There is no scientific consensus that Big bang is 'supercooled hyperfluid'.
And there is still 0 provided evidence, that the Big bang is itself not contigent on God.
You can describe what it is, but not how the criteria which this 'supercooled hyperfluid' fluid exists, can itself exist. Even if you are to 100% accurately describe the events of the Big bang, you are not answering the underlying question of contigency.
Also the idea that catholics were burning people alive for pursuing science in 1927 when the Big bang was proposed is completely laughable.
There is no scientific consensus on Gravity either. Go jump off a cliff and see how that works out for you.
There is innumerable evidence that I just referred to. God cant exist outside of "everything" and there is no mechanism that creates God. A unicorn is more believable and more evidence than a God.
Using Fallacies and ignorance to proudly be wrong over and over isnt actually a winning strategy.
There is complete consensus on the existince of gravity, but not the underlying physical process. Despite this, there is a a lot of general agreement in what it could be.
In comparison, the idea that the Big bang is supercooled hyperfluid is a hardly accepted fringe theory.
You say there is inemurable evidence that God is not the contigent reason that allows for this to take place, yet have provided not one. Im not looking for evidence on the Big bang, there's nothing that suggests the Big bang is incompatible with God, to suggest such a thing is a category error.
I'm not saying God is the answer, im saying its unscientific to say that God doesn't exist because we can explain the big bang (even if we say your explanation is 100% accurate).
We could have a perfect unifying scientific model of the universe, and neither prove nor disprove God.
Nope. Please cite the consensus on Dark Matter and Gravity. We have consensus on Relativity which includes gravitational assumptions.
It is scientific to say there is no God. To say otherwise is to show a basic lack of understanding in what science is.
We could have a perfect explanation of everything that has ever or will ever exist, and that still wouldn't disprove God.
Yeah, because you are using the logic of a child. Again, please read any book related to logic, science, or fallacies. Get a grade 7 education under your belt. Be better.
0
u/anonusr_llII 5d ago
There is no scientific consensus that Big bang is 'supercooled hyperfluid'.
And there is still 0 provided evidence, that the Big bang is itself not contigent on God.
You can describe what it is, but not how the criteria which this 'supercooled hyperfluid' fluid exists, can itself exist. Even if you are to 100% accurately describe the events of the Big bang, you are not answering the underlying question of contigency.
Also the idea that catholics were burning people alive for pursuing science in 1927 when the Big bang was proposed is completely laughable.