Instinct is an inborn impulse or motivation to action typically performed in response to specific external stimuli. It is generally described as a stereotyped, apparently unlearned, genetically determined behaviour pattern. Foraging is an example of an instinct driven by impulses serving specific biological functions. Instinctual knowledge is the inherent inclination of a living organism towards a particular complex behavior. For example, spiders know how to spin their webs instinctively.
Britannica

This post was edited by TiStuff on Jul 9 2025 02:02pm

I will only quote your final summary here and agree with it partially. Your conclusion is pretty similar to mine although I dont think I see free will and no free will are independent from each other.

The way I would see it is that the universal lack of free will is not very important for us humans since we cant feel it or feel influenced by it. Free Will exists inside of the isolated world we live in. Thats our perception and we live by it, which makes it "real" for us although its not real by objective universal standards.

What do you mean when you say you reject my "definition of faith"? I agree, faith is trust, but its never trust without reason apart from religion. Thats what I basically said.
Okay, you say its not without reason and I believe you that you mean that. Our standards for reasoning might differ tho.
Maybe I can ask you as a follow up question how you tested scripture and how it passed the test?

Do you not think the logical conclusions we can draw based on what we can observe against free will is bigger than the evidence for it?
I only find evidence against it since neither a scientific approach nor a divine approach could ever explain free will to me so far. You couldnt either.
All "arguments" in favor of free will in this thread so far were a good bit of childish mockery and insults and a bit of making an argument out of trusting human senses and human perception - which is almost never a good thing to do when you are looking for answers or truth.

As for your alleged remembered atheist conversation. Those were smart people. It would be pretty pretentous of me or any other human to act like I would know what proof for the divine would even look like. Letters in the sky or a guy showing up wouldnt be it, thats what I can confidently say.

If god would exist, he would be the only one who would know what to do to convince me of him. I personally certainly dont know what that would be.

Oh come on...you really wanna die on that hill and split hairs like that? This miggt be the funniest " I am right" post I ever read.

You searched through the web to find the term "instinctual knowledge" to make a point of "Not all knowledge is aquired?". Really?

Listen, even if we call instincts knowledge now and pretend that earthworms and ants are knowledgable, then we both know that this is not the kind of conscious knowledge we talk about, right?

Oh and by the way, even instincts are aquired at some point in the womb/egg/whatever. If you split hairs, I can too. Instincts are certainly aquired knowledge. At some point genes have to pass that "knowledge" on to the fetus, right?

So I am pretty sure you know what I talk about here and why I say knowledge is always aquired except for god's knowledge. Or do you really keep on disagreeing with this?

This post was edited by Saurod on Jul 9 2025 11:38pm

the first process of testing scripture is reading it and working to understand it. you have done none of this yet in your total ignorance claim its false

i have given actual examples of free will. your insistence on no free will seems to just be based on pig headed stubbornness lacking any kind of real argument.
if you were serious about this you wouldnt makes conclusions like "no free will"

"alleged" your the one that insists on no video. so what the fuk else am i supposed to do?
actually it said "written in the stars" not in the sky

i suggest you "cant be convinced"

some people say 'atheists already believe in God

you didnt answer why you wont view even the shortest vid. here is a quote from a former 'atheist your just protecting what you want to believe. your not really serious about honest discourse. acting like you want a serious conversation but keeping yourself ignorant at the same time. .................irreverent talk

2 Timothy 2:16
“But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.”
King James Version (KJV)






naw i just typed in "instinctual knowledge" and hit enter rather than blindly trust what you whip out of your imagination.
im not "dying on a hill" your argument is with scientific documents. "instinctual knowledge" is their wording not mine

This post was edited by TiStuff on Jul 10 2025 07:11am

Oh, I have read the bible. I have read the old and the new testament at least twice completely from first to the last page. I already stated in that thread before that I am very interested in the topic. I agree, I would be a dishonest idiot if I'd talk about christianity without having read the bible. But I have.

To your next statement: You cannot give examples of free will just because you think its free will.

Without God: As of now theres no way to come to free will through science, I think we might agree on that one since you are religious, right? Why not? Because nature is completely deterministic apart from the non-influencial quantum mechanics which are also, if they would be influencial enough, just purely random and would also never be able to lead to free will.

With god: With god, at least the christian god, there is a fundamental problem
with free will because god is the source of all things and therefor knows all things and therefor is all things which leaves no room for anything apart from god.

That is my stance and I think I did a good job explaining that stance. And because I am serious about the statement that you can never trust human senses and perceptions is exactly why I come to conclusions like no free will. My senses would clearly tell me there is free will, but I dont trust them for obvious reasons. Its just my human perception. Its totally worthless if I dont have any other evidence. Evidence does absolutely not support my perception
at all. If you wanna argue around your own perception, your senses, your personal experience then do it, but do not expect others to take that as objective evidence for anything.

I dont know if I cant be convinced of god or if I can. If he exists, he wpuld be able to convince me since hes allmighty. Maybe he doesnt want to convince me, but in that case I cant be blamed. If he doesnt want to convince me, then I obviously cant do anything about it.

I am also not protecting what I want to believe, because I cant. I believe what makes the most sense from an objective perspective. I always try to leave out personal opinion. Same in this thread, same with my arguments. They are never just my beliefs or my unreasonable opinions, they are always conclusions that you can challenge at any time.

Instinctual Knowledge is a perfect example. Its typical actually for your way of trying to be right. You try to build a case in your favor based on a scientific term despite usually rejecting science if it doesnt fit your narrative.
You in this case come up with the (in reality absolutely not) scientific term "instinctual knowledge" and try to make it a part of the term "knowledge" just because it sounds similar and just to be right about my factually and objectively true statement that knowledge is always aquired. This is your way of arguing.

And why dont I watch videos you post? Because they arent your words and I talk to you. I am.not here to watch people sharing opinions on youtube. You can always extract all the information from that video that you think is important and write it down for me here and I will not ignore it, I promise.

This post was edited by Saurod on Jul 10 2025 08:03am

Lol, this thread is still open.

Hilarious.

And you are still commenting on it. Isnt that also pretty fuckin hilarious?

Oh, it is.

If there are consequences then it’s real enough, even if it’s a brain in a vat or simulation