I do not believe in magic; I believe in the supernatural God.
Explain the difference exactly. To me they're the same: anything that can be explained by "a god did this" is exactly as explicable saying "magic did this," or " a god did this using magic." You touch on it a little further down in your response: "Well, we don't see it as magic, we see it as God and he reveals the answers," to roughly paraphrase.
They very well could be the same to you since you use the 21st-century meaning but the biblical definition of magic carries with it a negative connotation. Since my worldview is biblical I do not associate what God does as magic but a miracle. Magic is a dark practice often mentioned with sorcery, witchcraft, spells, incantations, and manipulation.
You say the magical ingredient is billions and billions of years, like that's magic...but we have evidence that this amount of time has passed. Unlike evidence for a supernatural being living outside of space and time and being totally undetectable.
That interpretation of the evidence is based an looking at the data through a particular worldview prism that has dominated western thought since the Age of Reason. That interpretation relies on humanity as the measure of all things. That interpretation relies on the present being the key to the past. You assume that the conditions in the past can be accurately interpreted by present information and conditions and the conditions of the past are speculated and conjectured upon. There are many secular worldview models of how the universe began if indeed it began.
Just as your position is unfalsifiable. Yet the biblical evidence forms a reasonable and logical faith, the atheist faith does not.
So you cannot prove Xenu didn't do this? Must be true then.
The reason to believe it is flimsy. The evidence does not support such a view.
I'm not going into the weird math conversion you do to make that one prophesy sort of work, we've had a long discussion on that already and you simply don't see it my way, which is based on facts and numbers being numbers, and Idon't see it your way, which is based on some weird conversion chart that isn't in the bible and a bunch of hebrew scholars making a mythological text seem like it worked in retrospect.
I gave you two different scenarios, one that takes the 490 as literal years and another that looks at it from the perspective of the fulfillment of the prophetic conditions. Either way, the Messiah was to come to a people in covenant relationship with God. That is no longer possible after AD 70. What they agreed to (before God), after AD 70, can no longer be followed.
It's not compelling and never will be.
It is not compelling to you because you are closed to the reasonableness of the Bible. But the evidence is both reasonable and logical from both biblical positions. You would have to be honest with what is known instead of letting personal bias get in the way. I do not believe you do that.
And you never explained why the Astros 2017 prediction was somehow less impressive in spite of being super specific and totally indepedenetly verifable, so I don't think you really have any interest in that discussion. Neither do I. This one though:
It was one claim if I remember correctly. Biblical prophecy includes a number of different issues. It concerns Israel and their relationship with God on many fronts. It includes the Deuteronomy 28 curses, the promised Messiah, the promised new covenant and the inadequacy of the old covenant. The Bible speaks on life's ultimate questions whereas the Astros predictions are mere fluff. It does not speak on such issues that humanity is engrossed in and tries to explain. There are unity and consistency in the Bible.
I claim hands down the Christian position is the one that has the ability to make sense of life's ultimate questions.
I am interested in. Please make sense of one of life's ultimate questions, whatever that is, without saying "because God is here." I have never understood how that 'makes sense' of life's ultimate questions, it just punctuates them and provides no real information.
When you give caveats such as excluding God His existence in explaining anything you act from your personal confirmation bias, not mine.
Either we are ultimately a creation of a personal God (who in the biblical case has revealed Himself that we can know) or are here because of random mindless chance. Thus, to make sense of life you have to do so using one or the other particular worldview. So, how well do the two different views make sense of anything?
Go back to the start - origins - and make sense of life by looking at who are we, what are we, why are we here, what difference does it make, and what happens to us when we die as explained and made sense of by the two basic worldviews, one from material naturalism and the other from a personal Creator as to these questions.
Atheism (or a belief that denies a personal God): Who are we? We are physical, biological blobs comprised of atoms that stem from a common ancestor that we do not know how it originated from inorganic matter. We originated by chance happenstance, somehow. There is no reason why our common ancestor or we would exist if life is materialistic and solely naturalistic. Thus, our existence is ultimately meaningless too. There is no ultimate purpose to it yet we invent purpose to give the meaningless meaning. When we die we return to the cosmic void where everything is once again meaningless.
From the meaningless, irrational, chaotic, randomly chanced comes meaningful beings, reasoning being, purposeful beings, uniformity of nature.
Christianity: Who are we? We are creations of a living, loving, benevolent God comprised of not only the body but mind and spirit. The reason we exist is that God chose to create us, in His likeness, for a purpose to know Him and enjoy Him forever or to reject Him and live apart from Him forevermore. Thus, we have an ultimate purpose and meaningfulness that we can know and enjoy, not only in this lifetime but in eternity to come.
From a living, loving, logical, reasoning, personal Creator comes other living, loving, personal, logical, reasoning, creative beings. This is what we witness and experience. We derive our existence and attributes from our parents who are such beings.
Now, does it make more sense that we come from a necessary Being or from random chance happenstance? Please answer the question.