gkmcnees@comcast.net wrote:

> "Al Smith" wrote in message
> news:3E4DB432-8974-A547-3434-0D0038041906@srcbs.org...

>> Predestination did not have the advantage of Chaos Theory. The
>> behavior of chaotic systems cannot be predicted by any mind, no
>> matter how powerful. Not even by the mind of God. I put it to you
>> that the human race is a chaotic system
>
> I don't see any advantage of Chaos Theory. It is just
> Chaotic! And absurd to boot.

It's pretty clear that neither of you know what you're
talking about. "Chaos Theory" refers to a mathematical
"chaos", which is very different from the usual meaning
of the word "chaos." Mathematical chaotic systems only
appear to be chaotic, but their behavior can be quite
predictable.

And I sure wonder where Al got the axiom that no mind can
predict the behavior of chaotic systems. If that were true,
we wouldn't be able to generate pictures of fractals with
our computers.

Bart


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

In article <156.02.22.05.400098000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
>
>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
>> In article <153.21.08.05.256213000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...

[snip]

>> >> > Who says?
>> >>
>> >> God and me.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Where does God say that what you happen to think is unjust is unjust?
>>
>> What a cheap shot, Bob! Gary never said this. He never said that God said
>> what Gary happens to think is unjust really is unjust. He only said that
>> Gary and God say the same thing.
>>
>
>Well, that's what's being contested -- whether or not Gary and God say
>the same thing.

No, Bob, that is NOT the same thing. If you are really unable or unable to read
more carefully than this, you really should give up posting to this NG.

Now let me show you the difference in more detail, since you have clearly missed
it.

NOW you say "whether or not Gary and God say the same thing". But earlier, you
said "what you [Gary] happen to think is unjust is unjust".

Now "say the same thing" no doubt refers to "what is just (resp. unjust)". So
this is not where the problem is. The problem is trying to equate "whether or
not they say" with "happen to think". For by saying "happen to think", you leave
your words open to the following interpetation: "you, gary seem to think that
what _you_ think is unjust must really be unjust, almost as if God were taking
orders from you concerning what is just and unjust". And you _have_ resorted to
this straw-man often enough before, not only in this thread.