Why did the Rabbi point out that the argument is incorrect? That isn’t related to my question.
Could you explain more about the difference between a deterministic law of nature and something that determines the result in advance? If, for example, the law said that the particle Moishe will turn right on Wednesday at five o’clock, then there is a law of nature here (one that takes time into account).

I pointed it out because there is no point discussing whether an incorrect argument fits or contradicts quantum theory. Aristotle’s physics also contradicts quantum theory. So what?
The fact that something is known in advance does not mean there is a law of nature here. Suppose that in the double-slit experiment the particle passes through slit A or B randomly. Is that random, or is it just that there is no law that predicts it in advance? Suppose the Holy One, blessed be He, knows in advance where the particle will pass, but there is no law that describes when it will do one thing and when it will do another. Therefore I could never know it. That is a lawless but deterministic situation. Quantum theory says that we have no way to determine through which slit it will pass, but that by itself does not mean there is no determinism here. There is no general formulation that states the law of when this happens and when that happens. According to the hidden-variables thesis, it could in fact be completely deterministic.