Well, then there is a big misunderstaning here. Let me ask you this question: Do you have any will? Acording to what you say the answer is no. Since that is God who move your thoughts. You however need a sense of judgment supported with will to decide in a situation and if you don’t have any will then you have no sensce of judgment then how you could be free?
Okay, I take it back. You’re being willfully ignorant. I have clearly defined, twice, the distinction bwtween “moves” and “controls.” I’m not going to answer this… again… because I have done so twice already. Pay better attention to what is written. Then again, I’ve given you this advice in at least three other threads, and you’ve yet to heed it, so why do I bother?
It does. What is your defintion of law?
We only have psedo-random generator which depends on a seed that a agent feed into algorithm in a given time. Give the same seed and it always produce the same series for you.
That’s what -we- have managed to come up with. We’re dealing with the theoretical here in pretty much every other aspect of this post, so why shouldn’t I be able to rely on a theoretical true RNG, which is not based on a seed? (Keep in mind, that a computer RNG is only our closest approximation to a true RNG, which is more akin to rolling dice, or flipping a coin
times.)
This example does make no sense. Law of nature is different from what you are mentioning here. Consider a system which it has N degree of freedom, lets call, D={d1,…dn}. A set of laws, lets call it L operator, is defined as an operator which uniquely change the state D to D’=L(D). D’ has to be unique because otherwise L is now law.
You’re attempt to use math here is, quite frankly, stupid. Sorry, but there’s no other word for it. While the laws may be limited in their definition({d1…dn} in your estimation), and the operator L may be constant, you completely ignore the most important aspect of my explanation, the entire point that I was trying to make. {d1…dn} can be applied in different ways by different L’s, or even by the same L’s There is no valid reason to place a limitation on n, because there is no way that you can account for every possible eventuality that will ever exist. A gaming law may be that “Fire damages what it touches” In a given scenario, L may use fire to attack their enemy. In another, L may use fire to cut the ropes supporting a set of logs, which then role down and damage the enemy. It’s the same {d}, and the same L, but the use of {d} is entirely different. There are, literally, an infinite number of examples I could come up with. You cannot simply place an arbitrary limitation where non is capable of existing in an attempt to make a point. In order for a point to be valid, its basis has to be valid. Your assertion that n has a limit is invalid, and so, therefore, is your point.
The following segment is not intended to apply to the debate, and therefore does not classify as an ad-hominim attack:
Bahaman, you have made dozens of these topics, poorly attempting to apply misunderstood and misapplied logic to theology in an attempt to make some vague point. You never provide adequate support for your point, and you never address real problems in your logic as they are pointed out; and I’m done dealing with it. There is no point in arguing with you because, no matter how valid the point, you either ignore the core of it (as you did with my gaming laws analogy) or purposefully misrepresent it or limit the scenario in ways which were not properly defined to begin with (as you did with my RNG example) to avoid the issue. You have done this in every topic that I’ve bothered engaging with you in. You are not open to intelligent discussion, and are only here to soapbox. It’s been fun, but I’m not going to waste my time anymore. I hope that one day you decide to genuinely seek understanding. It’s a much better pursuit than whatever it is you’re doing now.
God Bless, I’m out.
