If you don't have any evidence to back up your claims, do you expect me to find it convincing at all?
"Assumptions" that many others have made based on some very solid "evidence", etc...
And yet once again you seem to be incapable of actually PROVIDING this alleged evidence.
Whatever, supposed "assumptions" that many others have made based on some very solid "evidence", etc, and did not just "pull out of the air", etc...
So you are claiming that people have evidence for something that hasn't been found yet.
Hasn't been found, but there's still evidence that your interpretation of it is true.
Might wanna have a think about how the logic of that works.
I think that is what we will find, fairly certain that's what we will find (that's it's all deterministic, etc) (and I'm not the only one, etc) And there is a lot, A LOT, of evidence for that right now, etc... (google it like I told you, etc)...
You claim there's evidence for it, then you tell me that I should go and find it myself.
Forget that. It's YOUR homework, I'm not going to do it for you. You make a claim, it's up to YOU to support it. If you're too lazy to get the evidence to support your claims, then you probably should find somewhere else to share your views.
Also, I don't think the individual behavior of some individual atoms appearing to be random to us right now, is quite enough to discount or disprove the theory of determinism right now, etc...
Quantum mechanics is actually talking about things on the subatomic scale, not atoms.
If your understanding of QM is so poor that you make such basic mistakes, why should I think for a second that your ideas about it are even close to accurate?
We simply don't know enough about what makes up those individual atoms right now, etc, nor even have a math for it or them right now, etc (what makes up those atoms, etc)...
They are electrons, protons and neutrons, which are in turn made up of quarks. This has been known for quite some time. It has been tested and verified. If you don't know about this, I'd say you simply do not know enough about the subject to have a meaningful conversation about it.
Quark - Wikipedia
That's what you keep saying anyway...
And it's true.
No I am not, and do I have to say it again, it is a FACT, "FACT", that in "any deterministic view of any of "this" or the universe, etc, it is a FACT that in that kind of view, it has to have an original cause, etc...
It's not and "argument from incredulity" or even "any kind of argument whatsoever", it is just simply a FACT, etc...
I thought we had cleared that up by now...?
You have said that you believe our universe is deterministic.
You have said that a deterministic needs an original cause.
Thus, you claim our universe needs an original cause.
It's very simple.
You mean prove to you for 100% certainty for you that it is 100% deterministic in and for yourself and in your own mind...?
I'm not out to do that, etc, just for you to be open to it, and do some of the "research" for it yourself (google, etc) and "make up your own dang mind", and "decide for yourself", etc...
And if you come to believe in a deterministic view of the universe, and perhaps "everything", etc, then it has to have and original cause "in that view of it", etc...
Once again, I'm not doing your homework. If you can't support your own arguments, then don't be surprised when other people say they're rubbish.
Look, I've done my best to state my case, lots of people, lots of "experts" in these fields, etc, believe that this universe is deterministic based on some very real solid proofs and very real solid evidence, etc, and due to what they have learned, can know, and/or have come to know and/or can observe in the universe, and in that view has to have an origin or original cause, since it's all based on "cause and effect", etc...
Rubbish, you've made a claim, and that's it. You have never provided any proof, you've relied on assumptions and logical fallacies and when directly asked to provide even a single shred of evidence, you've refused and tried to tell me that it's MY responsibility to support YOUR arguments!
Now, either do the research for yourself or don't do it, and make up your own mind from that or don't, either way, I don't know if I am going to be responding very much more in this thread to you from here on out or not, cause I'm just having to repeat myself over and over again, and your starting to too, so...
Once again, it's up to you to provide the evidence to support your own arguments. If you're not prepared to do that, then, like I said, you shouldn't be surprised when people say your arguments are rubbish.
