Why does science always upstage God?

[Billy Bob]

I'm aware of the alternatives and NONE makes sense for creation happening naturally. The first law of thermodynamics (1LT) and the 2LT shut down a natural explanation. 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.

Hi Billy Bob. NONE of the alternatives for the universe existing naturally make sense to YOU. An omnipotent being doesn't have to follow the laws of thermodynamics. Usable energy was 'at its max' the moment before the initial expansion. All the matter and energy in the universe was already there. We don't know where that initial hot, dense, state came from or how long it existed before the expansion, or even if it is meaningful to refer to duration before time began. We have various hypotheses which don't contradict the available evidence or the laws of physics as we know them, but we don't currently have the technology to test any of them.

Are you familiar with the fallacy known as the Argument from Ignorance? It basically boils down to 'if you don't know the answer to something, my answer must be right!'.

'All the matter and energy in the universe was already there."

And how was it there eternally?.....

"We don't know where that initial hot, dense, state came from or how long it existed before the expansion, or even if it is meaningful to refer to duration before time began. We have various hypotheses which don't contradict the available evidence or the laws of physics as we know them, but we don't currently have the technology to test any of them."

So this is how..."We don't know where that initial hot, dense, state came from"

Oh, that's easy, I can make up anything I want too and when questioned about it, I just say I don't know as I ignore all that we know already. Wow, what a brilliant position you took. No wonder I wrote..When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the doubters resort to science-fiction. 

You are into science fiction, NOT science.

"or how long it existed before the expansion"

Sure you do, it existed for eternity and just then.....it somehow expanded at supernatural rates that you think is natural.

"We have various hypotheses which don't contradict the available evidence or the laws of physics as we know them, but we don't currently have the technology to test any of them."

Oh, so you show you are not using science that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable but somehow "don't contradict the available evidence or the laws of physics as we know them."


Really? I'll give a quote that says so much about people like you....

Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, wrote:

"The Universe, and everything that has happened in it since the beginning of time, are a grand effect without a known cause. An effect without a known cause? That is not the world of science; it is a world of witchcraft, of wild events and the whims of demons, a medieval world that science has tried to banish. As scientists, what are we to make of this picture? I do not know. I would only like to present the evidence for the statement that the Universe, and man himself, originated in a moment when time began" (1977, p. 21).

How you people accept that there is something in the natural realm that had no cause, is beyond me. You're resorting to "a world of witchcraft" also what I call science fiction. 

You not only broke the 1LT but also the 2LT because there would be no usable energy left if it was there eternally. You would also never get the order that we have. So for you to use your care-free....

"...which don't contradict the available evidence or the laws of physics as we know them"

...is rather laughable. 

"Are you familiar with the fallacy known as the Argument from Ignorance? It basically boils down to 'if you don't know the answer to something, my answer must be right!'."

Nowhere did you give the evidence I gave is not correct. Nowhere did you use science that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable yet you have the gall to tell me I'm the ignorant one. 

I enjoy showing what hypocrites you are not just in name, but by evidence.