I claim knowledge, not certainty. Not even Dawkins claim certainty.
I have heard Dawkins say "Evolution is a fact" about a thousand times. In fact I have never seen him give a lecture or debate where he does not make dozens of claims to know this or that. Any claim to knowledge is an absolute claim and is defined:
1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
That requires that whoever claims it also have the proof for it, or at least evidence that makes it the best explanation of whatever facts and evidence that can be found.
I argue to the best explanation for the evidence we have. That is how theology and history work and really all subjects should. Science can't prove science.
I argue to the best explanation not to certainty. I do have certainty but of a kind that is unavailable to anyone else and so do not claim certainty even though I have it.
[Sweden has no oil. Norway does. And some Islamic countries.] I didn't say oil, I said natural resources that until now have not been utilized.
Any God can do that. Even the absence of gods achieves the same results.
It was not an argument for God. It was pointing out that scripture makes this compatible with God. In other words the amount of evil in the world has been all but given up in professional theological circles as a argument against God. 2000 years after the bible already pointed it out.
Choose life so that I can live? I think it is obvious that if I choose death, I will not live
That is not the glaringly obvious context of that statement. In fact the surrounding texts explain the context very well. And no your choosing to live will not mean you will, you will die anyway, but this is not even the death in question. God was saying chose me and you will live the life intended for you from the beginning, but if you do not chose him you will suffer a second death and be destroyed in Hell. How much of the bible have you studied. Much of it you seem to lack even a Sunday school understanding of. No offense meant.
Do you think God can be taken off guard by the course of events so that an intervention is necessary?
I just heard two extremely good debates on what predestination means. They were both Christians but DR White was one of them and he never loses a debate. The other guy went first and set up some arguments so well I though "Uh oh, White is in trouble". Five minutes into White's rebuttal he had demolished the other guys argument to such an extent it could no longer be even considered tenable. No God cannot be taken by surprise by events.
New International Version
I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.'
Isaiah and I believe Jeremiah both contain what are referred to as the trial of the God's. I recommend you read them or at least the parts dealing with foreknowledge.
I don't find it confusing at all, under the premise of naturalism. Bad things happen, unless they do not happen. And if you happen to pray X when they do not happen, you thank X. And if they happen than X had other plans, or a passive will. For any X.
I did not say low probability events are proof of God or a denial of natural law. I am saying that when a series of almost zero probability events occur within time spans that coincide with obeying God that God is a better explanation than luck. I only gave you a few examples and few of the details for those examples. I was too lazy to type all the things that almost always go wrong that went right after that, that had such low probability as to intuitively suggest intent and would to anyone. I have found that the hardest atheists subtly show signs of Karma, God's justice, etc..........I have never known anyone that have a series of low probability events happen and not think intention was involved instinctually. I guaranty you do it, you may catch yourself doing it and back away but it is virtually universal.
I think that being born again and believing it was a miracle come together as a package. The intervention of the holy spirit is, by definition, not a natural event. The problem is that there is a Plethora of naturalistic explanations that explain the cognitive experience of being birn again, having achieved nirvana, being part of the conscious universe, etc.
First none that are even fractionally as good of an explanation as the gospel explanation. Pick one natural explanation you think better explains salvation and we will compare them.
Tough love? You mean birth control and sexual education? What about promoting homosexual unions? No further mouths to be fed out of gays unions.
I would agree with the first to, but the last will only multiply misery.
If you are right about cosmology and morality then I would not probably lose. i would certainly lose. But we are not there, yet. My only regret is that I will not be able to tell you, in the afterlife, that I was right, for there is no afterlife.
Agreed that is why it is so frustrating when every argument is countered with a hypothetical claim from experimental science. It's as if you must escape anything that can be verified as fast as possible and escape into the twilight where no one can see clearly. Not just you, this is what 75% of atheists do. They dismiss faith by using things that are not even close to being known and most people can't understand anyway including themselves. It's like that statement about gravity I always post as an example of mumbo jumbo that know one knows, contracts its' self, and has about 4 errors in 2 sentences, and has nothing to do with science at all. But it carries all this weight because Hawking said it. I am afraid that he is over rated because of his handicap. I don't understand 90% of what he says but find it either wrong or questionable and many scientific giants like Penrose call his theories "not even a good excuse for not having an answer" Most of what he writes is philosophy anyway and I have seen philosophers refer to it as abject absurdity.
Because you do not believe in Shiva and you never prayed to him. Maybe he would have sent you 4 checkes, who knows? I hear this claim of God X helping people all the time, working in a multi cultural environment.
If I had recently been to India and worshipped Shiva that might be relevant. I see no culture that Shiva worship dominates that is blessed with what currently Christian or recently Christian nations are. If you want to use other cultures to weigh God, lets bring in Israel and see if God explains their history pretty well.
Why should I believe you and not my muslim friend who makes very similar remarks about Allah helping in him against all odds?
I could start writing now and die before I listed all the reasons. I will give you two. The Koran plagiarized works well know to be gnostic and heretical, or Muhammad's impression of his revelation. Pick one if you wish.
The factories? Are they divine?
That is a weird question. The vast majority of workers in them believed in the divine but I do not see how that is relevant. I was explaining what really turned the tide in WW2, now whether that entity was divine. BTW factories a mere humans can't be divine anyway. Nor does God have any reason why he could not use non believers if he wished like Babylon. I don't the question.[/quote][/quote]
