Another thing I wonder about: is there any analogue between modern string theory and Pascal's "pre-Newtonian string theory": that the orbit of a planet can be traced by a pencil and a string around the two foci?

LOL at the Sir Isaac Newton acronym being S-I-N.......which is exactly how scientists were treated by shortsighted, egotistical religious heads during that time........sinners......blasphemous

the irony is that a shit-ton of scientific progress was performed by religious people who were trying to discover more about Gods world.

and dete, i just caught up with the last 30 posts. three things:

1) dont feed the troll. your arguments against biteme have devolved into an egofest. doesnt matter who is right or wrong, you both look stupid.

2) there IS a random factor in physics, which is what all those posts were earlier where i was discussing how einstein rolled over in his grave.

3) i disagree with taking anything that is applicable ONLY in particle physics (heisenberg/schrodinger) and starting to make assertions about things that are not particle physics (life/predestination).


ofc i think bitemes arguments are empty, but you coming back over the top of him with condescension doesnt help the matter at all. "i am 3 courses away from being an 'expert'" just doesnt sound good.

skrum i really tried to find something, but they really have nothing in common except math.

Shevar:

It might help if I gave you the right guy. It was Kepler, not Pascal.

yeah monte im just trying to create strife to inflate the post count. really i stopped making an actual argument at about 200. tbh most of this shit is confusing as hell to me.

i am smarter then the cookie though

i won't argue with cookie anymore, for the sake of the thread.

> ofc i think bitemes arguments are empty

What do you find empty in my argument. I don't think any of them were trolling, and were completely legit arguments. I don't even think they were far different than what you just wrote.

> What do you find empty in my argument.

That was meant as a question - "What do you find empty in my argument?"

>2) there IS a random factor in physics

I tried to make this point by bringing up the uncertaintity principle.

>3) i disagree with taking anything that is applicable ONLY in particle physics (heisenberg/schrodinger) and starting to make assertions about things that are not particle physics (life/predestination).

I tried to make this point by pointing that inability to respond scientifically to a statement that involved the supernatural.

As for my 3 examples of why free will doesn't exist, I don't see how they ar empty or trolling. The show progressively how free is at best restricted free well, and at worst doesn't exist. When talking about a philosophical concept like free will, thought experiments like the ones i put forth I think are highly relevant and standard.

I'm still wiating for someone to adress why they believe people can freely chose to believe in God, but not the reverse.