Please explain, using the scientific method alone, the creation of the cosmos.Well… when we talk about science we actually mean the scientific method. Dude why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth, i have told you what i mean. When it comes to understanding the cosmos the scientific method is by far and away the best method.
Err do you mean human court? So your definition of free will is anything that is taken to human court???
Sure…
I mean your question is absurd. Creationists…You mean you have no idea how to answer the question…
How will you obtain this knowledge?Sure…
We don’t have enough knowledge to from a meaningful hypothesis.
Are you about to hit me with god of the gapsssssssssssssssssssssssssss
Is this supposed to prove something?
Because there is no evidence to support your assertion that, “It is more illogical to claim we are beings who know an unknowing universe and create our own purposes in an uncreated, purposeless existence…”, nor do you provide any justification for the assertion.
I have decomposed this nonsense earlier in this thread.
Nothing other than a total lack of evidence or robust logical method to support it as a hypothesis.
How? Have you been to all the other planets in the Universe? This is a very bold assertion, I’m gasping to hear your justification!
Absolute rubbish, and it would still be rubbish even if your previous statement were true.
Do you understand the meaning of the word, “fact?” It appears not.
On the contrary. You have failed to explain why it is illogical.
On the contrary. You agreed that mental activities constitute evidence for your existence and the existence of other persons. You have also failed to show why my reasoning is illogical.
On the contrary. You have failed to explain why it is illogical.
On the contrary. You agreed that mental activities constitute evidence for your existence and the existence of other persons. You have also failed to show why my reasoning is illogical.
In that case they must be responsible for their actions. Why aren't they taken to court?Does the physical universe as a whole know it exists? Do the nebulae know they exist? Do atomic particles know they exist? Do the quanta of physical energy know they exist?
Therefore it is another of your assumptions that basic reality is physical…
Then you must be mindless!
Names are not explanations. Please give a reference to a scientific paper which explains how simplicity produced complexity.
Thank you for proving my point. You have given me reasons, not explanations in terms of “how”. Why you love a person? Because of **how **you have developed?
No you don’t. By science you mean the application of the scientific method. You can take your cue from the logical positivists, from Popper, or from somebody else. But you cannot start out without some preconception of what constitutes the scientific method, and which is not itself empirically demonstrable.Well… when we talk about science we actually mean the scientific method. Dude why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth, i have told you what i mean. When it comes to understanding the cosmos the scientific method is by far and away the best method.
Yes i do, i am talking about the best method we know for establishing fact from fiction. Now you can play word games all you want but you know exactly what i mean.
Well that all depends on what it is i am wanting to learn.
Iam not playing word games. You have to establish what scientific method is. It just so happens that the paradigm which is generally accepted today comes from Popper. It may happen one day that, for whatever reason, somebody will need to be a rethink. Whoever it is who does the rethinking, he/she will be doing the philosophy you say you have no time for.
What on earth has taking an animal to court got to do with free will. Free will means one has the ability to choose a course of action from various alternatives. Are you saying that chimps can’t do this. All animals can to some respect.
Do the single atoms in your body know they exist?
Been through this…
Ok
I hope this is a joke, the point is those theories explain that very thing. Go to “Google Scholar” typing in Evolution or Abiogenesis, you will find all the papers you need.
We have been through this before, can you not find some new arguments, it’s the same old tosh over and over again.
Some knowledge, far from all.
It appears so from our own perspective. Determinism cannot be ruled out though.
No, there’s nothing to suggest the Universe has sentience.
No, there’s nothing to suggest the Universe has sentience.
The latter.
Because there’s no evidence, nor objective logic, to suggest that such a Being exists. All we do know about are the things we observe. To reach a conclusion other than one commensurate with our knowledge of the Universe is nothing more than conjecture.
Wrong on your part. I have pointed out on many, many occasions that there is no evidence. The problem is solely that you can’t agree because that would force you to recognise the irrationality of your belief.
Again, I have shown this on many occasions. It’s just that you refuse to listen to anything that does not mollycoddle your presuppositions.