Sure it would.
It has to do with understanding what testimony to accept as true in the court of reality. You’re a jury of one (we all are).
You are presuming omniscience again.
If I were a jury, I wouldn’t accept claims that require me to die in order to see supporting evidence.
You are demonstrating that you do not know what the word means. I do pretend to know some important details that you are missing, however.
I am using the word “omniscience” in the same way you used it to respond to @Patrick post.
I tend to think you are pretending as well.
Then you are not thinking well if you’ve read Speaking of CSI and its associated links.
Your n needs to be higher.
It’s way higher than you know.
You are pretending to have omniscience again.
No, just to understanding the most important things about reality.
You have to have omniscience to know what is most important.
Uh, no. There are less important things you don’t need to be concerned about knowing. I don’t know if you have a middle name or not, nor what it is, if you do have one.
You claim to know the most important things, not the more important things. You also claim to know that people are telling true stories, and the rate of misses and hits when it comes to coincidences for all human events. On top of that, you claim to know which writings come from deities and which don’t. Do I have that about right?
I know which book best describes reality and fits my experience, and that there are counterfeits. It says that the universe had a beginning event (verified last century, much to the distress of many cosmologists then and even today), that all of us are broken and that we live on a dying planet.
Regarding hits and misses, we are not talking about individual ‘coincidental’ events, we are talking about multiple events that connect with meaning, and that even that their chronological sequence can be meaningful, even though the events themselves are physically disconnected and completely ‘natural’.
As a side note (or not) and that @swamidass will be gratified to hear, it is my extended experience with God’s providence that allows me to accept evolution. I don’t endorse it 100%, as unbelievers are compelled to do and that it has to answer all questions biological, but my confidence in God’s providence and sovereignty over space and time, timing and spacing (which includes all things material), lets me know that his design works perfectly and that all things evolutionary would not and could not have worked out any other way.
(Do you remember that the most frequent mandate in the Bible is “Don’t be afraid” or one of its several variations – “Be anxious for nothing”, “Fret not”, “Do not be alarmed”, etc.? It is at least as relevant as ever.)
5 posts were split to a new topic: Meaning and Purpose Among the Nones
Unbelievers are NOT compelled to believe anything. That is the whole point of skepticism, no one is compelled to believe anything that they don’t want to. Plus evolutionary science is not about endorsements. Evolution is a fact whether you believe it or not. And evolution is neutral on the question of God.
Becoming a Christian requires a miracle to soften a stony heart and open spiritually blind eyes and unstop deaf ears. It is not just a matter of choice that you can reverse tomorrow. That’s why I used the term ‘non-Christian Christians’ earlier. They are mere deciders, subject to recanting. Or as C.H. Spurgeon has called them, ‘Mere professors’. That’s also why there are such severe warnings in the Gospels and in the Epistles (non-Christian Christians already existed in the young Church). Who believes a man rose from the dead, anyway?! Do you really do have a choice?
And we agree about evolution, except not that it necessarily explains human exceptionalism, nor as a Christian, the image of God. My ‘endorse’ was just a figure of speech.
"Any God that created a universe that isn’t absurd is no God of mine."
— One of the foundational axioms of Ironic Design Theory
See, you do believe dogma.