luckydog1
Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006 Status: offline
|
"My beef is that no matter how many people (on what is it, four different threads now?) point out the logical, factual and rhetorical flaws in your theory you keep repeating the hypothesis as if it were established fact. Yes - everything IS part of everything else and it's all natural mechanisms behaving lawfully, but that does NOT mean events are predestined. End of argument. " The thing is that neither you nor anyone has. I have not used the word "predestined" a single time, for a specific reason. I find it odd that you have to resort to such a lame a tactic as changing my terms. That's not a logical or factual refutation. That you think it is, says a lot about your concept of Science and Logic. If "it's all natural mechanisms behaving lawfully", how can there be anything but the one lawfull result? All covers EVERYTHING doesn't it. A "rehetorical refutation" simply means because you say so. Why don't you actually give a possibly mechanism for it to be so. Actually give a logical or factual refutation. This is just an idea, I am musing, I don't believe it. Refute,--- that in a Materialist Universe, every event is the lawfull result of Matter/Energy interacting with Forces (including those we don't understand or perhaps even know about), all behaving in a lawfull manner, which causes the system to be Deterministic. This includes every event, including the processes in our minds. Does not require that a will/God set it up. Does not mean we can actually predict next weeks Lotto, but theoretically if we had "All the Data" (which seems impossible) we could. The Numbers will be the result of interactions preceding from the initial conditions of the Universe. Even if something from outside our Universe, intersects and affects events in ours(no Mainstream Scientist is claiming any such thing, are they?), you still get the same issue, is its action the result of Materialist/Natural Laws or something else? I mean you are following me around and disrupting, " Hi lucky. Still pedaling that Atheistical Predestinative Sciencism snake oil?" (You put it in big letters ) when I try to discuss this idea with people, why bother with that. "Rhetorical" refutation I suppose you call it.....
|