Why does science always upstage God?

[The Grand Nudger]

Its good to have someone keeping track of science, so it can tell us which way it went. I remember the last time it got out, it hopped the fence and ate the neighbors chickens.

[Fake Messiah]

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.

[The Architect Of Fate]

"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 

[The Architect Of Fate]

All natural laws are conditional if the conditions change so do the laws and if those conditions don't exist then the law doesn't exist. No amount of pointing to the current laws under current conditions says anything about prior states or events. Nor does it make anything supernatural as merely altered conditions thus altered natural laws does not  make them unnatural and if a law doesn't exist it can't be defied or broken thus it's also not supernatural. There is nothing in science that excludes anything I have said above and scientists would never claim there was.

[The Architect Of Fate]

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

Yup supreme overconfidence and a total lack of humility mixed with a mind-numbing lack of intelligence. It's simply amazing.

[Nay_Sayer]

I guess billy wasn't a sock though being that his content is recycled bad apologetic rhetoric and trolling, One would be hard to spot the difference.

Thoughts and prayers, RAmen

[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.

[The Architect Of Fate]

This also applies to fine-tuning. Just because a certain number of conditions happened to result in us this somehow demonstrates the universe was made for us. When we don't know all the ways life could have developed or all the conditions that could produce life. None of these statements are inconsistent with science or our current understanding of it.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Another problem with this fine tuning rubbish is that it’s all arsey-versey and back to front. The universe wasn’t created to fit us, we evolved to fit it.

At the risk of Big Daddy Billy Joe Bubba Jim Bob calling me ‘stupid’ (which really hurts, let me tell you), I’ll re-iterate my earlier objection: the fact that different organisms thrive in radically different environments which are lethal to other organisms  very neatly destroys the notion that ANY of this was fine-tuned for ANY life forms (this is why there are no breeding populations of polar bears in the Sahara).

It’s also a circular argument that falls flat on its face: one has to start by presuming that God exists and then citing human existence as proof of God’s.

Boru

[Aegon]

Oh, I see what's happening here. You're thinking with your ego. I'm not trying to insult you when I say that, it's a common perception error.

You know... back in ancient Nordic times, they didn't have an explanation for thunder and lightning. So they made up Thor. Of course, we are far more knowledgeable than humans of past so our unanswered questions are much grander than "What causes lightning?" Instead, we've moved on to questions like "What prompted the beginning of our universe, of spacetime as we recognize it?" But you must see that, logically, you're making the same blunder the Nordic people did. Maybe the universe is actually eternal and what we perceive as its beginning is not the true beginning. Maybe the universe has been born and died countless times over an unfathomable amount of time, and this is just the current iteration. Maybe the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, and there are an infinite number of realities where the universe doesn't "get it right" and no life exists, while we live in one of the other near infinite realities where it does. But filling in the gap of knowledge with God is irrational because countless times in our history we have proven supernatural theories incorrect. Just like the Nordic people who believed they invoked Thor's wrath when it thundered, those who believe in Genesis are just as silly imo.

The universe didn't "know" to get things a certain way. The way you're thinking about the universe, on a fundamental level, is egotistical. You're projecting. The observable universe is 92 billion lightyears in diameter and contains billions of planets and sextillions of stars. Of all those planets, I'm sure there are millions of "fine-tuned" Earth-like planets, and I'm betting many of them have intelligent life too. But you can also see the sheer number of lifeless planets, the ones that either will never be like Earth or perhaps were once like Earth. Take Venus as an example - it used to be like Earth. Now it is one of the most dangerous atmospheres in the solar system. Venus was once "fine-tuned," then suddenly it wasn't. Just like the Earth! There have been numerous times throughout the planet's history where it went from being "fine-tuned" and habitable to being entirely uninhabitable. You oversimplify the process so that you can make it look silly to attribute the development to anything other than God, but a lot happens over billions of years! It's not science fiction. I don't get what you mean when you say that.

Also life on Earth is fucking hard even when it is "fine-tuned." Do you think it's the perfect planet? For most of human history, all of our time and energy were spent purely on survival. We were small nomadic groups just trying to eat and fuck. Wild animals, insects carrying disease, earthquakes, landslides, floods, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, bacteria... the planet is actively trying to kill us. Not to mention that meteors from fucking space could render the planet uninhabitable overnight (as they already have done in the past).

A bunch of blah-blah never explaining how you got around the laws I gave, then...

"Maybe the universe is actually eternal and what we perceive as its beginning is not the true beginning. Maybe the universe has been born and died countless times over an unfathomable amount of time, and this is just the current iteration. Maybe the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, and there are an infinite number of realities where the universe doesn't "get it right" and no life exists, while we live in one of the other near infinite realities where it does. But filling in the gap of knowledge with God is irrational because countless times in our history we have proven supernatural theories incorrect. Just like the Nordic people who believed they invoked Thor's wrath when it thundered, those who believe in Genesis are just as silly imo."

You forgot, Maybe it's Maybelline. All you did was ignore the 1st and 2nd laws again regarding creation and resort to science fiction. It's so you.

More blah-blah as you can't even get around the laws I gave on creation. Can you let me know how many useless replies you'll make before you get serious in showing the universe did come about on its own without breaking the laws I clearly gave? Your trail of maybe's is getting old.

Lol what