I share his point about us humans interpreting everything as designed without evidence.

But what I dont know is how that tackles the undisputable fact that predetermination is the opposite of decision.

Just because it sounds like bullshit, doesnt mean its bullshit.

To some people it sounds like bullshit to imagine the earth as a ball.

I dont have the expertise to comment on this. How is this even relevant for our discussion? Let me read about, maybe I can at least form an opinion.

you saying you cant tell if something is designed?

in the vid i posted
Michael Egnor: The Evidence against Materialism - Science Uprising Expert Interviews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=embed/BqHrpBPdtSI
at 18:00 they talk of free will but use the term free wont. its an interesting vid about brain function



ok ill give you some time on this
as a reminder the question is "how did the reconstruction of 'lucy end up with human feet"

Most things I can identify as designed are known to me. I know who designed it. I know a car has a designer, because I know how its done and I know its a human structure. I know that a car is nothing that occurs.

I dont know why the universe would need a designer to be the way it is. What tells you that?

This post was edited by Modulok2405 on Sep 28 2023 11:42am

you understand when dawkins says "its only appearance of design" he is actually admitting to design.

dont forget you said you would look up 'lucy and how they ended up putting human feet on her

Is it out yet?

"God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that worked like machines-would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free."

Why can't God create things that have free will? Also did you not use your free will to evade debating the Genealogy of Jesus?

I am not dawkins, I dont care what he "admits", its not like he is the bearer of truth or something lile that*lol

Havent looked into lucy, its a turbulent weekend. Little one has birthday. But I will, I promise.

God cant create beings with free will because his omnipotent nature makes every step they take predetermined.
I dont know if I use my free will or not. Feels like it, yeah.
I personally would - if I had to take a wild guess - think free will is a real thing which is perfectly fine for me since I dont believe in the god claim.

But who knows? I dont.

And what did I evade? The Genealogy of Jesus? When did we talk about that?

perhaps there is a difference between predetermined and known ?



dawkins is reffered to as a high priest of 'atheism and many people hang on his words.

happy birthday to the kid