Why does science always upstage God?

[Billy Bob]

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.

There is no such thing as "fine-tuning of the universe"

the beginning of life

A lot of it is known about the beginning of life, and although not entirely, it doesn't mean that it was magic. Especially since it took the universe 14 billion years to create us and that there are so many flaws in the "design".

the designs of life forms

This is completely understood by science and is called Natural Selection.

the information needed to be there before life started,

Lol, what information was needed before life started?

You skipped over creation, why? 

"There is no such thing as "fine-tuning of the universe""

Followed by your evidence to back that up with...(blank)

"A lot of it is known about the beginning of life, and although not entirely, it doesn't mean that it was magic. Especially since it took the universe 14 billion years to create us and that there are so many flaws in the "design"."

Followed by your evidence to back that up with...(blank)

"This is completely understood by science and is called Natural Selection."

How is it selecting from things not there yet? Oh, you left that out too.

"Lol, what information was needed before life started?"


I don't mean to surprise you but DNA has biological information to instruct an organism to develop, survive, reproduce. 

Your question answers a whole lot about you.

[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. 

[Aegon]

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.

I'm confused. You don't think most of these can be explained via the physical sciences? Regarding consciousness you have a point - somewhat. But the others make no sense. Do you want to know how the Earth became "fine-tuned" for life? You can look it up right now. It was a billions-year long process.

[The Grand Nudger]

Unless you think there was literal magic involved, even god must have "created naturally".

At any rate, what Real Science™ says about the matter, is that if there was anything before, we have no way of figuring out what that may have been from this vantage point and with these instruments we have.  We wouldn't even be expected to, if there were - as it was a fairly mighty fucking rearranging of stuff, if that were the case.  Everywhere we look all we see is the effects of the bomb going off, not whatever hypothetical and illustrative building may have been stranding in the crater we now observe.

For some people, saying "I don't know" is a problem - for others, it's a matter of basic honesty. I don't think that, even if you accept a literal magical creation,that the next step is a whodunnit -  you might be better served with a howdunnit.  Especially if you want to compete with scientific explanations for any given x.

How was this somehow evidence that showed what I gave is not correct....

"Unless you think there was literal magic involved, even god must have "created naturally"."

How clear must I make it to show that it had to be done supernaturally? Have the decency to read what was put by me.

I wouldn't want to impose my own ideas of the supernatural on a stranger.  For alot of people,  supernatural isn't magic, it's not meaningfully different from gods natural, it's just not our normal experience of stuff.  Clear as day, literal magic, meaningfully different from the natural not just from our pov, but also gods?  

It's a risky proposition - presumably, god wouldn't need any other mechanism than a natural one to create this natural universe...and it opens the god proposition as made to direct refutation if, say, tomorrow or ten thousand years from now, someone does figure out what mechanism or cause was at play.  Tale as old as time.  Some tribesman says a god made ta creek for them magically out of the rocks..thousands of years pass and a glorious culture ensues..and then a hydrologist finds the spring.

To me, from the theological angle, it's always seemed like an odd way to constrain god and what god could or could not do, and how, for no particular reason, and to the detriment of the notion.  

"we have no way of figuring out"

Yes, we do, we go by what we know now. I CLEARLY wrote going by what we KNOW that it can't happen naturally. You want to dismiss all of that. Then pretend you can.

It's a physical limitation of our instruments?  We don't know what could or couldn't happen, naturally or otherwise, before the bb - if it even makes sense as a question, another unknown.  We do know that nothing that's happened since the bb needs any supernatural mechanism.  Assuming it's out there floating around and doing stuff, this supernatural mechanism,  it's superfluous and currently unevidenced.  

I also wrote..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.

Again, you just love ignoring what we know and pretend to be so truthful with your flippant...

"For some people, saying "I don't know" is a problem - for others, it's a matter of basic honesty."

So you don't know what fine-tuning is, what life takes, the designs, information, etc. You don't even know how to explain how we got human sexual reproduction that is here and now that you actually have some 'parts' for. You pretend to be honest and use the excuse that you just don't know about such things. You don't know because you have never been honest about what we know. You can play your game with others but I see clearly what you're doing. 

The laws of nature prove beyond any doubt that creation (along with other things I listed) can't happen naturally. Naturally lost 100%, but to you it is still a winner as you ignore what the laws teach us and thus to you naturally still wins.

"This pot-hole was fine tuned for me!" exclaimed the puddle of water.  Chased with the notion that the laws of nature prove that the laws of nature are wrong, and supernature reigns?  

You're right, I don't find that even remotely convincing. I probably would respond flippantly to it, as I consider it a flippant argument for a flippant god. However, since we've cleared things up and you really do mean completely unserious magic..have you given any thought to my suggestion that the next step is a howdunnit, not a whodunnit, if it's in competitition with science? Can we get some golden dawn style breakdown of what's involved for your god or anything else to cast these spells?

[Billy Bob]

"Theists tell me, why is it that everything that God has provided, created and bestowed upon us, co-incidentally always seems to have an alternate natural, more feasible explanation?"

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.

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.

There's science and science fiction. Those that don't believe in a supernatural power resort to ignoring what we know and say we just don't know yet, or resort to science fiction. 

So the claim, "...co-incidentally always seems to have an alternate natural, more feasible explanation?" is rather ironic.

Tell me why did you necro this thread to defecate a whole load of bullshit PRATT, likely copied from a fundagelical pastor's 1970's era samizdat pamphlets?  Do you think throwing your rancid diarrhoea at us will make us like you?  Are you really that addlepated you buffoon?

"

"Tell me why did you necro this thread to defecate a whole load of bullshit PRATT,"

Wow, so that somehow dismissed the evidence I gave. And what's even more amazing, you want to be taken seriously as a person who really looked into this. 

"likely copied from a fundagelical pastor's 1970's era samizdat pamphlets?"

As you make another claim you can't back up. You're on a roll.

"Do you think throwing your rancid diarrhoea at us will make us like you?"

I know you have no evidence for your position so you are just looking for 'something' to write to fill in space as if you are actually 'answering' something. 

"...at us will make us like you?"

Frankly, I love being hated by people like you. You're of no character I seek to be buddies with. You treat this all as some big joke. You made that very clear.

"Are you really that addlepated you buffoon?"

I find it hilarious that I'm the one that is considered confused yet I gave evidence and you give only insults. 

I'm fine with showing what an embarrassment you are. It's fun but easy.

[The Grand Nudger]

What evidence do you think you gave?

[Mister Agenda]

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. 

You don't have to be ignorant to use an argument from ignorance. Your assertions aren't evidence and don't require evidence to dismiss, they require evidence to accept. Admitting what you don't know something is not ignorance or weakness, it's intellectual integrity.

[Billy Bob]

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.

I'm confused. You don't think most of these can be explained via the physical sciences? Regarding consciousness you have a point - somewhat. But the others make no sense. Do you want to know how the Earth became "fine-tuned" for life? You can look it up right now. It was a billions-year long process.

"You don't think most of these can be explained via the physical sciences?"

If you can't explain them by physical sciences then you are into science fiction. I already explained that.

"Regarding consciousness you have a point - somewhat. But the others make no sense."

I make perfect sense. YOU are the one that wrote...

"You don't think most of these can be explained via the physical sciences?"

So you want to resort to science fiction. What else is left?!

"Do you want to know how the Earth became "fine-tuned" for life?"

You must have a reading problem. You skipped over creation as if that's no big deal to you, then you can't even read what I wrote...the fine-tuning of the universe so life can exist on earth. 

That is quite different from your, "Do you want to know how the Earth became "fine-tuned" for life?"

"You can look it up right now. It was a billions-year long process."

So then how did it know to get things so right that if it were slightly different to 120 decimal places, we wouldn't have a universe we have today? You don't have any idea what you're talking about to get that preciseness. From the same person who never addressed how we even got the creation of the universe to begin with, nor how we got life on earth, etc. You just treat this with your little flippant remarks that are not backed up.

[Billy Bob]

What evidence do you think you gave?

The evidence I gave.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you'll find that alot of people don't consider arguments, well prepared or raging dumpster fires, evidence. Since we have you, though, is there any particular reason that your idea of a god must reject the idea that god "did it" pretty much exactly as we see it being done?

If gods way of doing things amounted to exactly what scientists say happened naturally, would that seem like a lesser god, or not a god at all, to you?