Why does science always upstage God?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Why should I stop believing In God because science explains things about our world?  Is not being able to explain things the reason all theists believe in God?  You say "See we proved it's thunder, not evil spirits" and so I'm supposed to stop believing in God?

 
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

[Billy Bob]

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 

Right, the atheist can lie and lie and doesn't have to do shit about it. Wow.

"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."

You LOVE lying. Science shows the universe was created. Your compulsive lying does not change that. 

Here it is AGAIN....


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.

You can look up those laws. I didn't make them up. It didn't come out of a church. 

"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."

You can say they are conditional but you have to prove they were since it is YOU that is saying it. Or, just admit you can make up anything you want and have NO evidence to back it up. That's what you're doing but lying is your love.

"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."

There are evo-nuts that are at least honest enough to agree that the fine-tuning in the universe for life on earth is a harsh reality. You jokes are not honest. Oh, let's have more fun and you tell me how life began on its own too. Let me guess, you don't have to do that either. You're such a fake.

[Billy Bob]

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

Our current laws of physics are incapable of accurately describing the universe before the inception of the big bang and so our laws are not knowably applicable at the time when the universe ostensibly began.

But keep spinning your outrageous fantasy for anyone bored enough to listen.

Honestly, you have the attention span of a two-year-old.  Try to keep up, shitpants.

Crap, you skipped that part showing why they are no longer valid.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

It only seemed that way because you forgot to take your pills and had a seizure, wiping your memory of the time during which you read my explaining it to you.

And now, rant away.  I'm done with you as you have the brains of a bowl of lukewarm guacamole, and only know one trick, vapidly repeating, "Did not! Did not!"

Soooooooooooooooo   fucking lame.

"Our current laws of physics are incapable of accurately describing the universe before the inception of the big bang and so our laws are not knowably applicable at the time when the universe ostensibly began."

That's why I put....

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.

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

You chose the natural way when you have NO science to back it up. All you can do is cry about it since you have nothing else. 


[quote pid='2110470' dateline='1658711258']
Crap, you skipped that part showing why they are no longer valid. Gee, I thought they were still the 1st and 2nd laws.
[/quote]


"It only seemed that way because you forgot to take your pills and had a seizure, wiping your memory of the time during which you read my explaining it to you."

What in the world is "It only seemed that way because you forgot to take your pills and had a seizure, wiping your memory of the time during which you read my explaining it to you."

They ARE laws. Laws that pertain to the natural realm. You have no proof of an eternal universe nor how creation can happen naturally by getting around those NATURAL laws. Oh, but you brats don't like that so you just want to throw out the laws. There was nothing. Nothing means no thing. No space, matter, and time. From there we clearly got something that could not have happened naturally. That's science. All your pathetic 'we don't know' is not science, it's ignoring science. 

[arewethereyet]

Geez Billy Joe Bob Dale Wayne, you sure are charming...in an asshole kinda way.

[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?

---

Why should I stop believing In God because science explains things about our world?  Is not being able to explain things the reason all theists believe in God?  You say "See we proved it's thunder, not evil spirits" and so I'm supposed to stop believing in God?

 
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.

[Billy Bob]

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.

How cute, I made an error. I made that error because I'm a creationist. From the same person who believes this all came about naturally but has NO science how that can be. You have NO science but your NO science upstages God. That's brilliant. 

From the same person who wrote....

"Nope. All you do is write insults and pretend that scientists are on your side. Sad."

I'm still waiting for you to give even ONE scientist on your side that got around the laws I gave. Oh, those laws are not insults, they're science. Too bad you're so captivated by lying.

[Fake Messiah]

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

How cute, I made an error. I made that error because I'm a creationist. From the same person who believes this all came about naturally but has NO science how that can be. You have NO science but your NO science upstages God. That's brilliant. 

From the same person who wrote....

"Nope. All you do is write insults and pretend that scientists are on your side. Sad."

I'm still waiting for you to give even ONE scientist on your side that got around the laws I gave. Oh, those laws are not insults, they're science. Too bad you're so captivated by lying.

Instead of your drunk rant, you could have clarified what you said in that erroneous sentence, but you probably gave up since it was also a drunk rant so why bother.

[Angrboda]

They ARE laws.

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

[Mister Agenda]

"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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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