Helen & the Scissors

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Then it shouldn't be hard for you to stop ducking this question:

What does an unborn child see in the womb?
There is no ducking of questions. There is you trying to divert attention from your falsehood.

You stated that sight occurs simultaneously with birth. That is false. Man up and admit it.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Then it shouldn't be hard for you to stop ducking this question:

What does an unborn child see in the womb?
There is no ducking of questions. There is you trying to divert attention from your falsehood.

You stated that sight occurs simultaneously with birth. That is false. Will you ever be honest enough to address that issue, or will you keep trying to divert, showing all just how (dis)honest you are?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
WE have free will, and the desire of our hearts tends toward evil. Why would God want to violate your free will???
God might want to violate one man's free will to protect another. For example, suppose Adrian chooses to murder Brian, but Brian chooses not be murdered by Adrian.

God could choose to intervene, to protect Brian and uphold Brian's free will. Or he can choose not to intervene, and to uphold Adrian's free will. He consistently chooses the latter, he consistently chooses to uphold the free will of the perpetrator, at the expense of the victim.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
God might want to violate one man's free will to protect another. For example, suppose Adrian chooses to murder Brian, but Brian chooses not be murdered by Adrian.

God could choose to intervene, to protect Brian and uphold Brian's free will. Or he can choose not to intervene, and to uphold Adrian's free will. He consistently chooses the latter, he consistently chooses to uphold the free will of the perpetrator, at the expense of the victim.

Just murder? How about slapping? Spitting in the face? Cheating at cards? Hurting Granny's feelings? Your ideal interventionist god will be kept very busy, but he'll need some thresholds. I guess you're the man to provide them.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
You mean nothing? Sightlessness, like being blind. Are you now debating yourself?

May the best man win.
Nothing that could be identified. But not nothing. I can sense light and dark. I doubt any blind person would say that it is exactly the same as being blind. I'm not debating anything. You asked "what does an unborn child see in the womb?" I gave you an answer.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Nothing that could be identified. But not nothing. I can sense light and dark. I doubt any blind person would say that it is exactly the same as being blind. I'm not debating anything. You asked "what does an unborn child see in the womb?" I gave you an answer.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
And yet He does. Millions of times in millions of lives, including mine.
That's just confirmation bias. You are projecting your own expectations of God onto actual events. There is no evidence of any supernatural power acting to alter the expected course of cause and effect.
Many Jews were killed by Palestinian terrorists. So unless your God intervened to help make it happen then no he didn't intervene.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Nothing that could be identified. But not nothing. I can sense light and dark. I doubt any blind person would say that it is exactly the same as being blind. I'm not debating anything. You asked "what does an unborn child see in the womb?" I gave you an answer.

Correct: "The same as you see when you close your eyes," i.e, nothing.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
That's just confirmation bias. You are projecting your own expectations of God onto actual events. There is no evidence of any supernatural power acting to alter the expected course of cause and effect.

WRONG! Experiential evidence is the best kind. You have none to support your ignorant position.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Experiential evidence tells us you had an experience. It doesn't give any support to your claim for the origin of that experience.

Queen Isabella: "C'mon Chris. You didn't discover squat. I realize you claim that experiential evidence tells us you had an experience. It doesn't give any support to your claim for the origin of that experience."
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
God might want to violate one man's free will to protect another. For example, suppose Adrian chooses to murder Brian, but Brian chooses not be murdered by Adrian.

God could choose to intervene, to protect Brian and uphold Brian's free will. Or he can choose not to intervene, and to uphold Adrian's free will. He consistently chooses the latter, he consistently chooses to uphold the free will of the perpetrator, at the expense of the victim.
Except when HE doesn't.
 
Top