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.
meh, bullchit
just twice? all the other times 'atheist claim to have read the bible they say 3 times cover to cover. its always been 3 times till now. every time i have tested that claim the 'atheist have failed. not failed 80% or 90% or even 98% but 100% of the time. a astonishing 100% of the time. so i dont believe you. maybe you did some kind of speed readding gimmick on it but i wont even believe that.
then you cant give examples of NO free will just because you think its NO free will.................
science has progressed to a point that it has proven a creator. even the 'atheists have had to make this concession. science has been extraordinarily cruel to the 'atheist
just because God know what your going to do doesnt mean you didnt have a choice.
if you were serious about this claim "...can never trust human senses and perceptions..." you would know not to make final conclusions, its simple reasoning. stuff like this is what gets me thinking your a bot. the whole paragraph is bot gibberish. little wonder people who are having conversations with bots are going coocoo.
you chose not to believe. as already been demonstrated with the "alleged" 'atheist conversation. an excuse can always be found. curious, scripture talks of a "leap of faith" ?
your pride makes you protect what you believe. the fundamental difference between a 'atheist is a 'atheist will say "nothing greater than i" while a creationist will say "there is something greater than i" the difference between the two is light years apart. the 'atheist has the highest level of astonishing arrogance. while the creationist stands in humility.
have you ever been wrong about anything? what was it?
"Instinctual Knowledge " your pride is still making you argue this point. i will say it again. your argument isnt with me it with the scientific papers that use the term.
you wont watch videos either because you cant (bot) or your just not serious about collecting information either way it makes you false.............. irreverent babble
This post was edited by TiStuff on Jul 11 2025 08:48am