces of nature pick the black ball at random, every time, out of a sea of billions of white balls? It can't! Clearly its set up this way by an intelligent Creator. Its like the same dude winning the lottery 50 times in a row, and only buying 50 tickets, it just can't happen by chance - that's a set up. "I do not believe that any scientists who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars. If this is so, then my apparently random quirks have become part of a deep-laid scheme. If not then we are back again at a monstrous sequence of accidents. [Fred Hoyle, in Religion and the Scientists, 1959; quoted in Barrow and Tipler, p. 22] A few examples of this fine-tuning are listed below: 1. If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 1060, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. [See Davies, 1982, pp. 90-91. (As John Jefferson Davis points out (p. 140), an accuracy of one part in 10^60 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target. ) 2. Calculations indicate that if the strong nuclear force, the force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be impossible. (Leslie, 1989, pp. 4, 35; Barrow and Tipler, p. 322. ) 3. Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. (Davies, 1984, p. 242. ) 4. If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and thus life would not be possible. (Leslie, 1989, pp. 39-40 ). .. Imaginatively, one could think of each instance of fine-tuning as a radio dial: unless all the dials are set exactly right, life would be impossible. .. . The fact that the dials are perfectly set. .. strongly suggests that someone set the dials. .. , for it seems enormously improbable that such a coincidence could have happened by chance. " . https://www.google.com... Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe"s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. I didn't narrate Jesus miracles, I gave four facts about Jesus. His death (not a miracle), his empty tomb (no miracle), people saw Him afterwards (seeing a man isn't a miracle, many explanations can be put forward for this), and the origin of the proclamation of His resurrection. (preaching isn't a miracle). Now, these are accepted as facts by the majority of historians. What best explains them? No naturalistic explanation ever works, thus, I am justified in accepting the only explanation the first Christians gave - His resurrection by God. Now, since you claim you won't believe it unless Jesus does it again in front of you, you must be saying you only accept things that happen more than once. So the Big Bang didn't happen? Cause we don't have evidence that it ever happened again. Yet most cosmologists accept it base on evidence. America has only had one black president, so you'll only believe it when they elect another one? As for the Quaran, its easy to see how Muhammed could convince people to believe his version of what Jesus did 6000 before his time because no eyewitnesses were around to challenge him. Its very difficult to see how the original Apostles and other followers of Jesus could convince thousands of people across the entire Roman Empire that this man was raised from the dead and performed miracles in the presence of eyewitnesses who could refute them easily. Paul even calls on the presence of over 250 eyewitnesses who were around in his day to prove his case. (1 Cor 15:3-8) Paul names the eyewitnesses in his letter to the Corinthians. This he could not do had there been no eyewitnesses around at that time. I can see how a Muslim can sincerely believe in Allah out of ignorance, and be willing to die for that belief, but I can't see how the original Christians, if they never saw Jesus alive again from the dead, would be willing to suffer the persecution they did, even in the face of death, for what they knew to be a lie they made up! God still speaks directly to His people today. He talks that way to my Apostle, and to me. I know plenty of Christians to hear His voice. But as Jesus prophesied in Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43, false Christians would be mixed with true one. Maybe you were simply a fake, that's why you didn't hear God. Doesn't prove that others don't. You claim you don't get a miracle, but why should God give a miracle to someone who isn't willing to live as He commands? He healed me by the power of prayer. I called on His name and He stopped a man from taking my life. Miralces happen every day. People even come back from the dead. You argument seems to be that since some people worshipped fake gods, that all worshippers do. That's like saying because some diamonds are fake, all are fake. Not rational. Nor did you address the reasons why historians believe the four facts I gave concerning Jesus really are facts. "Blaise Pascal gives a simple, psychologically sound proof for why this is unthinkable: "The apostles were either deceived or deceivers. Either supposition is difficult, for it is not possible to imagine that a man has risen from the dead. While Jesus was with them, he could sustain them; but afterwards, if he did not appear to them, who did make them act? The hypothesis that the Apostles were knaves is quite absurd. Follow it out to the end, and imagine these twelve men meeting after Jesus' death and conspiring to say that he has risen from the dead. This means attacking all the powers that be. The human heart is singularly susceptible to fickleness, to change, to promises, to bribery. One of them had only to deny his story under these inducements, or still more because of possible imprisonment, tortures and death, and they would all have been lost. Follow that out. " (Pascal, Pensees 322, 310) The "cruncher" in this argument is the historical fact that no one, weak or strong, saint or sinner, Christian or heretic, ever confessed, freely or under pressure, bribe or even torture, that the whole story of the resurrection was a fake a lie, a deliberate deception. Even when people broke under torture, denied Christ and worshiped Caesar, they never let that cat out of the bag, never revealed that the resurrection was their conspiracy. For that cat was never in that bag. No Christians believed the resurrection was a conspiracy; if they had, they wouldn't have become Christians. .. .If the resurrection was a lie, the Jews would have produced the corpse and nipped this feared superstition in the bud. All they had to do was go to the tomb and get it. The Roman soldiers and their leaders were on their side, not the Christians'. .. .There were too many witnesses. Hallucinations are private, individual, subjective. Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene, to the disciples minus Thomas, to the disciples including Thomas, to the two disciples at Emmaus, to the fisherman on the shore, to James (his "brother" or cousin), and even to five hundred people at once (1 Cor 15:3-8). Even three different witnesses are enough for a kind of psychological trigonometry; over five hundred is about as public as you can wish. " . https://www.google.com... Con gave his personal reasons why he isn't believing in God, but hasn't been able to refute my evidence. If his smoking gun comes now, just recall I cannot rebut him after this.