God does determine who’s saved and not saved. But that doesn’t imply that we’re not accountable for our actions. That’s like a murderer standing on trial and telling the judge that the only reason he committed the crime is because he wanted to, therefore, he’s not guilty. We’re all guilty because we want to sin and therefore sin.

My last point was that abstract (non-physical), absolute, and universal concepts which ought to not contradict can’t be accounted for by matter in motion. Neurons are what we see taking place in the physical. Absolute abstract concepts themselves, and the law of non-contradiction, is what is taking place in the non-physical. Or have you discovered these growing on trees in the lower hemisphere of Africa?

Or do you hate the Lord Jesus Christ so much that you don’t want to admit that there is a meta-physical realm, even though our conversation is proof of it?

God is the only thing that can “restore your heart” meaning that it is His responsibility if you are saved. Also it means it is his responsibility if you are not. Ergo, No justice becasue no one is accountable for their actions.

You don’t even make a point in the 3rd an forth paragraghs

non-physical concepts are found in nature? You mean that the physical universe not being a physical entity? Brilliant. You have no prooof that our minda are Not a product of the development of a frontal cortex composed of nuerons, which are cells operated by chemical reactions. None whatsoever. In fact, the operation of the mind is a 1 to one function of the operations of the different areas of the brain.

You say people who saw Jesus do miracles and denied Him were idiots based on just their reasoning powers alone. How do you know they didn’t have God-hostile hearts instead of restored hearts, and that’s why their reasoning powers were skewed?

Further, I can use your same “did satan write the Bible” argument here. How would you know it’s Jesus and not Satan? That’s what the people then said. So you can’t use your reasoning powers alone to know God exists, because it could always be something tricking you. In fact, you can’t even know ANYTHING for certain, because it could all be an illusion and you’d have no way to know otherwise!

So mindless matter in motion can account for abstract absolute universal concepts? In other words, the physical can account for the non-physical to you, or non-minds can account for minds.

Once you show me where non-physical concepts are found in nature, how nature made them absolute, and how nature determines that they shouldn’t contradict, then I’ll let you say that it isn’t rational to assume more then matter got us here.

Nice to know you worship a sadist.

“Even people during Jesus time saw Him do miracles and didn’t believe.”

If this is true, those people are idiots.

But I don’t think it’s true.

“because matter in motion can’t even account for consciousness to begin with!”

Sure it can.

“If it’s more rational to assume more then matter got us here and holds us together here”

It isn’t.

And it’s a silly thing to conclude that your consciousness will cease when you die because matter in motion can’t even account for consciousness to begin with! If it’s more rational to assume more then matter got us here and holds us together here, then we have every reason to believe so after death too!

And most atheists want forensic proof of God’s existence. Well dying is a great experiment!

I still feel faith is also based on some level of good evidence and that blind faith is atypical.

Perceived evidence with regards to why I have faith would be: any evidence that I personally feel validates reasons for faith, but would potentially be irrelevant to anyone else since they did not witness, feel or perceive it directly…Some examples may include coincidences, answered prayers, “miracles”, or unexplained changes in ones life, like a shy monotone guy turning into a bold, charismatic public speaker almost overnight (me). Hope that helps clarify.

P.S. I think we can all just simply love Angelina and not care too much about her response – just joking…

Thank you, it did and it went well. I still have both kidneys, both are now healthy, and despite a good deal of pain I’m doing fine!

“I hope you just posted a badly worded, or non-universal example.”

A non-universal example probably best describes what I did, and for that I apologize.

A better, more general, example might be that you believe Angelina Jolie is in love with you.

Now, you’ve never met Angelina. But you have no evidence that she doesn’t love you. And you’re a good enough guy, so why wouldn’t she? And so you fervently believe that she loves you, even without any good evidence to back it up. That, sir, is faith.

“I’m also curious what evidence you’ve “not” seen that helps you cling to the belief that having faith in something is “not” beneficial.”

That is interestingly worded.

I don’t cling to anything. I see evidence that any benefit that people get (or claim to get) from faith can be achieved without faith through some other means.

It’s like acupuncture. There have been studies that show that actual acupuncture is no more beneficial than fake acupuncture (which would be the random placement of needles by a non-professional acupuncturist).

Does that mean that someone who gets acupuncture gets no benefit? Nope. But the benefit you get is from the placebo affect.

And if you can get the same benefits, or better benefits, from different techniques, what makes your way special?

“perceived evidence”

I’m curious to know what that is.

I’m also curious what evidence you’ve “not” seen that helps you cling to the belief that having faith in something is “not” beneficial.

To me, faith (spiritual) and trust go hand in hand. My faith is built upon evidence as well as trusting what the Bible says. Many seem to try and say faith is believing in something that is completely unknown. Sure, it can be defined as that, but without factual and perceived evidence I would not have faith (spiritual).