My case against Creationism and Infinite regression

[Mister Agenda]

In every case where we've found the answer to something in nature, it has actually turned out to be natural. In science, the question isn't considered answered until it is both understood and confirmed by evidence.

AGAIN, what in you mind makes God ONLY a Supernatural Being?

Do you Really think God can only be defined by your stereotype?

The problem with explaining the origin of the universe isn't with finding answers that work mathematically and match the available evidence; it's that there are multiple 'answers' (hypotheses) that we don't have a way of confirming with evidence yet. If we never do, the answer to the question, scientifically, will be 'We don't know' forever.Science doesn't pretend to have answers when it doesn't.

That's completely untrue. I've seen video of 'heavy weight scientists' completely slamming other theories on the size and approximate mass of the universe before the 'big bang' happened. How could anyone possibly know this 1 and 2 who gives a squirt? The point is heavyweights like Hawkings and krauss do make claims and stand on them as truth, and defend them religiously.

That is what makes it more tenable than clinging to a cultural construct made by people who didn't know the earth orbits the sun.

Apples and oranges. You are making a scientific comparison on a book of religious philosophy. False equivocation sport.

I can't guess what God is in your head if the dictionary definition isn't what you're using. I think if the creator of our universe was a pimply faced kid who pressed the 'run universe' button, they might be a creator but not a God. If the universe was caused by a random vacuum fluctuation, I'm not going to call it God. Do you really think you can meaningfully say something exists if you can't meaningfully define it?

Scientists aren't science, they're people. They can say anything they want. Science is (among other things) the combined body of work of millions of scientists. Quotes from 'heavy weight' scientists don't outweigh that. Scientists are constantly trying to tear down each other's claims, if a claim can't stand up to that, it's discarded. Heck, Hawkings once overturned his own theory. that had stood for decades. If it can't withstand criticism, scrutiny, and testing; it's out.

Equivocation is using a word in a misleading way. I think you're trying to tell me I've made a category error. But the category under discussion is 'which is more tenable, science or religion?'. You can make a comparison between apples and oranges like 'which is more juicy?'. Something is tenable when it is able to be maintained or defended against attack or objection. Science is all about whether a proposition can withstand critical inspection. Religious claims are held by faith, regardless of attack or objection. If you're saying religious claims are not comparable to scientific ones because whether they're actually tenable isn't even the point; I agree; but that still makes science more tenable than religion. Your religious beliefs aren't any better supported than a Hindu's. Religion becomes more ad more scattered because everyone's religious beliefs are just as 'tenable' as anyone else's, but science achieves consensus by constantly comparing what we think we know to the hard knocks of reality checks. It doesn't matter how hard you believe a scientific theory, if the evidence doesn't supports a different idea better; the old one will be on the way out.