Why does science always upstage God?

[The Architect Of Fate]

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!

Also, I love how he keeps appealing to entropy and conservation two things that are CONDITIONAL. So what if that condition neither applies to the formation of the universe or before the universe nor is contingent on the universe as it currently is? There is nothing in science that excludes this nor do we have to prove it as it's not a claim we are positively asserting. But it's something that can't be excluded. This drives a nail into the coffin of his logical leap into theism.