That's a fair inquiry.
Simple. The "fact" that was "quoted" was in error. TP was paraphrasing, and he got it wrong. A better way to put it might have been 'research into quantum mechanics has reached a point where one researcher on Earth has concluded that events on a "super micro-cosmic level" (or whatever you want to call it; quantum mechanics-wise) appear to him to be explained by dubbing them *random*.
Can I show TP is wrong? Uh...no. I don't feel the inclination to do so, for reasons not germane to the discussion, and further, I have an extremely rudimentary understanding of quantum mechanics, and cannot offer a mathematical proof of the invalidity of the precise statement that he made. However, I did not say he was wrong. I said he was 'not quite fully correct'.
What datum or data can I offer to dispute his statement? Uh...not relevant. TP's "fact" was offered as a supporting datum for his premise that If the state of the future exists, even if God does not know the choice you are going to make, if the future already exists, that so called choice is just an illusion.
Do I disagree with that premise? Yes, strongly.
Does my disagreement mean I am an agnostic or an atheist? Uh...no.
So, the point of my saying he was not quite correct would be? The thread is a discussion of the legality of teaching a religious concept of the theory of evolution in a public school in the State of Kansas. I think that this issue should be decided by the citizens of Kansas.
But that is no reason to not argue the topic. TP's stance on all of this discussion is, as I understand it, that the concept of "free will", as generally understood and accepted by the normal ordinary mammal, is an illusion. His argument for this is a theological argument. I do not disagree at all with his right to offer his argument, it's a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of the United States, and it does not appear to me to violate the Terms of Use of Silicon Investor. I do, however, believe that his own free will allowed him to come to the conclusion he did an voice it, and the idea that "everything is planned out no matter what you" do is just nonsense and denies the spiritual nature of man, which is what he is arguing FOR in the first place. <G>
But I don't argue religion with mammals. I think everyone has a right to whatever religion he chooses, as long as there are no bullets involved.
I submit that the overall concept of 'religion in public schools' must, by definition, take into account "religion", and it is very difficult to get people chosen at random from the citizens of Earth to agree on exactly what "religion" is, let alone "the teaching of the dogma of an organized religion in a public school in the State of Kansas, United States, Earth" which is what is being debated on this thread.
As far as 'events that are at this moment unexplained by Normal Science (even quantum mechanics) but appear to be taking place in the physical universe, and which might have some bearing on one's concept of events which occur at least partially in some other universe (which might be explained by adding a spiritual nature to the equation) I would offer:
research.ibm.com
Now, can I go to the bathroom?
|
