Why? If you have a case to put forward put it forward... If its YOUR argument YOU need to make it.
Sorry, but "my coffee gets cold" doesn't prove that the BB was a supernatural event.
So can you answer the question or not?
A- The natural prerogative of energy is to move towards a chaotic state (hence entropy)
A2- Therefore the natural state of energy is chaotic random heat energy which cannot be utilised
A3- Therefore if the BB occurred the energy would automatically enter this state
B- Energy is required to decrease the entropy of an area
C- The universe itself is a closed system and thus requires an energy source outside itself in order to reduce the entropy of the energy in the universe
In order to support your argument you'll need to show that the net entropy of the Universe has decreased. You'll need to provide me with some evidence and not "my coffee gets cold".
So what was the net entropy of the Universe at t=0, Gilbo? And what affect do gravity and inflation have on net entropy?
Something from nothing defies natural laws....
Did these laws exist when "something came from nothing"?
Great then you should agree with me that evolution cannot be claimed as a fact
Science is based on the here and now..... YES things can be revised AFTER new evidence is found, however UNTIL that new evidence is found in order to be (actually) scientific you are required to follow the current evidence to where it leads, and it leads to the BB being supernatural.... Do you think it is scientific for you to not follow the current evidence in the hope that future evidence will vindicate your choice to do so? As I have stated before that is an argument to the future logical fallacy
What evidence? So far you've explained why coffee gets cold but you haven't really demonstrated that the net entropy of the Universe has decreased.
Claiming "years and years of research" isn't a demonstration of such a thing. Additionally how does claiming that the BB was a supernatural event contradicts anything research has shown... In fact it actually fills in the problems quite nicely....
Of course it does. Magic can explain anything.
You are complaining that we shouldn't accept a position due to future evidence that MAY demonstrate otherwise, this means you do not want to accept a position due to this potential future evidence, and since all things in science have the potential for future evidence to overturn them to take your position seriously is to not accept anything in science due to the potential of it being overturned... Thus you are destroying scientific investigation...
This is nonsense. You claimed that we should follow the evidence and accept that the BB was a supernatural event. But you haven't shown any evidence that would lead me to such a conclusion. Claiming that we should assume "God did it" because we don't know what caused the BB is what is destroying scientific investigation.
As I said if you cannot decrease the NET entropy then you cannot decrease the NET entropy...
Show me where net entropy has decreased and your argument that the BB defies the 2nd law might be valid.
Ergo to decrease the NET entropy in the universe is to require an energy source OUTSIDE of the universe..
But you haven't shown that it has decreased!
Pray tell how the NET entropy of the universe is reduced.... (This is what you are not understanding... The entropy of the universe is ALWAYS increasing, even if one locality is decreasing entropy it does so at the cost to another locality and at the same time it is still slightly increasing whilst it is decreasing- think of a bucket of water with holes in it being filled up)
When has it decreased?
You keep repeating yourself that the BB defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics but when was this decrease in net entropy?
However I already told you that your argument was void since I haven't explicitly stated who the creator was
Do you believe in God and if so which one?
Or do you want to argue that a creator which you don't even believe in was responsible for the BB?
additionally I demonstrated how such an argument defies your own atheistic beliefs and thus is really silly to try and use.
I'm not an atheist.
No I have demonstrated how the knowledge that we DO KNOW can point to a Creator... Can you please stop with this false "God of the Gaps" analogy
What doesn't point to a creator? Is there anything that could possibly falsify this "creator" that you refuse to reveal the origin of?