Why does science always upstage God?

[The Architect Of Fate]

1. The atheist doesn't need to prove the universe wasn't created. Because he doesn't claim it wasn't merely that the theist has not proven it was. 

2. The Atheist doesn't have to refute any laws as he can merely say they are conditional and we don't know if they apply always. The theist makes the positive claim that a supernatural force that created the universe doesn't prove it so his claim is simply unjustified till he does and pointing to current laws and conditions is not adequate to this task

3. We don't need to show life anywhere else to not accept the claim the universe was fine-tuned for life as no amount. Simply pointing to life as it is now is not enough ....Sorry 

So overall your demands can be safely rejected. Now get on with the actual evidence 

[The Architect Of Fate]

Lol using DAVID FUCKING ALBERT AS A SOURCES !!!!!

[Billy Bob]

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.

"Also, I love how he keeps appealing to entropy and conservation two things that are CONDITIONAL."

Let's see how you proved they 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?"

Yes sir, there it is, we're into science fiction again. Wow, I thought I mentioned that already about you all.

"So what if" is not science for showing it was. Darn, you'd thought you might get away with it.

"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."

Not only can you barf out science fiction, you don't have to prove anything. Amazing, the easy life of the atheistic side. Just fart out it out with NO evidence to back it up then say you don't have to prove anything. This is hilarious!

"This drives a nail into the coffin of his logical leap into theism."

As if you clowns are logical. You just made up science fiction then say you don't have to prove it and that SOMEHOW put a nail into the coffin. I'm telling ya, you can't make this stupidity up. This should be a comedy routine but you people are actually serious. And what's even funnier is this is under the topic, Why does science always upstage God? You people don't even follow science. How F-ing ironic.

[Billy Bob]

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.

Another bozo the clown reply from a person who has yet to get around the science I gave on creation. 

Now, have the integrity to admit you never got around creation. I won't be holding my breath.

We KNOW what life takes. Your silly excuse for discounting the fine tuning is a joke. Can you give this other way life could have consisted of with evidence and that it would have come to life on its own given the right conditions? Well, NO! You can't. You'd have NO science to back it up. You can't even get around what we know about THIS life and how it even got started on its own. So all you do is provide more humor that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Billy Bob]

Show me where else life is are just be quiet.

The fact we have yet to find life elsewhere in no way supports your conclusion. So try again 

Where in your convoluted mess of a reply did you get around the laws I gave? You people are such jokes.

She doesn't need to get around it because it proves nothing. So no you are the joke I'm afraid 

Oh, it was not valid. And the reason is...

Crap, you skipped that part showing why they are no longer valid. Gee, I thought they were still the 1st and 2nd laws.

The valid reason is you can't get give a valid reason why not 
And again appealing to current laws under current conditions proves nothing 

"The fact we have yet to find life elsewhere in no way supports your conclusion. So try again "

I hate mess up your spoiled brat party, but yes, it does show how this earth is unique to having life. Wow, is your brain not used to thinking.


"She doesn't need to get around it because it proves nothing. So no you are the joke I'm afraid"

Oh, ok, got it; you can make up anything you want and don't have to back it up. May I call you "Your Highness"?

"The valid reason is you can't get give a valid reason why not 
And again appealing to current laws under current conditions proves nothing"

It means everything. It's science. There is something seriously wrong with you. You need to know that. Who the hell are you that you can make up whatever you want and don't need to back it up? Incredible.

[Billy Bob]

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

"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."

Hello! You skipped the parts how we got the universe, fine tuning, and life itself all on its own. I know, you people like to skip all those parts.

So screw the fine tuning, this somehow got around it all...."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)."

Bozo, shut the F up and get in your thick skull, we HAVE life ON earth. Some of it has tiny brains like yours. You're such a doofus, you will fight with whatever STOOO-pid remarks you can to hide from the fact we have extremely complex life on this earth. Go ahead and keep running from the obvious fact. It's getting so old though.

[Fake Messiah]

Billy, you are the one claiming that the universe is fine-tuned for life, and yet the universe is all dead matter except for Earth which is minuscule compared to the universe. And on top of that, Earth is full of deadly stuff, like sun rays give you skin cancer which is not fine-tuned for life.

Show me where else life is are just be quiet.

Learn to write coherent sentences. Oh, well, that's too much to ask from a creationist.

[Billy Bob]

Put a dime in the atheistic slot machine and this silly question will come up somehow.

You are a graduate of Nitwit University. All you have to do is remember "Who created God?" and you can mix things up a bit with the same basic question. All the laws of nature somehow suddenly disappear for you dolts, that one stoo-pid question is your cure-all.


So in your way of shallow thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If you want to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.

Too bad we don't have to do any of the above your the one making a positive claim you have yet to prove it as for the rest of the stuff this isn't science it's theology 

Me....So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created.

This was your answer....

"Too bad we don't have to do any of the above your the one making a positive claim you have yet to prove it as for the rest of the stuff this isn't science it's theology"

That's right, you don't have to do shit. You can be stupid and make up anything you want and you don't have to do a thing to back it up. You can ask that stupid question and when you're called on it to explainwhy a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created, you just stick your head in the sand as if you don't have to do a thing. You are providing joy to me though showing what jokes you all are. 

[Billy Bob]

If you jokes only knew the laughter you supply. It's all you're good for though, is laughs.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a  [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias][/url] stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.

So tell me with what I wrote I overestimated my ability. Tell me how the laws of science I gave were overestimated and are somehow not correct. Tell me how the conclusions are not correct. You conveniently and purposely left those parts out because you don't like to reason. YOU overestimated YOUR ability. 

Every post you write is an overestimation of your abilities and an overestimation of your conclusion despite the evidence falling short.

And this is your detailed proof it is me that overestimated my ability.....

"Every post you write is an overestimation of your abilities and an overestimation of your conclusion despite the evidence falling short."

Wow, that really showed how the laws I gave were overestimated. Your attention to detail is amazing but you just lacked the details. Oh darn, you were so close though. Of course, asking you nitwits for details is like asking a rock.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Let's see how you proved they are conditional. 

When you manage to show that they apply unconditionally in a magic natural law space and are no way affected by anything and have always been as they are now let me know 

Yes sir, there it is, we're into science fiction again. Wow, I thought I mentioned that already about you all.

Dismissing an idea as science fiction isn't an argument. Do you have any justification to say this couldn't be the case then....I thought not.

"So what if" is not science for showing it was. Darn, you'd thought you might get away with it.

Lol, you have yet to show science showing this so this statement is simply false. Unless you can of course show at all times and in all conditions the laws are exactly the same... I won't hold my breath 

Not only can you barf out science fiction, you don't have to prove anything. Amazing, the easy life of the atheistic side. Just fart out it out with NO evidence to back it up then say you don't have to prove anything. This is hilarious!

Sorry unless you actually show that the laws always have applied at all times and to the formation of the universe itself non fallaciously your insults frankly mean nothing. 

As if you clowns are logical. You just made up science fiction then say you don't have to prove it and that SOMEHOW put a nail into the coffin. I'm telling ya, you can't make this stupidity up. This should be a comedy routine but you people are actually serious. And what's even funnier is this is under the topic, Why does science always upstage God? You people don't even follow science. How F-ing ironic.

So far all you did was say "it's science fiction derp dur " sorry buddy that's not an argument. Now when you actually get around to real objection let me know