So let's look at the premises that underlie what you claim is a flawed conclusion. Basically:
Originally Posted by lakers4sho
1. When two atoms interact under the exact same conditions, they necessarily interact in the same way.
2. If 1, then they predictably interact in that same way.
3. If 2, then given a sufficiently detailed set of initial conditions and a set of known rules (and boundless analytical power), it is possible to infallibly predict what interactions will take place in advance of them taking place.
3b. If 3, then once those interactions take place, another set of conditions is generated, and from that set of conditions, another infallible prediction can be made -- this can continue ad infinitum.
4. If all future interactions can (theoretically) be infallibly predicted, they are predestined. That is, what happens is the only thing that could have happened.
Now, again, I don't necessarily buy the whole argument, but I do think this is along the lines Harris is thinking. His explanation of it is a whole lot more developed than mine, but that's the gist of it.
Labgrownmangoat has been feeling stabby as **** lately and is taking a few days off to rest, relax, and recharge. That means drinking, sexual triathlons, and a drug buffet. Oh, and maybe a hike or two on some godforsaken mountain. And forgetting for a while about border ****ery, Russia's ****ery, and the GOP's ****ery, as well as avoiding the cackling whores who will be joyously celebrating the possible gutting of the Affordable Care Act. -- paraphrase of Rude Pundit