Thrax for the first time in this thread Ii think, but I'm to lazy to check) i agree with you.

>I do suppose that the uncertainty of the nature of electrons and a few exotic particle would poke a substantial hole in my original argument of predestination though.

Good I'm glad we agree. Care to retract all your chest thumping?

Now on to the philosophical part of the debate - consciounous being contradictory to predistination. Why?

Ryansucks stfu you would have never caught that, I am still way smarter then you, and you probably don't have a clue why it would poke a hole in my argument.

(it is still somewhat uncertain that it even would)

Sir Isaac Newton: hey guys i just made this awesome discovery called gravity.

Science community: Uh ok, whats it do.

S I N: It makes objects attract each other with a force based on each objects mass and their distances from each other.

SC: So like no if i take a shit make sure my ass is shoved really deep into a massive latrine?

S I N: um..... yeah sure

SC: w/e go write a book you nerd



Niels Bohr: hey guys i made a cool new discovery

SC: whats that Niel?

NB: electrons can be assumed to orbit the nucleus of an atom in a discrete orbital pattern, and it makes life a fuck ton easier.

SC: well fuck we dont have a clue if thats how it actually works but your right it makes the math a fuck ton easier.

NB: so like we should share our nuclear weapons research with Russia guys.

Winston Churchill: Bohr you fucktard if you give the russians jack shit im gonna stick my giant British penis in your tight danish ass.

i'm p sure tycho brahe was the greatest physicist of all time.
i mean he had a copper nose.
and a psychic dwarf.
plus he had a moose that got drunk and died falling down the stairs.

>Ryansucks stfu you would have never caught that

I believe I did from my first response.

>I am still way smarter then you

You are fond of assertions that lack any evidence. Would you care to objectively test this?

Lets go back to your philosphical claim - consciounous implies free will. Why? Just because the horizon is flat, does not mean the earth is flat. Just because we feel like we make choices freely, does not mean we do.

"c) What's this decay you speak of? Are you referring to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that says the speed and position of atomic particles isn't predictable?"

this is my favorite part of the whole dialogue between us.

and you never made any valid scientific based claim as to why my predestination postulate would not hold up.

> this is my favorite part of the whole dialogue between us.

Why's that? I asked for clarification on what you were talking about. The reason I asked for clarification is because it's a little stupid you would talk about randomness of decay in the context of predistination. Almost all philosphical essays I've read on the subject that attempt to make a tie with physics start with the obvious issue of the uncertaintity principle. I get your style is more of claim something w/o understanding, but that's not mine. Though I will admit to not knowing about the randomness of decay.

>and you never made any valid scientific based claim as to why my predestination postulate would not hold up.

I agree, that's somewhat true. I more asked for clarification on what jibberish you were talking about so I could properly debate you. But you never got off the ground with your debate.

BTW the second you invoke the super natural in a debate, your outside the realm of science, which you did pretty quickly, which prevented me from engaging in a scientific based response.

I invoked the super natural, because a force acting outside of the laws of physics would allow for non predetermination. Which after reviewing some of my notes i will still largely contend that even with particle duality and radioactive decay the behavior of every particle in the universe would be able to be predicted by the laws of physics. At least to a very high degree of accuracy

whenever you two get in a debate, it gets boring.