Why does science always upstage God?

[The Architect Of Fate]

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.

Too bad we don't have to do any of the above your the one making a positive claim you have yet to prove it as for the rest of the stuff this isn't science it's theology 

[Billy Bob]

"You have not established a need for the supernatural let alone a god."

Sure I did, you just lied and said I didn't.

No, you didn't. Not even close 

"The only one who has been dancing around is you doing the same tired two-step as every other desperate god botherer who's come here has."

Another lie from you. Nothing new, it's a tactic used by many of you. I gave straight forward science only fools doubt and guess who doubts them but has no science to doubt them? Yes, YOUR side. Let's see what other lies you have.

Nope, all you did was trot out some current laws and then made a massive non-sequitur meanwhile we have given objections that a perfectly compatible with science. So no lies here I'm afraid.

"When you get around to demonstrating that rules that currently apply to things within the universe must apply to before or to the formation of the universe without running afoul of a composition fallacy come back and try again."

You are just another person who can't read, think, or be honest. I made it clear creation had to be supernatural. I never said the laws applied from the start when they could not have. Duh, I don't know how to make that clearer to your small brain. Now try to think even though that's hard for you.....YOU believe this all happened naturally so YOU need to show that in this natural universe that we now have, there was a time creation happened naturally or always existed that the laws I gave did not apply. Science does not show that. Science shows they always had to apply in our natural realm That is too much honesty though for you liars to accept. The cry all you want, you have NO science to back you up. So don't go whining how science upstages God when you jokes don't even follow science. 

I never claimed the universe had to be formed naturally I simply don't accept the claim it was formed supernaturally. Those are two very different claims and no I don't need to prove something I never positively asserted. Nor has science shown that our current laws always had to have applied to the universe so this is simply false nor can you make that claim without engaging in composition fallacy. So appealing to the natural laws to insist the universe must have been created supernaturally fails, And science does consistently upstage god and your little rants here have not shown the contrary. So it's in fact you who has NO science to back up your claims.

"Also, natural events don't need to  follow the current laws of physics to be natural.  "

Tiny brain person, if the laws of physics don't apply to a natural event, that event then is supernatural. I actually needed to explain that to you. Here's an example for your tiny brain, if a perpetual motion machine was invented, that would break the 2LT and be considered something beyond natural. Beyond natural is supernatural. 

Nope if something doesn't follow our current natural laws that don't make it supernatural. If I traveled to different dimensions and found a whole different set of physics then there is no reason to call that supernatural also if I went to a time before there were natural laws that are also not supernatural because you can't break or defy laws that don't exist. So try again.

And the big laugh again is, you're just another tiny brain who thinks science upstages God and you don't even know science and when I put science in front of you all, all I get is we don't know. You all don't know because you refuse to know what science really is

I laugh because you are an absurd person. Yes, science does upstage god because science is willing to acknowledge the limits of its knowledge and is willing to say "i don't know but let's find out " and consistently this approach has knocked down the supernatural explanations never has it simply given up and said "Magic done it" that's not science. You have presented no science that shows the natural laws as they currently are applied to the formation of the universe rather than being a product of it. To my knowledge, no scientist makes this claim nor to my knowledge have scientists excluded different configurations of laws or no laws at all. So I'm sorry you have no idea what science is I'm afraid to you it's merely a tool to push your cult.

So this little rage-filled rant of yours while amusing has no real substance 

"No, you didn't. Not even close"

Then  embarrass yourself of what a liar you are. Screw you. I don't have to take your lying crap.

[Billy Bob]

So this little rage-filled rant of yours while amusing has no real substance 

I wouldn't say amusing... just sad.

How can someone think themselves so superior to others, to the point of insulting them?
Oh, I know... someone at the peak of

If you jokes only knew the laughter you supply. It's all you're good for though, is laughs.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a hypothetical  stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.

So tell me with what I wrote I overestimated my ability. Tell me how the laws of science I gave were overestimated and are somehow not correct. Tell me how the conclusions are not correct. You conveniently and purposely left those parts out because you don't like to reason. YOU overestimated YOUR ability. 

[The Architect Of Fate]

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

Acknowledging the limits of current laws and theories and keeping natural laws in prop conditional context is science. 

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?

Too bad no one making that claim lol and we don't have to get around the laws you have yet to prove they apply to the formation of the universe or before it so again trotting them out is useless as evidence of creation 

You are the one making positive claims here 

[The Architect Of Fate]

"No, you didn't. Not even close"

Then  embarrass yourself of what a liar you are. Screw you. I don't have to take your lying crap.

Cry harder little boy 

[The Architect Of Fate]

If you jokes only knew the laughter you supply. It's all you're good for though, is laughs.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a  [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias][/url] stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.

So tell me with what I wrote I overestimated my ability. Tell me how the laws of science I gave were overestimated and are somehow not correct. Tell me how the conclusions are not correct. You conveniently and purposely left those parts out because you don't like to reason. YOU overestimated YOUR ability. 

Every post you write is an overestimation of your abilities and an overestimation of your conclusion despite the evidence falling short.

[Nay_Sayer]

PSA


Remember to keep your troll feedings short.

For those gnawing on billy bob please wash your chew toy before sharing.

[Angrboda]

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...

If it did, give evidence that this natural event somehow had no such laws to abide by.

Our current laws of physics are incapable of accurately describing the universe before the inception of the big bang and so our laws are not knowably applicable at the time when the universe ostensibly began.

But keep spinning your outrageous fantasy for anyone bored enough to listen.

Honestly, you have the attention span of a two-year-old.  Try to keep up, shitpants.

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

It only seemed that way because you forgot to take your pills and had a seizure, wiping your memory of the time during which you read my explaining it to you.

And now, rant away.  I'm done with you as you have the brains of a bowl of lukewarm guacamole, and only know one trick, vapidly repeating, "Did not! Did not!"

Soooooooooooooooo   fucking lame.

[Angrboda]

PSA


Remember to keep your troll feedings short.  

For those gnawing on billy bob please wash your chew toy before sharing.

How am I supposed to get the pox if I don't lick where others have been?

[Billy Bob]

Me...."The truth is, you must prove the laws I gave did not exist when the universe was created naturally or the universe always existed naturally."

So that is what you are all doing, ignoring the laws and saying we don't know. Then you come up with this BS...

"Wow... Are you asking me to "prove a negative"?"

Why can't you be responsible for what YOU believe? If I'm being told the didn't exist then by the evidence of "we don't know" when I gave the laws that have shown to work in the natural realm, then admit you don't want to follow science. None of you are honest enough to do that. 

"So, following your logic, please prove the laws you gave did exist when the Universe was created."

You're another person with a reading problem. I never said the laws existed during creation; I CLEARLY put that creation had to be done supernaturally by a supernatural creator. 

Look, learn to read and then reply to me because this is getting old dealing with such slow people.

---Evidence points to nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. It must be observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This (the 1LT and 2LT) all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the doubters resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We know these laws and have NO doubts about them.


Then after creation there are a WHOLE lot of things science never got around such as the fine-tuning of the universe so life can exist on earth, the beginning of life, the designs of life forms, the information needing to be there before life started, the synchrony needed from the start, asexual and sexual reproduction, consciousness, logic, etc.----

Thanks for confirming that you are an idiot. See ya!

"Like I said, we can't tell. The maths we do have show a singularity. Do you know what that means?
Let me wiki that for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity (I singled out the most relevant definitions)
""
Mathematics

   Mathematical singularity, a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined or not "well-behaved", for example infinite or not differentiable

Complex analysis

   Essential singularity, a singularity near which a function exhibits extreme behaviour

Natural sciences

   Gravitational singularity, in general relativity, a point in which gravity is so intense that spacetime itself becomes ill defined
       Initial singularity, a hypothesized singularity of infinite density before quantum fluctuations caused the Big Bang and subsequent inflation that created the Universe
   Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems, in general relativity theory, theorems about how gravitation produces singularities such as in black holes
""

"ill-defined", "extreme behaviour", "infinite density"... Take your pick and the result is that our known "laws" break. If you want to call that phenomena "supernatural", be my guest. But I would shy away from attributing it any agency, which is what happens when believers invoke a god."

-----------------------------
Look at your dung. You remind me of dolt Lawrence Krauss.

"Gravitational singularity, in general relativity, a point in which gravity is so intense that spacetime itself becomes ill defined

       Initial singularity, a hypothesized singularity of infinite density before quantum fluctuations caused the Big Bang and subsequent inflation that created the Universe"


Oh, like Krauss, you not only made this all up, which means it's science fiction, then you start with space, matter, and time already there. You jokes are not only funny to me, you're also funny to other unbelievers.....

----By David Albert

• March 23, 2012
  

Lawrence M. Krauss, a well-known cosmologist and prolific popular-science writer, apparently means to announce to the world, in this new book, that the laws of quantum mechanics have in them the makings of a thoroughly scientific and adamantly secular explanation of why there is something rather than nothing. Period. Case closed. End of story. I kid you not. Look at the subtitle. Look at how Richard Dawkins sums it up in his afterword: “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to super­naturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is ­devastating."



Well, let’s see. There are lots of different sorts of conversations one might want to have about a claim like that: conversations, say, about what it is to explain something, and about what it is to be a law of nature, and about what it is to be a physical thing. But since the space I have is limited, let me put those niceties aside and try to be quick, and crude, and concrete.


Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from? Krauss is more or less upfront, as it turns out, about not having a clue about that. He acknowledges (albeit in a parenthesis, and just a few pages before the end of the book) that every­thing he has been talking about simply takes the basic principles of quantum mechanics for granted. “I have no idea if this notion can be usefully dispensed with,” he writes, “or at least I don’t know of any productive work in this regard.” And what if he did know of some productive work in that regard? What if he were in a position to announce, for instance, that the truth of the quantum-mechanical laws can be traced back to the fact that the world has some other, deeper property X? Wouldn’t we still be in a position to ask why X rather than Y? And is there a last such question? Is there some point at which the possibility of asking any further such questions somehow definitively comes to an end? How would that work? What would that be like?


Never mind. Forget where the laws came from. Have a look instead at what they say. It happens that ever since the scientific revolution of the 17th century, what physics has given us in the way of candidates for the fundamental laws of nature have as a general rule simply taken it for granted that there is, at the bottom of everything, some basic, elementary, eternally persisting, concrete, physical stuff. Newton, for example, took that elementary stuff to consist of material particles. And physicists at the end of the 19th century took that elementary stuff to consist of both material particles and electro­magnetic fields. And so on. And what the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all there is for the fundamental laws of nature to be about, insofar as physics has ever been able to imagine, is how that elementary stuff is arranged. The fundamental laws of nature generally take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of that stuff are physically possible and which aren’t, or rules connecting the arrangements of that elementary stuff at later times to its arrangement at earlier times, or something like that. But the laws have no bearing whatsoever on questions of where the elementary stuff came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular elementary stuff it does, as opposed to something else, or to nothing at all.
ADVERTISEMENT


The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in “A Universe From Nothing” — the laws of relativistic quantum field theories — are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on — and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.


What on earth, then, can Krauss have been thinking? Well, there is, as it happens, an interesting difference between relativistic quantum field theories and every previous serious candidate for a fundamental physical theory of the world. Every previous such theory counted material particles among the concrete, fundamental, eternally persisting elementary physical stuff of the world — and relativistic quantum field theories, interestingly and emphatically and unprecedentedly, do not. According to relativistic quantum field theories, particles are to be understood, rather, as specific arrangements of the fields. Certain ­arrangements of the fields, for instance, correspond to there being 14 particles in the universe, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being 276 particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being an infinite number of particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being no particles at all. And those last arrangements are referred to, in the jargon of quantum field theories, for obvious reasons, as “vacuum” states. Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-­quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument — or thinks he does — that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.


But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-­theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.


Krauss, mind you, has heard this kind of talk before, and it makes him crazy. A century ago, it seems to him, nobody would have made so much as a peep about referring to a stretch of space without any material particles in it as “nothing.” And now that he and his colleagues think they have a way of showing how everything there is could imaginably have emerged from a stretch of space like that, the nut cases are moving the goal posts. He complains that “some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine ‘nothing’ as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe,” and that “now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as ‘nothing,’ but rather as a ‘quantum vacuum,’ to distinguish it from the philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized ‘nothing,’ ” and he does a good deal of railing about “the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern philosophy.” But all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right. Who cares what we would or would not have made a peep about a hundred years ago? We were wrong a hundred years ago. We know more now. And if what we formerly took for nothing turns out, on closer examination, to have the makings of protons and neutrons and tables and chairs and planets and solar systems and galaxies and universes in it, then it wasn’t nothing, and it couldn’t have been nothing, in the first place. And the history of science — if we understand it correctly — gives us no hint of how it might be possible to imagine otherwise.