Another argument I've encountered goes like this:
Suppose you are given an apple, orange and grapes to choose from. Assume that you choose an apple.
Now if the above scenario is played over and over you will always pick the apple because the variables that made you choose the apple in the first place are unchanged.
This argument is circular reasoning at best. This argument begins with assuming the future is set and then concludes that the future is set. Although the argument may sound reasonable it can be easily dismissed because the scenario described can never actually take place. Why would you not believe in a concept because of a scenario that can never take place?
Suppose you are given an apple, orange and grapes to choose from. Assume that you choose an apple.
Now if the above scenario is played over and over you will always pick the apple because the variables that made you choose the apple in the first place are unchanged.
This argument is circular reasoning at best. This argument begins with assuming the future is set and then concludes that the future is set. Although the argument may sound reasonable it can be easily dismissed because the scenario described can never actually take place. Why would you not believe in a concept because of a scenario that can never take place?
