(July 24, 2022 at 8:44 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(July 24, 2022 at 8:30 am)Billy Bob Wrote: One more time for absurdness.....

"If a supernatural being fine-tuned the universe for human life, why can't I survive in a geothermal vent, or under six tonnes of gravel?"

Billy, you are the one claiming that the universe is fine-tuned for life, and yet the universe is all dead matter except for Earth which is minuscule compared to the universe. And on top of that, Earth is full of deadly stuff, like sun rays give you skin cancer which is not fine-tuned for life.

Show me where else life is are just be quiet.

(July 24, 2022 at 8:49 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(July 24, 2022 at 7:55 am)Billy Bob Wrote: YOU chose to pick the naturalistic way. YOU DID! We have NO science to show in the natural realm the laws could not have existed.

Sure.  I agree.  But your ask was that the laws do not apply, not that they could not apply.  Those are two very different standards, and the moving of the goalposts from one to the other makes your prior argument into Swiss cheese.  You challenged us to show that they do not apply, thus necessitating a cause that was not natural.  The fact that the laws could have applied means nothing because that means they didn't necessarily apply, and since they didn't necessarily apply, a supernatural cause is no longer necessarily required, and your conclusion no longer follows from the premises.  And even your changed argument is moot because the laws as we have them are knowably incorrect, so those laws specifically can only show that an incorrect understanding of the origin leads to what is at the end of the day, nothing more than a potentially incorrect conclusion.  Possibly wrong is not necessarily correct, and never the twain shall meet.

Don't worry, even if you lose here, you and your family can always play the home game.

Where in your convoluted mess of a reply did you get around the laws I gave? You people are such jokes.

(July 24, 2022 at 8:55 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(July 24, 2022 at 8:23 am)Billy Bob Wrote: Anyone with a fraction of integrity saw that I started with creation and gave evidence that it had to be supernatural.

Evidence which, when it was pointed out to you was not actually valid, prompted you like a fetid creationist to up and change your argument to one that no longer required the supernatural.

Nicely done.  You have my esteem and then some.

Oh, it was not valid. And the reason is...

Crap, you skipped that part showing why they are no longer valid. Gee, I thought they were still the 1st and 2nd laws.

(July 24, 2022 at 8:57 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It's weird, right?  I don't think that any of those things came about on their own.  There was no creation, there is no fine tuning, and life is a product of organic chemistry.

And that's all it takes to be an atheistic type, just say there wasn't any creation, fine tuning, and life came about on its own by just saying it. Wow, it's the easy life of atheistic types.

(July 24, 2022 at 9:01 am)zebo-the-fat Wrote: Lets assume for the sake of argument that a suprenatural entity (call it a god if you want) created the big bang, who or what created that entity?

Put a dime in the atheistic slot machine and this silly question will come up somehow.

You are a graduate of Nitwit University. All you have to do is remember "Who created God?" and you can mix things up a bit with the same basic question. All the laws of nature somehow suddenly disappear for you dolts, that one stoo-pid question is your cure-all.


So in your way of shallow thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If you want to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.

Quote:Show me where else life is are just be quiet.

The fact we have yet to find life elsewhere in no way supports your conclusion. So try again 

Quote:Where in your convoluted mess of a reply did you get around the laws I gave? You people are such jokes.

She doesn't need to get around it because it proves nothing. So no you are the joke I'm afraid 

Quote:Oh, it was not valid. And the reason is...

Crap, you skipped that part showing why they are no longer valid. Gee, I thought they were still the 1st and 2nd laws.

The valid reason is you can't get give a valid reason why not 
And again appealing to current laws under current conditions proves nothing 

(July 24, 2022 at 9:20 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(July 24, 2022 at 9:05 am)Billy Bob Wrote: Go naturally live anywhere on the moon, or on the sun. You can't, but we need them to make life available here on earth. That though is too hard for people like you and Brian. You're tiny brains can't grasp such things.

Billy, for someone who accused others of ignoring, you sure ignore a lot of stuff. Like, do we need millions and millions of galaxies, killer asteroids, and killer radiations to exist? - no. So it seems that we, as a life, are pretty insignificant to conclude that everything was fine-tuned with us in mind.

"you sure ignore a lot of stuff."

From the person who just skipped over creation.

(July 24, 2022 at 9:05 pm)Billy Bob Wrote:

(July 24, 2022 at 8:49 am)Angrboda Wrote: Sure.  I agree.  But your ask was that the laws do not apply, not that they could not apply.  Those are two very different standards, and the moving of the goalposts from one to the other makes your prior argument into Swiss cheese.  You challenged us to show that they do not apply, thus necessitating a cause that was not natural.  The fact that the laws could have applied means nothing because that means they didn't necessarily apply, and since they didn't necessarily apply, a supernatural cause is no longer necessarily required, and your conclusion no longer follows from the premises.  And even your changed argument is moot because the laws as we have them are knowably incorrect, so those laws specifically can only show that an incorrect understanding of the origin leads to what is at the end of the day, nothing more than a potentially incorrect conclusion.  Possibly wrong is not necessarily correct, and never the twain shall meet.

Don't worry, even if you lose here, you and your family can always play the home game.

Where in your convoluted mess of a reply did you get around the laws I gave? You people are such jokes.

No need, given you bollocksed up the logic to where the laws themselves were moot. Have a nice day!

Quote:And that's all it takes to be an atheistic type, just say there wasn't any creation, fine tuning, and life came about on its own by just saying it. Wow, it's the easy life of atheistic types.

Considering you have not been able to show any creation, fine-tuning or life being created whole cloth from life and just say it did. Id say the atheists have already made their case 

(July 24, 2022 at 10:40 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(July 24, 2022 at 9:46 am)Billy Bob Wrote: First off, they are not insults when correct titles are given along with the evidence to back that title up. 

Nope. All you do is write insults and pretend that scientists are on your side. Sad.

I'm not pretending. I gave laws of science. You jokes give this as your science...."we don't know." 

Also, what is preventing you from giving any of your brilliant scientists that has science to show creation did indeed happen on its own and got around the laws I gave? Are you wrapped in duct tape or something and that's preventing you?