That is deliberate. I find ignosticism very sensible, if not outright necessary.That is a very ignostic way of looking at it.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That is deliberate. I find ignosticism very sensible, if not outright necessary.That is a very ignostic way of looking at it.
A thesis is a premise. In science and any other community.keep in mind, that a thesis in Scientific Community is not premise and not assumption.
I find it all fascinating as well, though I do not have as much time to devote to following the work as closely as I once did.Your belief shouldn´t. Cosmology is a real interest of mine. I don´t discount it, but neither do I put a lot of stock in just plain ideaś with no evidence. interesting, but mean little
Something creating itself depends upon your definition of what creating is.
The steady staters said the BB was something creating itself. They went crazy over the first cause, believing the universe had just simply existed eternally.
I am not trolling you or accusing you of anything. I am pointing out the obvious logical flaw in your syllogism. Your premises assume the existence of God that you are trying to show is the logical conclusion of those premises. It is a circular argument.It is not true! I have no circular argument! Prove the accusation of me in scientific stupidity once and for all or stop trolling!
That is why the occurrence of individual events are unpredictable, but not the outcomeof natural processses that are determined by the Laws of nature..Randomness is very unpredictable, that is why it is random.
There are a whole variety of mathematical formulaś regarding the likeliness for the existence of the universe, the likliness of a planet to support life in the universe, and the likliness that abiogenesis would take place on that planet.
Many are formulated by atheists. Look them up, very interesting.
Something creating itself depends upon your definition of what creating is.
The steady staters said the BB was something creating itself.
They went crazy over the first cause, believing the universe had just simply existed eternally.
Prove it. Quote the Webster Dictionary, please.A thesis is a premise. In science and any other community.
I have written word "thesis", not "premise" in the thread. Look up their meaning in Webster Dictionary!I am not trolling you or accusing you of anything. I am pointing out the obvious logical flaw in your syllogism. Your premises
So, the set of Laws is as much complex as the Nature itself. Where the design of Laws came from?That is why the occurrence of individual events are unpredictable, but not the outcomeof natural processses that are determined by the Laws of nature..
Definition of thesis. 1 : a dissertation embodying results of original research and especially substantiating a specific view especially : one written by a candidate for an academic degree.I have written word "thesis", not "premise" in the thread. Look up their meaning in Webster Dictionary!
The laws are formalized statements of observations that are consistent and, to our knowledge, universal.So, the set of Laws is as much complex as the Nature itself. Where the design of Laws came from?
Position (proposition) is not Premise. The premise by definition in Dictionaries is simply CONDITION. As example: if I am ill, I am staying in hospital. Here word ill - premise to stay in hospital.Definition of thesis. 1 : a dissertation embodying results of original research and especially substantiating a specific view especially : one written by a candidate for an academic degree.
2a : a proposition to be proved or one advanced without proof : hypothesis.
b: a position or proposition that a person (such as a candidate for scholastic honors) advances and offers to maintain by argument
Definition of THESIS
It is definition 2 that is relevant to your use of thesis. Proposition is another word for premise.
A thesis in this context is a premise.
premisePosition (proposition) is not Premise. The premise by definition in Dictionaries is simply CONDITION. As example: if I am ill, I am staying in hospital. Here word ill - premise to stay in hospital.
Your are malicioulsy twisting my proof. Why are you replacing word Thesis with Assumption ("premise")? Did I write:Thesis: X knows everything. (In order to know everything God is already assumed to exist by this premise.)
So, the set of Laws is as much complex as the Nature itself. Where the design of Laws came from?
Wrong. The Nature has started, there was Virtual Big Bang. Thus, laws have origin. Who is it?If you are Ontological Naturalist the Laws of Nature simply have always existed.
Your wording does not change anything. Premise is the better word when used as a logical argument as you presented it. It remains the problem of being circular, because you assume God exists, which is the conclusion as I previous specifically described and defined with references.Your are malicioulsy twisting my proof. Why are you replacing word Thesis with Assumption ("premise")? Did I write:
Premise: X knows everything. ???
No. I have written:
Thesis: X knows everything.
Wrong. The Nature has started, there was Virtual Big Bang. Thus, laws have origin. Who is it?
I do know what satire is. Perhaps when you have some, you can show me your version of it. What I saw was a standard creationist response to statements based in evidence.
I read the post you were responding to. I did not see a statement that there was no randomness in nature. In fact, I saw the opposite and a good explanation of how randomness is not a cause, but a condition.
Exactly what part of your post was satire?
How many biographies of the steady staters of the early twentieth century have you read ? I think none.The concept of self-creation is not science. In science the cause of our physical existence is the Laws of Nature.
The hypothesis of steady state universe died along time ago. No the proponents of Steady State never equated the Big Band as something creating itself.
No, no one went crazy over the first cause. You have creative imagination.
How many biographies of the steady staters of the early twentieth century have you read ? I think none.
I suggest you look at Hubble, in particular, as one who began destroying the steady state idea, pay particular attention to his received correspondence from other Astronomers. You will find he was roundly criticized and condemned. When the BB theory was first postulated, those presenting the idea were accused of defining a universe that created itself.
The laws of science are big on observation, recreation and evidence too.
You state flatly everything exists as a result of the laws of nature. That is faith in something that hasn´t been observed ( though there may be some evidence). Never recreated, though Cern might make a mini universe, though I doubt it.
Here is the major problem with your faith, the laws of nature, the laws of science, all physical laws exist within the universe. They are products of the creation of the universe.
There is much speculation about what existed before the universe, or outside of it now. ( if there is an outside). There is little evidence to confirm any of these concepts, there is little evidence to prove whether our laws within the universe exist outside of it. They may be totally different, or there may be none at all.
It is a little chauvinistic to state that universal laws existed and are at play outside of the bubble we are in as we hurtle through space.