Hey hey bugs my dear.
So we can draw a conclusion by assumption, we can assume that existing trends will continue. We can accept it is true or as certain to happen, without proof?
It isn't assumption, we have an established dataset that demonstrates this probability with a fairly high accuracy. What reason do we have to not think what we see locally will be seen throughout the universe?
This reply interests me a great deal my treasure as you have just divorced yourself. You are now alone and I do not think you realise the error. You have just taken away your measuring tape.
Are you your own authority my friend?
Nope, I haven't divorced myself from anything but I can assess much of the evidence in support of a proposition for myself and I don't have to take someone's word as "Truth" - I can always make my own observations and come to my own conclusions based on my understanding. This is not to say I don't take others' word for things, because I do - often these things I take at face value are for things that have little to no impact on my outlook, or that have followed a rigorous process where both that process and the data/observations are available to me if I wanted to make my own assessments. Usually I can see the evidence for myself, I don't have to take someone's word for it.
Do you have an authority? How do you assess what such an authority says for truth and/or accuracy? What would you do if you found a discrepancy in your authority?
My friend, have you considered this same answer re observable space and considered this answer for God. The conditions were not right, you may have not observed enough or did not know where to look?
Of course. Here's the difference:
Observable stars: trillions upon trillions (10^22)
Observable exoplanets that we can detect: ~ 3700 (in just our very local neighborhood alone)
Observable exoplanets that could support life: ~52 (or about 1 goldilocks exoplanet for every 10 stars we can measure)
Observable exoplanets that could support abiogenesis as well as life: 3 (in just our very local neighborhood)
and then...
Observable Gods: 0
Observed Angels: 0
Confirmed Miracles: 0
Observed religions claiming to be the one true religion: tens of thousands
Religions verified as the one true religion: 0
By all means search and keep searching. I have been found.
You seem to have a feeling of expectation and desire for a particular thing to happen - using assumptions.
Is that line of thinking an absolute certainty?
What feeling of expectation and desire for a particular thing to happen do I have, and what assumptions am I using
There was a practical application.
Practical application is the use of something for a reasonable purpose. An example of practical application is using a school math lesson to figure out the total cost of items while grocery shopping.
I agree with you that it is a hypothesis and an indicator. Like most modern science it will more than likely be superceded.
I posted this article to see how you would react my dear.
Cool.
Please excuse me my friend. This reply is pointless, you have no authority remember?
What these people say means nothing to you and cannot be used.
This is just ignorance and deliberate disrespect to state this. I can respect the achievements of another human being without having to worship them as an authority. What your false dichotomy fallacy here is that either you are without authority in some nihilistic fatuous existence, or you're a sycophant who just follows and vacuously regurgitates whatever your "Authority" dictates to you. Which one are you? I don't believe in such polar absolutes, I have knowledge and can source relevant information, data, observations to support it, so if you can't have an intelligent conversation and address the points I make, then we can forget this and you can continue your mindless existence believing your false dichotomy fallacy to be accurate.
No. It is not considered random.
Quite the opposite! Quantum fluctuations aka virtual particles are what prevent a closed region of space from furnishing information.
You're talking in relation to "information" in a closed region of space, not the state of these particles popping in and out of existence. From
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/29/virtual_particle_real_random_number/ : “While the evolution of a quantum function is deterministic, the outcome of a particular measurement on a state is not”.
Do you believe the formation of the universe was random with nothing behind it?
Well, I don't know - I don't have the relevant knowledge and information to really have an opinion on that. I accept the most popular theory of the Big Bang as the best current explanation of how the Universe has come to be what it is now, and that follows all the well-understood laws we know about, no intervention there from what we can see...
You are not sure what you believe? That sounds unfortunate.
I prefer "honest", and why would that be unfortunate?
Are you certain that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God?
Are you certain that Mohammed is not Allah's final messenger and prophet?
You certainly did. Post 148
"Everything in this universe follows the laws of Physics - these involve matter converting to energy (and energy converting to matter in the first place too), chemical and nuclear reactions and gravity."
Everything - all things. A thing refered to no matter what.
You seem to be overly literal - I still didn't say it was an absolute certainty and I didn't mean it to either, so if it makes it clearer for you, I'll rephrase it to say "Everything in this universe
seems to follow the laws of Physics" - better? Either way, I haven't observed it 'not' following the laws of Physics, so am fairly certain it won't be demonstrated false, but if it does then I'll reassess my position accordingly.
You accept extrapolation, yet you wont accept an absolute certainty. You have no authority and you are not sure. What you know now may be wrong in a couple of months and you will always be searching.
and this is an honest position, don't you agree? Your description is not entirely accurate, but only insofar as you are unbelievably literal to the point of unreasonableness - for example, I'm absolutely certain I exist and I'm also absolutely certain I'm not an omnicient God too. I can tentatively accept a subject matter expert/authority, but no authority is an unquestionable authority. I'm unsure insofar as it would be impossible to be 100% certain about everything and we are fallible beings, we can see things that weren't there, we can remember things incorrectly, we can be fooled and are prone to misunderstanding things we witness first hand. I hope I'll always be searching, I seek knowledge and understanding of the universe around me, so if I have nothing to look for or learn then it would be a very boring existence indeed.
So tell me, are you absolutely certain? Do you have an unquestionable Authority? Are you 100% sure about everything? Will everything you know now be forever unchanged? Will you have nothing to search for one day, or do you not search now
What is really stopping you from coming to Christ?
Possibly the same thing that's stopping you from coming to Shiva, or Thor, or Allah, etc. What's stopping you from coming to those Gods?
