This line of argument was particularly interesting:
Also, as a technical point, one cannot say something is random in the system when he does not know what the system "is." And science does not know and can never know the number and types of dimensions (spatial or temporal.)
So when one observes that anything in the physical creation is "random" he is making a statement of faith per se.
***Also, as a technical point, one cannot say something is random in the system when he does not know what the system “is.” And science does not know and can never know the number and types of dimensions (spatial or temporal.)***
Excellent point. I think Van Til called them both radical indeterminists and flaming determinists both at the same time. While they accept the “possibility” of anything they only believe what they know by their own experience.
Also, as a technical point, one cannot say something is random in the system when he does not know what the system “is.” And science does not know and can never know the number and types of dimensions (spatial or temporal.)
So when one observes that anything in the physical creation is “random” he is making a statement of faith per se.
= = =
Absolutely.
Have often said something similar over the decades. Sadly, the dogmatic faith in scientism is so entrenched, rigid, narrow . . . biased . . . the listeners often cannot even fathom the statement . . . just does not compute for them . . . goes in one ear, sails through clear air and out the other . . . and they just keep spouting the same religious-of-scientism dogma that is totally blown out of the water by the one fact you stated so simply, clearly and accurately.
Thx as ever.