Why does science always upstage God?

[Billy Bob]

Billy Bob, considering that you believe in the claims from the Bible about how the wizard created the universe and humans in six days, 6000 years ago, do you also believe that Earth is flat as the Bible describes it?

---

 
When you found out that it was your parents who arranged all those gifts on Christmas morning, did you carry on believing in Santa Claus?

Boru

But the difference between belief in Santa and God is that people are indoctrinated into believing in God, which means that they are not allowed not to believe or ever doubt the existence of God or they'll get punished by damnation.

That's why you have people saying that they'll believe in God no matter what the evidence says and invent ad hoc excuses like that God is beyond the evidence, logic, science, reality, this plane of existence, etc.

"That's why you have people saying that they'll believe in God no matter what the evidence says and invent ad hoc excuses like that God is beyond the evidence, logic, science, reality, this plane of existence, etc."

Last I checked it's YOUR side ignoring the evidence. But don't let that stop you, go ahead full speed and keep lying. Lie to yourselves too.

[Billy Bob]

They ARE laws.

Not at the time in question.  This has been pointed out to you multiple times, you dumbass.

"Not at the time in question.  This has been pointed out to you multiple times, you dumbass."

It has been brought up many times but NOT once with evidence. Did I mention that when you take your side for a natural creation that you'll need to resort to science fiction? I sure did, and you all are proving me right because you need your science fiction. Imagine that, it happened naturally with the laws not working then which means it was supernatural. We have NO proof the laws were not in effect. You jokes always resort to your science fiction god. So keep on praying to your god for clueless guidance. 

The prayer from the book, 'Atheism (and the like) for Dummies (because there aren't any other kind)'...


"Oh, god of nothing, we deny you exist, and you don't, but we have no choice to declare you our true god if we're honest, but we're not. Please god of nothing, help us to continually grow in offering no science to support you because there is none, but nonetheless, we devote our lives to you and will do the best act we can, no matter how absurd, no matter how embarrassing, no matter how much evidence is against us, we will use the various tactics to deny the CLEAR science against us like our biggies:
---"god-of-the-gaps",
---"that's your opinion",
---"invincible man in the sky", "sky daddy", etc.
---"we don't know yet but science is working on it"
---"no reputable scientists believe that"
---"religion vs science"
---"the bible says...."
---"creationist/creatard"
---"people used to believe the flat earth"
---"you're a troll"
---"that's not part of evolution"
---"atheism is not a belief"
---"burden of proof is on you"
---"religion causes most wars"
---"I used to be a Christain"
---"you're brainwashed"
---"Do you have a photograph of this creator?"
---and our great tactic of changing the topic because we can't answer what is the topic so we then can say the others are ignoring us, no matter how clear it is we're the ones stuck and can't handle the topic. Who cares about fairness and honesty. Our god of nothing must be protected at ALL costs!"


"We praise you god of nothing for such phrases (and whatever else we can make up) that answer nothing, but you gave us these bowel gas words to help us deflect what we refuse to face because all of us are really weak and don't want to think, we want to be lazy and act as if we're smart, all thanks to our god of nothing that makes us all a somehow important yet our brains came from the god of nothing all by random chance from the chaos we evolved from that we just made up."

[Billy Bob]

"It gets around your accusation that I accused you of being ignorant."
I'm following science; you're not. I'm not the one that is ignorant; you are.
"You assert that the laws of science support your conclusions, but they do not."
Then why can't you get around them? Because you can't so you fill in space.
"Again you've latched onto the notion that I'm asserting that you are ignorant when I've said nothing of the kind."

Without going back on other pages, was it you that brought up the argument from ignorance? I believe I was going by what we KNOW and you don't want to face what we know. You want to throw out all we know and just say we don't know. Then you know nothing. You have to follow that all the way through. You can say we don't really know 2 + 2 = 4. Just throw out what we know. You can do that with anything. Then be that way. Be a brat that if you don't like what the evidence shows, just claim we don't know yet. It's your life and I don't care.

For the last time, the Argument from Ignorance is an informal fallacy that described your argument, not an accusation that you, personally, are ignorant. It's also called an Appeal to Ignorance, claiming something is true because it has not yet been proven false, or false because it has not yet been proven true. It excludes alternate possibilities, like the answer being unknowable, knowable only in the future, or not yet thoroughly investigated enough to make a determination, or only incompletely true or false. It often involves a shifting of the burden of proof. It is not the statement 'you are ignorant' or 'you are wrong because you are ignorant'.

But if you are determined to be offended, there's nothing I can do about that. My best to you and yours.

"For the last time, the Argument from Ignorance is an informal fallacy that described your argument, not an accusation that you, personally, are ignorant. It's also called an Appeal to Ignorance, claiming something is true because it has not yet been proven false, or false because it has not yet been proven true."

Liar, last I checked those laws are VERY well-established. Only fools doubt them. Oh, that means YOU! 

"It excludes alternate possibilities, like the answer being unknowable, knowable only in the future, or not yet thoroughly investigated enough to make a determination, or only incompletely true or false."

I'm giving science and YOUR side give science fiction. Wow, and let's not forget the lying that's off the charts that you sure contributed to. 


"But if you are determined to be offended, there's nothing I can do about that. My best to you and yours."

I'm not offended, I'm having fun showing what an embarrassment you are. 

Can any of you know what year you may have the guts to give evidence how we got all this naturally that got around the laws I gave? Try to see the word "evidence" which does not mean what ever bowel gas you can muster from your 'behind.'

[Billy Bob]

No one appears to find any of this convincing Billy Bob.  Got anything else?

I know. Science does not convince you folks, science fiction does and your other science the "we don't know" science that you give after you ignore the science we know that crushes you.

[Billy Bob]

Still waiting for some testable, falsifiable proof for this god thing

I have tons of it but you all still can't get around what I gave just on creation. You must have missed it because if you didn't, you'd look rather pathetic after writing that.

Here's it is....

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.

Now, YOU give science that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable that shows creation happened on its own. I need to inform your tiny brains, "we don't know" is not science that beats science that IS observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. That IS science we know. Those laws are such science. I actually needed to explain that too. 

[Angrboda]

Not at the time in question.  This has been pointed out to you multiple times, you dumbass.

"Not at the time in question.  This has been pointed out to you multiple times, you dumbass."

It has been brought up many times but NOT once with evidence. Did I mention that when you take your side for a natural creation that you'll need to resort to science fiction? I sure did, and you all are proving me right because you need your science fiction. Imagine that, it happened naturally with the laws not working then which means it was supernatural. We have NO proof the laws were not in effect. You jokes always resort to your science fiction god. So keep on praying to your god for clueless guidance. 

It's basic science fact, not science fiction.  Moreover, you're the one claiming the laws as we know them hold at the time in question.  Science doesn't say that.  That's just something you pulled out of your butt.  Actual science says that what happens then is not currently understood.  So you're claiming that you know something that science doesn't, which makes you the one with the evidence problem.  But whatever.  Ask and you shall receive.

---

---

Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles. It is the foundation of all quantum physics including quantum chemistry, quantum field theory, quantum technology, and quantum information science.

Classical physics, the collection of theories that existed before the advent of quantum mechanics, describes many aspects of nature at an ordinary (macroscopic) scale, but is not sufficient for describing them at small (atomic and subatomic) scales. Most theories in classical physics can be derived from quantum mechanics as an approximation valid at large (macroscopic) scale.

Quantum mechanics differs from classical physics in that energy, momentum, angular momentum, and other quantities of a bound system are restricted to discrete values (quantization), objects have characteristics of both particles and waves (wave–particle duality), and there are limits to how accurately the value of a physical quantity can be predicted prior to its measurement, given a complete set of initial conditions (the uncertainty principle).

Wikipedia || Quantum mechanics

The use of only general relativity to predict what happened in the beginnings of the Universe has been heavily criticized, as quantum mechanics becomes a significant factor in the high-energy environment of the earliest Universe, and general relativity on its own fails to make accurate predictions. In response to the inaccuracy of considering only general relativity, as in the traditional model of the Big Bang, alternative theoretical formulations for the beginning of the Universe have been proposed, including a string theory-based model in which two branes, enormous membranes much larger than the Universe, collided, creating mass and energy.

Wikipedia || Initial singularity

---

General relativity, also known as the general theory of relativity and Einstein's theory of gravity, is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915 and is the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and refines Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time or four-dimensional spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of second order partial differential equations.

Newton's law of universal gravitation, which describes classical gravity, can be seen as a prediction of general relativity for the almost flat spacetime geometry around stationary mass distributions. Some predictions of general relativity, however, are beyond Newton's law of universal gravitation in classical physics. These predictions concern the passage of time, the geometry of space, the motion of bodies in free fall, and the propagation of light, and include gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, the gravitational redshift of light, the Shapiro time delay and singularities/black holes. So far, all tests of general relativity have been shown to be in agreement with the theory. The time dependent solutions of general relativity enable us to talk about the history of the universe and have provided the modern framework for cosmology, thus leading to the discovery of the Big Bang and cosmic microwave background radiation. Despite the introduction of a number of alternative theories, general relativity continues to be the simplest theory consistent with experimental data.

Wikipedia || General relativity

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This irregular behavior, known as the gravitational singularity, indicates that general relativity is not an adequate description of the laws of physics in this regime. Models based on general relativity alone can not extrapolate toward the singularity—before the end of the so-called Planck epoch.

Wikipedia || Big bang

---

---

In other words, we lack accurate laws for describing the universe at the time in question as gravitational effects and quantum mechanical effects need to be taken into account in order to accurately model reality during that phase.  Since general relativity is not adequate and we have no theory of quantum gravity to use as an alternative, the most accurate laws we have fail to accurately model that time period and so what happened then is simply not known.  Calling that supernatural is just a form of equivocation -- using a word in two different senses in the same argument and makes your conclusions invalid

---

---

I've shown you mine, now you show me yours.  What is your evidence that the 1st law of thermodynamics accurately describes reality before the Planck epoch.

[The Grand Nudger]

No one appears to find any of this convincing Billy Bob.  Got anything else?

I know. Science does not convince you folks, science fiction does and your other science the "we don't know" science that you give after you ignore the science we know that crushes you.

No one finds this convincing.  Is there anything else?

[Fake Messiah]

Billy Bob, considering that you believe in the claims from the Bible about how the wizard created the universe and humans in six days, 6000 years ago, do you also believe that Earth is flat as the Bible describes it?

---

But the difference between belief in Santa and God is that people are indoctrinated into believing in God, which means that they are not allowed not to believe or ever doubt the existence of God or they'll get punished by damnation.

That's why you have people saying that they'll believe in God no matter what the evidence says and invent ad hoc excuses like that God is beyond the evidence, logic, science, reality, this plane of existence, etc.

"That's why you have people saying that they'll believe in God no matter what the evidence says and invent ad hoc excuses like that God is beyond the evidence, logic, science, reality, this plane of existence, etc."

Last I checked it's YOUR side ignoring the evidence. But don't let that stop you, go ahead full speed and keep lying. Lie to yourselves too.

You are the one who is ignoring my question to you: do you accept flat Earth cosmology from the Bible?

[Peebothuhlu]

 


(Hello and welcome to the forums Billy Bob)

Not at work.

Thank you. I truly appreciate you having me and I mean that.

You're welcome.

Sorry I'm late. I must addmit to not grokking the shape of the current thread.

Science works. Most religions seem to be... clubs for like minded members. Or something?

Anywho, I'll try and catch up.

Cheers.

Not at work.

[pocaracas]

Fine, I'll bite

Evidence points to nothing does nothing.

True, that's why astrophysics posits that the total energy of the Universe is ZERO!

If the total energy of the Universe prior (if this makes any sense) to the Big Bang was Zero, then conservation of energy requires that it is also zero after the big bang. Zero energy implies that Entropy cannot increase, thus the second law of thermodynamics applies in the limit of no change.

Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know.

Real science says there was nothing and, when you sum everything up, there is still nothing. Zero total energy!

It must be observable, repeatable, and falsifiable.

It is. Sadly, we are inside the Universe and cannot observe the absence of a Universe in order to determine the conditions that lead to the formation of a Universe.

We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy.

Exactly what "Real Science" claims.
Here, I'll help:
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=total+energy+of+the+universe

It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed.

Change forms.... you're on to something...

Creation cannot happen by natural means.

Define "Natural means".
Are you wanting to run into the "Argument from Ignorance" fallacy?

The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy.

That is valid for normal matter and energy, but you're not taking into account dark matter and negative energy, are you?

Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max.

Usable by what?
The maximum total energy in the Universe was ZERO and the total energy of the Universe is still ZERO.

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.

As seen above, no. There is no need for anything unnatural.
Space-time can have always existed and the singularity can have been a particularly excessive random event in the whole quantum fluctuations thing (I'm aware that you never actually followed through on Krauss' points, but you should. While not conclusive, they do hint at possibilities)

When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the doubters resort to science-fiction.

As if the supernatural hypothesis is anything but fiction...
Tell me, how did you (or anyone) first arrive at the notion of the supernatural entity?

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.

Why must such a "supernatural creation" be accepted? Either that hypothesis stands on its own merit, or it gets shoved in the drawer until evidence comes to light that supports it.
Thus far, there is a very poor track record for the god hypothesis as an explainer of things, so the will to accept it on this one thing is very low. And, as you may have seen above, we don't really need it.

Either way, science is our best tool to find out what really happened. Let it work, don't shunt it with an unrealistic hypothesis.