update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside

You have yet again failed to answer a single question or address a single point made against the theory you are supporting.Question: If freedom is true as described by you why are relatively simple physical systems able to be described and predicted by science so accurately? What restrictions are there upon the freedoms of such systems such that they obey these laws so closely?Do you really not see the observed and tested complete lack of freedoms with regard to simple physical systems as a challenge to anticipation theory?

So simple physical systems are not free at all then?
Planets have no choice but to follow orbits, the stability of the solar system is due purely to the laws of physics etc. etc. etc. That is what you are saying? But planets cannot choose to go left or right can they?
That is the point.
Planets and other inanimate objects that form simple physical systems follow predictable patterns with no freedom to do anything else but follow the patterns predicted by the laws of physics. You canot have it both ways.
You cannot say simple physical systems are free to make the same decisions that complex brain owning organisms quite evidently do whilst also stating that such systems will never deviate from predictable paths.That is your folly and that is why freedom theory is so evidently nonsensical.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Why do planets orbit the sun? That is a why question that it is totally posible to be wholly objective about. But planets have no choices and are capable of no good or evil. It is you that is incomprehensively claiming that they do and that they are. What probabalistic aspects of GR? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Which of the predictions of GR can anticipation theory improve upon? But not all future possibilities are due to decision making are they? How do our objective scientific theories manage to predict so accurately future state of systems if there are subjective decisions being made by the inanimate objects involved? For someone who quite evidently has no scientific knowledge and little grasp even of the theory they are advocating you seem very sure that the theory in question is A) Scientifically valid and B) True. To anyone vaguely objective it is quite obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about and that the theory you have described is merely a crutch for your wider irrational belief system.

You have now claimed that planets (and all other inanimate objects) are capable of decisions, love and now good and evil.What does a morally good planet choose to do?
Which of the known planets would you describe as evil?This converstaion is ridiculous.

Well if you want to claim that toothbrushes are capable of evil then it seems that we can at least both agree that this is a wholly unscientific conclusion. Do you have anything of your own to say on this topic? Or are you just going to repeatedly refer to flawed paper that you are not even sure contains the required answers and which you do not even actually understand yourself?

What? How can something be outside of science whilst also being scientific? Which opinions exactly?
I have asserted no opinions about good and evil as being anything other than subjective.
However it is an objective conclusion that inanimate objects do not make decisions and are therefore incapable of good and evil.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No. I am telling you that toothbrushes and planets are incapable of good and evil due to their quite evident inability to make choices. My opposition to freedom theory has nothing whatsover to do with good or evil and everything to do with the insanity of the idea that toothpicks make decisions and choices (moral or otherwise). Hmmmm. I would love it if the majority of creationists did subscribe to your idea of plant-pots facing moral dilemmas but alas I fear that your views are uniquely your own.

We are discussing the ability or otherwise of inanimate objects to make choices and decisions. According to you they can and do.The ability to make choices and decisions is a prerequisite for making moral choices and thus for the ability to be good and evil (whatever subjectively good and evil may be). According to you inanimate objects can and do make such choices and can therefor be considered to be good and evil. Very wise. Because you must be starting to sound ridiculous even to yourself?!

No. Science makes clear that inanimate objects do not make decisions. In the absence of decisions terms like good and evil are quite obviously meaningless. My only aversion is to stupid theories.
Actually I am a firm believer in freedom. Of consious beings. Not toothbrushes though. Dude you brought up the whole good and evil issue. I'll happily drop any more mention of good and evil in place of an in depth analysis of the ability of inanimate objects to make choices and decisions.So - Do toothbrushes, in your opinion, make choices and decisions?

Welcome aboard. Yes but there is fairly important difference between repeatedly claiming to have answered questions and actually having done so.So - Do you think toothbrushes make choices and decsions?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHH!!!!!You earlier suggested that inanimate objects could also experience love?
Do you think that, as well as decisions, paperclips, for example, are capable of love?

How does freedom theory account for the indisputable fact that simple physical systems, like two balls colliding, are exceptionally predictable and therefore have much less "freedom" than complex conscious systems such as human beings?If both balls and humans are equally capable of making decisions what makes one agent more "free" than another according to your theory? So what predictions does freedom theory make that conventional science cannot? That is the question required to actually test this theory of yours.What you seem to be talking about here (although frankly I don't think you realise it) is determinism. Mechanistic determinism in particular. Quantum theory however is non-deterministic by it's very nature. Even classical mechanics suggests that the evolution over time of a system can be so sensitive to differences in initial conditions that they are effectively unpredictable. This is called chaos theory.
So science is able to describe why certain systems are inherently less predictable without invoking the free-will of coffe cups, pooper scoopers and other such ridiculous and unevidenced ideas.I suspect that, again without really even having this clear in your own head, you are taking the unpredictable aspects of relatively complex systems that are due to chaos and/or quantum theory and claiming them as evidence for "freedom".The whole theory seems to fall apart, making you look very silly in the process, when the concepts of freedom are applied to simple and highly predictable systems comprised of inanimate objects that quite evidently are not "deciding" anything at all.Based on your contribution so far I would guess that any discussion of quantum interpretations or chaos theory will be so far over your head as to give pilots of long haul aircraft cause for concern. But what the hell.........Let the hilarity continue

I did not say that chaos theory was a non-deterministic theory. I said that it imposes limits on the predictability of systems. Limits which you seem to be commandeering as evidence of "freedom". Quantum theory is inherently probabalistic. How can it therefore be mechanistically deterministic? Can freedom theory explain or predict radioactive half lives for example? Quantum theory does not say that toothbrushes and coffee cups are making decisions any more than it supports the insane assertion that paperclips are capable of love.

Straggler writes Syamsu responds BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAI am seriously beginning to think that your whole position is just an attempt to rationalise your sordid desires regarding inanimate objects.Not that I would get between a man and his toaster............

Seriously. Have you heard yourself?
Don't you think that "Love thy paper-clip" is taking the Christian message a little further than intended? I don't know what reaction you have when you see a paperclip but it doesn't sound healthy to me. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.