Why does science always upstage God?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I’ve learned several things from this thread. Chiefly, that Billy Bob does not understand;

-Thermodynamics

-What is meant by the term ‘natural laws’

-The relationship and conflicts between classical and quantum mechanics

-What science is and how it works

-What science fiction is and how it works

-What evolution is and how it works

-The difference between argument and assertion

-Atheism

-How to disagree without being disagreeable

There’s more, but that’ll do to go on with

Boru

[ignoramus]

I really tried to read Uncle Bob's comments...
I just can't do it anymore... I can feel my IQ dropping with every sentence...
Have fun with this talking chew toy while it lasts...

[Billy Bob]

"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.

So this is considered your evidence to show the laws were not there when we know naturally has ALWAYS had the laws existing. Drum roll for this BIG scientific evidence.....

"It's basic science fact, not science fiction."

Wow, you may have convinced a rock but to any sane person, that was really funny. 

Now, be quiet and the next time provide evidence that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. That's right, you don't have the integrity to care about what science shows, you just like to make up whatever you want. 

"Moreover, you're the one claiming the laws as we know them hold at the time in question."

Well, if you knew how to read and were honest at the same time, I clearly showed creation was done supernaturally. That means the laws were not in place, duh. That means that the laws could not have been in place then. Did it EVER register with you that supernaturally is not natural, it's beyond natural? If so, why are you so 'slow'? And the thing is, I already covered this. But don't feel embarrassed, your fellow atheistic types are as slow as you are. 

"Science doesn't say that.  That's just something you pulled out of your butt."

Actually, you can pull up those laws, all that I gave before, and you'll see they are really laws. You'd see too that I clearly said creation was supernatural. You'd see it YOU that has YOUR head up YOUR butt.

"Actual science says that what happens then is not currently understood."

Well, you even contradicted yourself. Yep, that is how SLOW you are. Just previously you wrote....

"It's basic science fact, not science fiction."

If it were a science fact, you'd have evidence. Now for a BIG laugh, this is your evidence....

"Actual science says that what happens then is not currently understood."

Come on, just look how stoooo-pid you are. Does your left part of your brain know what your right side is thinking? You need to tell both sides that they need to agree before showing you have no idea what you write.

"So you're claiming that you know something that science doesn't, which makes you the one with the evidence problem."

Maybe read this a 1000 times and see if it registers with either side of your brain that also can't agree what you think....

Science is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. YOU believe this all came about naturally. The laws I gave show they can't because naturally the 1st and 2nd laws won't allow it. 

AGAIN...be quiet and the next time provide evidence that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. YOU chose YOUR position so back it up. I backed up my position and look what a pathetic example you are not being able to get around it and actually contradict yourself! It may be best to be quiet rather than show how little you think and how you really don't care about honesty and science. 

[Billy Bob]

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?

Maybe if you drank a big pot of coffee it may register with you that you and your side can't be convinced because you're spoiled brats who ignore science and hate being proved wrong. You'll all do whatever takes to believe your absurdities.

[Billy Bob]

"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?

Wow, you sure live in fear and afraid to back up what you put. 

Get your tail out from between your legs and deal with what you gave, you coward. Oh, you are like everyone else though, you can say and put whatever you want and sure as you're asked to back it up....you show what jokes you really are. Now, now, time to show again what little you actually know. Come on, tiny brain, step up to the plate. 

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?

I'd love to go through those points but you are all still stuck on creation. If you all admit it had to be supernatural rather than running from reality, we can move on. 

But for fun and since you jokes are so easy to crush, look at your first one...

Biology disproves Adam and Eve. 

Here's a fun topic for you evo-nuts. We have human sexual reproduction (HSR). We know a whole lot about it. Many of us experimented with it. Since you believe in goo-to-you evolution, give a logical explanation with proof of how HSR came about. Here's an example: We had this asexual something that got here by a natural creation that's impossible, the universe formed by some other impossible feat, it gave life by some other impossible feat and somehow gave another impossible feat of an asexual something that eventually mutated a bump, another asexual something eventually mutating a hole, this went on and on of umpteen years, and by mere chance somehow mated from the sexual organs that somehow formed by mere chance not even knowing they were needed so that.........it eventually led to HSR. Sure it's going to be a LONG story and I can't imagine how it could be possible but since you evo-nuts believe it, you better have a good explanation. I don't want theories that answer nothing, I want a logical story with proof to back it up. Since you claim it all came about naturally, then give your natural explanation.

Now, don't forget, I don't want your stooooo-pid theories that don't answer a thing, I want evidence and details since you jokes think biology disproves Adam and Eve. Oh, screw you too, throw in how we got life on its own also. You want to talk tough then show me something you have given this some thought. 

You can't though, you're just stooges. You don't care about science, being honest, or even thinking; your just out to pretend you have integrity. 

[Angrboda]

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.

---

---

---

---

---

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.

So this is considered your evidence to show the laws were not there when we know naturally has ALWAYS had the laws existing. Drum roll for this BIG scientific evidence.....

"It's basic science fact, not science fiction."

Wow, you may have convinced a rock but to any sane person, that was really funny. 

Now, be quiet and the next time provide evidence that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. That's right, you don't have the integrity to care about what science shows, you just like to make up whatever you want. 

"Moreover, you're the one claiming the laws as we know them hold at the time in question."

Well, if you knew how to read and were honest at the same time, I clearly showed creation was done supernaturally. That means the laws were not in place, duh. That means that the laws could not have been in place then. Did it EVER register with you that supernaturally is not natural, it's beyond natural? If so, why are you so 'slow'? And the thing is, I already covered this. But don't feel embarrassed, your fellow atheistic types are as slow as you are. 

"Science doesn't say that.  That's just something you pulled out of your butt."

Actually, you can pull up those laws, all that I gave before, and you'll see they are really laws. You'd see too that I clearly said creation was supernatural. You'd see it YOU that has YOUR head up YOUR butt.

"Actual science says that what happens then is not currently understood."

Well, you even contradicted yourself. Yep, that is how SLOW you are. Just previously you wrote....

"It's basic science fact, not science fiction."

If it were a science fact, you'd have evidence. Now for a BIG laugh, this is your evidence....

"Actual science says that what happens then is not currently understood."

Come on, just look how stoooo-pid you are. Does your left part of your brain know what your right side is thinking? You need to tell both sides that they need to agree before showing you have no idea what you write.

"So you're claiming that you know something that science doesn't, which makes you the one with the evidence problem."

Maybe read this a 1000 times and see if it registers with either side of your brain that also can't agree what you think....

Science is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. YOU believe this all came about naturally. The laws I gave show they can't because naturally the 1st and 2nd laws won't allow it. 

AGAIN...be quiet and the next time provide evidence that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. YOU chose YOUR position so back it up. I backed up my position and look what a pathetic example you are not being able to get around it and actually contradict yourself! It may be best to be quiet rather than show how little you think and how you really don't care about honesty and science. 

Shame you can't give any reason why it needs to be supernatural. Oh well. Maybe in your next life.

[Angrboda]

No one finds this convincing.  Is there anything else?

Maybe if you drank a big pot of coffee it may register with you that you and your side can't be convinced because you're spoiled brats who ignore science and hate being proved wrong. You'll all do whatever takes to believe your absurdities.

[Billy Bob]

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.

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

So where does it add up to zero? Zero in this context is nothing. Nothing as in NO thing, no matter, space, and time. Give me the science that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Show me your zero has no space, matter, and time. Oh, that would be impossible. You believe in the impossible. You believe in making up whatever you want. Your ASS-trophysics also claim that about 68% of the universe is dark energy, it's NEVER been found. They HAD to make that up to 'answer' for their insanity. Sure, they provide more laughs with dark matter making up about 27%. 

So, do show how there was no space, matter, and time and that it did something when there was nothing to do something. Actually try thinking before you right such absurdity. 

Go on, it's YOUR position so back it up. I'm calling your bluff so show your hand. 

[Billy Bob]

I’ve learned several things from this thread. Chiefly, that Billy Bob does not understand;

-Thermodynamics

-What is meant by the term ‘natural laws’

-The relationship and conflicts between classical and quantum mechanics

-What science is and how it works

-What science fiction is and how it works

-What evolution is and how it works

-The difference between argument and assertion

-Atheism

-How to disagree without being disagreeable

There’s more, but that’ll do to go on with

Boru

"I’ve learned several things from this thread. Chiefly, that Billy Bob does not understand;
-Thermodynamics"

Followed by your detailed evidence of...

(blank) 

Tiny brain, before we go down the remaining list, it hasn't occurred to you just yet but I've been giving science that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable.

You give....(blank) to counter my science that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable.

Do come back, you along with the rest sure provide great laughs. 

[Billy Bob]

I really tried to read Uncle Bob's comments...
I just can't do it anymore... I can feel my IQ dropping with every sentence...
Have fun with this talking chew toy while it lasts...

What a shame, you couldn't do anything to prove me wrong but at least you show in your title name that you have more honesty than the rest here.