You're right. It doesn't mean anything.

Okay. But this is not what you said previously.

But quantum indeterminacy does necessarily point to indeterminism and indeterminism undermines materialism because the term means that some physical events happen "without cause."

Incidentally, if you do not believe in the existence of a conscious will, then why do you identify yourself as a panentheist?

Hey P, I've keeping a folder regarding fun you. Here's a bit from the beginning  ....

10 -  "Freewill" philosophy has never intrigued me much. What am I missing?

I AM both free and not free, in the Yin Yang of my being, the expression of what I AM, GOD, doing my dance.  I will now make a decision, while the ALL  of what my life is, is a force, I cannot control.

What are you trying to teach us, my concerned friend Paisley ???
-----------------------------------------
P replys, "That free thinking presupposes free will."
--------------------------------
16 - Paisley says "Sorry...no free will, no free thinking. Based on the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, you're just a "robot with consciousness."

Ummm OK, now what ? Surrender to something ? I just honestly don't get your point ?

  I really want to understand ....(?)
-----------------------------------------------------
20 -  SLAVES TO THE "AWE" WE ALL ARE (yup)  , now what ? (scratch head)
--------------------------------------------
26 - I AM a ROBOT , but I like it .... don't you ?

   When's the celebration start? , Robot "ball room" dancing anyone ?  ....  
-------------------------------------------
29 - What isn't analogous ?  What are we fighting about ? Oh yeah , LIFE .... but why ?

--------------------------------
#75 - magilum 

This would only be a problem for an omniscient being. And we're dealing with two different questions, the influence of society and the chain of causality, which makes your argument equivocation.

Once again, the "panentheist" raises an infantile non-topic that awkwardly betrays a Christian apologist's stench.

"We don't have to justify the things that don't make any sense anymore."
~former Scientologist Greg Barnes

-------------------------------------------

76 -  "Hi" MAG, you very handsome equivocation destroyer .... >  the things that don't make any sense  <  (laughing)     WOW, WAIT,  that ain't funny (smash)      but I laugh, I AM nervous ..... ENERGY/MATTER , hummm, and whatever? , and condemned to be ME ..... GOD FUCKING DAMN IT ..... (smile) 

-------------------------------------------

  nevermind , it's all here in this educational thread. Thanks again Paisley ..... 

   YEP , Obviously and absolutely, GOD DONE IT !!!!   

   Pantheism is sexy god sexy .....

Previously where?

No it doesn't. Wavefunction Collapse necessarily points to indeterminate fundamentals (that is unless incompleteness of QT comes to light which is somewhat unlikely but not entirely ruled out, yet). Quantum indeterminacy, though, which is basically an observation of the discontinuity between the empirical reality of the macro world and the micro world*, does not necessarily point to indeterminism philsophically - it does cast serious doubt on our understanding of causality, I totally grant you this, but that's the extent of the implication of indeterminacy on its own.

*if there was a deterministic cause beneath the planck scale we couldn't pick it out from the noise because of the limits on information encoding given by the uncertainty principle, ie we'd use a lot of energy to get into this distance scale which would in turn only compress the information into an irretrievable state - this is why hidden variable theories can only be indirectly tested.

I am Panentheist and I believe the accurate definition of 'conscious will' is nothing like our presupposed/historical notions of it at all (very important), and natural and fundamental to the universe.

As is virtually every other idea of the 'reality' behind QM itself, not to mention the class of 'hypotheses' which combines total lack of evidential justification with virtually zero explanatory power, namely those assuming some form of super conscious entity, whether a 'conventional' God or a pantheistic one.

You really missed the point there. The proposed chaos theory explanation proposes that the uncertainty is not actually based on 'true' randomness, but is actually only the apparent randomness of a background chaotic process. Nothing inconsistent there, my point was only that the strict mathematical model of chaos assumes that all variables are definable with infinite precision. Replacing the Planck scale precision with Heisenberg uncertainty just adds a tiny amount of apparent randomness to an already unpredictable process.

'Indeterminism' IS NOT 'without cause' by definition. That quoted definition refers to a theory, not a description of a system. An alternative 'definitio from the first part of the same line you extracted the above quote from, says "a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes". Two comments on this 'definition': its still referring to a theory, its specifcally in the realm of theories of mind (free will), which is a more narrow regime than that which quantum theory applies to, and it still doesn't directly say 'without cause', it is still compatible with the idea that the antecedent state of the immediate environment is the 'cause', but there is a degree of uncertainty in the exact way the antecedent states combine to determine which of a range of possible outcomes actually occur.

Compare this definition with that for 'indeterminate':

"1 a: not definitely or precisely determined or fixed : vague b: not known in advance c: not leading to a definite end or result";

which is a simple statement of the property of some observation or process. This is a ore appropriate definition here - the outcome of both 'truly random' processes AND chaotic processes both are consistent with this definition, no presuppositions about 'uncaused' involved. IOW, describing a process as having an 'indeterminate' outcome does NOT by definition assume anything about causality.

The definitions of 'indeterminism' all include the idea of the word referring to a theory or doctrine, rather than an attribute of a system or process, so 'indeterminate' appears to be the more appropriate word to use in this discussion.

Of course some theories describable as 'indeterminism' may well define themselves as being based on the idea of events having no cause, or at least no physical cause, but that's a particular viewpoint, by definition, not a property of a process or system. So quoting the definition of 'indeterminism' is not relevant.

Bell's inequality is certainly important, but it does not address causality, rather non-locality, which is a different issue altogether. In fact it is very much anchored in cause-effect, the counter-intuitive aspects being mainly the implication that an observation at one location can have an apparently instantaneous 'effect' (hardly the language of non causality), apparently violating the speed-of-light speed limit, except that it also explicitly excludes the possibility of allowing us to exchange actual information instantaneously. It is only the correlations that appear to require some form of instantaneous connection, there is no way the receiver can deduce the state at the other location unambiguously.

I agree that it does present difficulties to a fully deterministic explanation, of QM. But the chaos theory model demonstrates that indeterminacy is consistent with a world where all low level interactions obey deterministic rules.  I don't actually believe that reality has infinitely fine structure, IOW that something like the Planck length represents a lower limiting scale of a 'physical' structure, in the broadest sense, which has some implications for chaos theories, sure, but certainly not to invalidate the basic idea of extreme sensitivity to initial conditions.

The definition I retrieved from the New Oxford American Dictionary: "Philosophy the doctrine that not all events are wholly determined by antecedent causes." seems to me a more general one, consistent with MW definition 1a.

I currently lean to the view that the the Universe is indeterminate, but not un-causal, but 'cause and effect' relationships don't conform the simplistic notions of philosophers. Science , especially QT, points off in a direction orthogonal to both strictly deterministic concepts and the purely random, or the 'uncaused'. Note that I don't equate 'pure randomness' with un-caused, that show a lack of imagination and insight.

My next band , the "Bob Spence" band, ...... yeah Bob ..... can I have more than one band ?

                                             FREE WILL , yes I can !

I believe you weren't familiar with it until Eloise pointed it out. You've shown yourself unfamiliar with other terms on the subject as well. All I've seen you do is cut stuff from Wikipedia and claim that you have a qualitative knowledge of the subject because you've done so.

So, yes, I'm going to be a nuisance to you until start doing more than simply dismissing arguments and repeating what's been refuted.

If you think the criticism is lame, it should be damned simple for you to eliminate it.  Do your homework before you come in making pronunciations from the mountaintop. Your ass will thank you for the lack of kicks it will receive.

It seems that you have failed to mention that 60% of the world's most prominent physicists subscribe to the "hypothesis" of the "many-worlds" interpretation (MWI). Of course, there is absolutely no evidence of parallel universes (not unless you count the subjective expriences of New Agers engaging in "soul travel" and/or out-of-body practices). Evidently, rational atheists and logical positivists are permitted to believe in metaphysical worlds but if an individual professes belief in God then he is automatically labelled irrational. Talk about a double standard.

I will grant you that "indeterminism" is a theory. So is quantum theory. I will also grant you that the first definition in MW refers to indeterminism as it relates to free will. I agree that this definition is in the domain of "philosophy of mind." However, the second definition is a general philosophical definition of indeterminism.

Also, what are you talking about when you say "it still doesn't directly say without cause?" It says "that deliberate choice and actions are NOT DETERMINED by or predictable from ANTECEDENT CAUSES."

"Not determined by antecedent causes" is does not mean the same thing as "without cause?"

Sorry, but you have just changed the rules. Your initial argument was that QM doesn't describe a process that is "truly random" but only appears to be random. If it is "truly random," then it doesn't have a cause.

Also, the above definition for "indeterminate" states "not definitely or precisely determined." If it is "not precisely determined," then it doesn't have a cause. Something that is "indeterministic" is "not deterministic." Something that is deterministic means that for every event there is a cause. Something that is not deterministic (i.e. indeterministic) means that there are some events without causes.

Also, we have already established that "truly random" processes and "chaotic" processes (at least in the context of chaos theory) do not mean the same thing. Chaos theory is deterministic. Chaos theory is describing a process that appears to be random, not something that is "truly random."

I disagree. I don't have a background in physics. But I have already quoted a professor of physicist (Paul Davies) who stated that "quantum events are not determined absolutely by preceding causes." Are you suggesting that he is deliberately misleading the general public? Also, please explain to me why Einstein was taking a hissy fit about quantum mechanics if indeterministic does not really mean "without cause?"

Also, an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia on the "Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" states that Bohr viewed quantum mechanics as violating some basic principles of classical (newtonian) physics. One of those principles was...and I quote..."the principle of causality, i.e., every event has a cause."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/

I didn't say that Bell's theorem implied "noncausality". I'm not sure where you are getting this. The point that I was making is that Bell's theorm implies that any deterministic theory of QM cannot reproduce all the predictions that QM makes.

The Bohm interpretation is a deterministic theory. But in formulating a "hidden variables" theory he had to discard locality in favor of philosophical realism.

I believe nonlocality and quantum entanglement is what Einstein referred to as "spooking action at a distance." It definitely smacks of the paranormal. I'm not sure of the details of Bohm's interpreation but I do know that Bohm wrote a book "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" in which he expressed his scientific and philosophical views - views exhibiting strong affinities with Buddhism.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. But doesn't Bell theorem hold true for Chaos theory (which is a deterministic theory)?

You're basically saying "neti neti" ( Sanskrit for "neither this, nor that" ). This is okay if you're using the term as a mantra in meditation or engaging in apophatic (negative) theology and speaking about the divine nature of God or Brahman. But I don't think this approach should be permitted by someone who professes to be a rational atheist.

Here are your choices:

1) determinism, .i.e. every event has a cause

2) indeterminism, .i.e. some events are without a cause

3) time, space, and causality are an illusion

4) all of the above

5) none of the above

If I missed an option, please let me know.

The Wikipedia article on "indeterminism" defines the term as contradictory to determinism and being "without cause." 

The same article addresses indeterminism as it relates to science and states emphatically that QM is indeterministic (at least according to the Copehagen Interpretation).

I have cited numerous sources to support my argument that quantum indeterminism really does mean that quantum events are events without a cause. I can cite more sources if you like but I don't think it will make a difference. 

Wikipedia's article on "Quantum interpretations" has a chart of thirteen different interpretations. In one of the columns, there is a header  labeled "Deterministic?" There are only three entries that qualify as deterministic intepretations of QM. They are as follows: "many-worlds" (MWI), "many-minds" (MMI), and the Bohm Interpretation. If you want a truly deterministic interpretations, those are your choices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

Thanks P. That communicated much better. My dogma detector didn't turn on !  I think part your motive is about changing the common dogmatic definition of god, which is what I try to do. " The God Theory". Cool, I like that title. Philosophically, God = Everything .... zero dogma .... thus 'agnostic atheist' etc.

Obviously there is often a misunderstanding of evolving labels, as atheists / pantheists is an example. These two similar groups, are certainly not the Dogmatic enemy that freaks me out. We need to see each other as both being warriors against dogma. A/P partners, and the Buddhists too.

Thanks again for the science/philosophy stuff, mark. (an uneducated Dogma Cop)  Heal them desert dogma sick dogs Paisley !  

    "A Higher Love" !!!   ( * ONE * ) 

Paisley,

I apologize for going all Max Cady on you. Your tenaciousness has no bearing on the worth of your discussion, no matter what its source.

I have said I'm out of this discussion, and indeed I am. This post merely serves as an apology for the vitriol in my last post. I still hold to the substance of the post, which is why I am staying out of the discussion, but I certainly didn't need to be such a jerk about it.

But, I just stumbled across an interesting read from physicist Jean Bricmont that is very relevent to this discussion. In it, he basically explains my position (and understanding of the universe) much better than I myself could ever attempt. It's thirty pages, so it's a bit of a read, but I believe he has quite a bit to say on the subject of determinism; chaos theory; and quantum mechanics, mostly the Bohm hypothesis (which was mentioned a few posts above).

You certainly won't agree with him (he declares arguments against determinism are impotent), but as I said, it is an excellent summary of my position and understanding of these subjects. Perhaps it will give some insight into my understanding of the universe.

Anyway, no reply to this post or to the Jean Bricmont paper are needed or expected. It's all simply a hope for better mutual understanding.

You mean the inertia as a Zero Point Lorentz force?

Apperantly he's wrong.

Oh and BTW, my personal beliefs involve the ZPF and some of Haisch's ideas. I don't agree with everything he says, but it's the main point that counts.

Please don't get a fucked up view of them. I thought about them I suggest you do the same.

I apologize for not replying to those who commented on my earlier post. I seldom have convenient Internet access, so I rarely have the time (or money) to do much on-line.  I also apologize for the formatting glitches in the present post. For some reason, text that I prepare on my word processor doesn't transfer over well, and the buttons for editing what I've posted do not show up on my screen.

In Post 292, I mentioned my 6+ years of debunking Kent Hovind and defending atheists. Among the links I gave were one to trebob27’s youtube video featuring correspondence in which Hovind had waived copyright. Another link was to Carl Marychurch’s An Analysis of Kent Hovind.

I’m one of the regulars in that site’s guest book, and —not surprisingly— my activities draw flak from some of my co-religionists. One of the latest blasts was (11 June 2008)

For the creator of this website, the Evangelist who confronted Dr. Hovind, and other gossipers and slanderers against Dr Kent Hovind: …[I]t is hypocrites like you who give Christians a bad name. It was not God's will that you create such a disgraceful website as, had you been a real evangelist, you would have concentrated on saving people for God, not wasting so much time making a large, false website about a man whose teaching is getting under your skin and preaching against him.

The reason you, and many others, are so against Dr. Kent Hovind is because he is obediently doing God's work and opening the eyes of many people, and you are a tool of Satan against him. God has given him much wisdom. It takes much courage to do God's work when practically the whole world is against you. … You need to repent, for God will judge you and you will receive your reward according to your own works. The lies against the truth have blinded you and you have back-slidden.

Not necessarily representative of what they say, but by no means unprecedented. What words of mine occasion such vitriol? Here are a few examples. I have no objection to anyone positing them elsewhere, but that permission is not mine to give. According to the terms that we contributors accept upon creating an account, all material we post in RRS forums becomes the property of RRS.

The first example is from ca. January 2007. Several months earlier, I’d carried on a discussion in the guest book with an ethical atheist who believed unapologetically in free will. After acknowledging that he didn’t know how to square that belief with his materialism, he had said something that I could have applauded. Unfortunately, I’d given him the last word, so I couldn’t see my way clear to comment on it until months later, in response to some of Hovind’s supporters. They had implied that we Christians must not expose Hovind even though we know him to be a liar and slanderer, so I responded

The professing atheists who post here typically come much closer to the spirit of the Gospel [than Hovind’s followers do], such as in this quote from a post that an atheist made several months ago regarding morality:

I see morality ... in terms of a choice. I choose to believe that the lives and well being of others have value. I try to act and believe in a way that respects the lives and well being of others not because a higher power tells me to, or because of any desire for reward or fear of punishment, but because I choose to.

Here speaks a person who wants to know and do what is right out of love for others, because he knows that to do otherwise would harm them. Such a person simply isn’t interested in an offer of Divine permission to do wrong even if it comes bundled with eternal life, and especially if comes at the price of having to shut up about the wrongdoing of fellow believers.

At about the same time, I had written

I omitted something important from my previous posting, in which I explained why a missionary like me helps Carl Marychurch expose Kent Hovind. I gave two reasons: (a) doing so is an act of justice toward those whom Hovind has wronged with his lies and slanders, and (b) I want Hovind’s nonchristian detractors to know that if they should become Christians, they won’t have to smile and put up with defiantly sinful Christians like Hovind (or mass murderer President Rios Montt of Guatemala) who reject appeals to repent—the Bible tells us to expel them (e.g., Matthew 18:15-17 and 1 Corinthians 5:11).

I neglected to mention that I believe Hovind is a dangerous hate-monger, a belief only made stronger by the arguments that his adherents use in his defense. For example, that Hovind cannot possibly be such an objectionable sort because he brings thousands to Christ. This is nothing more than the “God is with us, so how can we do wrong?” delusion that’s been employed to justify endless evil in the name of Christ.

Therefore, I don’t blame Hovind’s nonchristian detractors for fearing him, or for fearing that if they become Christians, they’ll in some way be lending their good names in support of such evil.

The same atheist whom I mentioned earlier has given several excellent responses to excuses made for Hovind’s “lying to save souls”, so I once told this atheist (ca. October 2006)

 [Your] comments on the “lying to save souls” phenomenon are on target. [It’s] part of a tendency in all branches of fundamentalism—Islamic and Jewish, as well as Christian—that some call antinomianism. …[A]s I’ve seen it used in a “Christian” context, it means the belief that once we’ve been “saved” by Jesus, [we’re exempt from] any moral laws. I once heard it expressed as, “accept Jesus to get your butt into Heaven, then you can do anything you want”.

^{…Antinomianism is one of the things that makes fundamentalists dangerous, especially when their leaders feed them the message that nonbelievers are stupid, brainwashed people whom Christians have the right and duty to rule over. The consequences are written in blood throughout history; I needn’t elaborate.}

^{The other side of the coin is that many fundamentalists … believe that secular society plans to destroy Christianity, and will succeed unless Christians fight back. As some observers have pointed out, the result of all this has been that secularists and fundamentalists are now trapped in an escalating cycle of mutual suspicion, recrimination, and fear.}

^{… I think it’s imperative for Christians to recognize that we’re the ones who have the biblical obligation to extend the olive branch. This situation is about 95% our own fault, thanks in no small degree to about 1750 years of folks like Hovind, and the Bible makes clear that the other 5% is to be expected, accepted, and forgiven rather than avenged. (I do a pretty lousy job of living out this last clause, by the way.)} 

I used the figure “1750 years” because roughly how long ago the Roman Empire made Christianity its state religion. Many Christians of the time believed it was wrong to accept that status, and I agree.

Back to the posts in Marychurch’s guestbook, this one from ca. December 2006:

Hovind portrays Christianity as a group of “good” people who have the right and obligation to rule over “bad” ones. His assaults upon the Theory of Evolution are entirely consistent with this [portrayal]: they rarely, if ever, say measured things like ”A careful analysis of the evidence reveals difficulties with the Theory of Evolution that should incline a Christian to trust the Word of God over the product of the mind of Man”. Instead, Hovind asserts that evolutionists are evil, and seeks to demonstrate this by proving them stupid. So stupid, in fact, that their stupidity can only be [the result of diabolical intervention].

I do not see this as bringing people to Jesus. I see it as bringing them to a cult of people who want to hear that they have a Divine mandate to dominate those who oppose them, as well as a Divine dispensation to strengthen the cult through means that God condemns when used by anyone else.

It is only to be expected that many people flock to Hovind; this message has timeless appeal. And even Christians who object to Hovind’s methods may nevertheless maintain, in all good faith, that those who accept Jesus on this basis are still saved. So the question is then, “How much lying, hate mongering, etc., is acceptable if souls are saved thereby?” This is an equation that we are not asked to solve. The same Jesus who commands us to spread the message of repentance and forgiveness of sins tells us not to be a liars or hate-mongers. And He makes the call.

I might add that fundamentalists are not the only ones who dehumanize their opponents by stereotyping them as stupid, brainwashed people who deserve to be ridiculed. And over whom they deserve to have power, of course. More than a few atheists (not just the theists) believe that RRS is doing so by attempting to have theism classified as a mind disorder. And even Thomas Jefferson stooped to advocating ridicule at times. For example, take his statement that kellym78 is so fond of quoting:

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.

Jefferson expressed nobler sentiments in a more rational response. Regarding those who wanted to change the form of government, he said

If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

As a final example of things that compel my co-religionists to call me a tool of Satan, here is a post (ca. January 2007) from which trebob has quoted occasionally:

Many discussions with Hovind supporters in this guest book follow a characteristic trajectory. The Supporter’s initial post says that Hovind is a godly man whose materials prove evolution wrong. Usually, this is accompanied by an appeal for his Detractors to open their minds to the Truth before it’s too late. The Detractors reply that Hovind’s materials prove nothing because they are simply not credible--even Creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis consider them factually inaccurate.

What is more, AiG considers Hovind less than honest. I (who worked as a scientist, but am now a faith missionary of 6 years service) usually add that Hovind has been confronted repeatedly about his lying by other Christians, and remains defiantly unrepentant. Therefore, according to both Jesus and Paul (Matthew 18:15-17 and 1 Corinthians 5:11), we should not only stop saying that Hovind is godly, but expel him from our midst until such time as he repents.

Hovind Supporters then respond in different ways, but sooner or later come around to this: that everyone is sinful, and that no Christian should ever judge another, speak badly about him in front of nonbelievers, or expel him, for any reason. This is a very odd response for two reasons.

First, Supporters add nothing to Hovind’s credibility —or their own– by implying that they, themselves, would keep mum about Hovind’s wrongdoing were they aware of it. Second, it presents the Good News as a cynical bargain: “You will spend eternity in Hell for your sins unless you accept Jesus. However, having accepted Him, you may continue sinning as you wish without fear of correction by other Christians. The catch is, you must never tell a nonbeliever about a believer’s wrongdoing, no matter what.” An offer that any honorable person would reject with contempt.

If there is an ultimate pure randomness as an attribute of the reality of the physics of the Universe, which is all QM points to, that is definitely evidence against a consciousness or mentality of any kind.

A 'God' that can be completely described by a mathematical wave-function hardly seems something worth worshipping. Its a God we could very closely simulate in a decent computer.

It also provides a clear source for the creative process, which ultimately works by a random process 'exploring' the space of the possible, which is ultimately the only way genuinely novel things arise, either in 'finding' relatively stable structures at the level of galaxies/stars/planetary systems. or in natural evolutionary processes or in our mental world (eg 'brain-storming' as a way of coming up with new ideas).

So QM supports Atheistic Naturalism, not Theism of any sort.

I don't see how that follows. How, since we can put a probability function to them, there's no consciousness behind them.

It only computes on the Quantum scale.

Considering the amount of particle interacations going on every microsecond, I would say it is rather efficient.

Amazing consciousness,  indeed. But why call it "FREE" ? It is still bound in the ONE, eternal infinite !

  Ain''t it ? What isn't ? GAWED is a ROBOT ! How does this robot we are,  work ?        

What exactly is this computer computing?? And where is the evidence of non-random interactions which would characterise actual computation, unless you are describing a giant random number generating algorithm....

The "Force" , "GAWED" , "ONE"     Test it , Go science philosophy , kill religion ..... for gawed sakes ..... 

In my view, you are correct. There is no Free Will, Determinism rules, and you are a Theist because you have no choice, just as I am an atheist through no choice - only the illusion of choice.

Since you must realize that "Free Will" is also an oxymoron, I wonder if you will accept the inevitable conclusion that you have no choice in who you are.  you are just as the Universe made you, and will do exactly as you will no matter what you believe.  Just as we all will.

Remember, Determinism doesn't just act on those who believe in it, but also those who don't.   To sound a bit like a Fundi: we are all Determinists, though some just don't know it.  Gravity acts on every one - no one escapes it, likewise, Determinism.

As I like to say, I hate the idea of Determinism but have seen no good argument to get rid of it, and only stronger and stronger arguments to support it.  Besides, what am I to do, or you, since we are all "destined" to be the way we are.

Ok heavier particles, and ultimately atoms, etc, progressively forming as the Big Bang plasma cools, You are just describing normal physics using different words - nothing really new, no problem.

Why does everyone think I'm 'quirky' or 'weird' or 'out to lunch'?

Well, I never said I subscribe to determinism. I simply said that the atheist must conclude the idea that a "freethinking" atheist is an oxymoron based on his commitment to determistic materialism.

However, here's the rub. Determinism actually implies pantheism (the view that ultimate reality is conscious intelligence), not atheism. And here's why, if all intentional acts are synonymous with deterministic, physical acts (and they must be for determinism to hold true), then it logically follows that either the entire "natural process" is intelligent or there is no intelligence in the universe. Why? Because the entire natural process is determining everything that happens. In other words, the so-called "blind watchmaker" not only determined the evolution and development of eyeballs but also Swiss watches. 

Not I, you are a fun smart cool poster Cpt... Hey, we are all "lost in space" and time!