Name one thing that isn't material.
Light and other forms of energy. The typical dichotomy used to analyze the universe is: matter vs. energy. Of course Einstein muddled that when he discovered that matter can be changed into energy, but the dichotomy is still in standard use. The Four Fundamental Forces: Gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are
not material.
The new paradigm of elementary particles--quarks, leptons and bosons (one level deeper than the paradigm I learned in high school 55 years ago)--spells this out in more detail. By going to a lower level it has dispensed with the matter/energy dichotomy. But outside the academy's Cosmology Wing, the rest of us still use the convenient dichotomy of matter versus energy.
So light, indeed, is not material.
Have you looked at the definition of the word supernatural? Whatever caused the big bang is beyond what science can understand, beyond what they can test.
You keep forgetting the "YET." How many scientists have you met who just throw up their hands and say, "We'll never understand the Big Bang so I guess we'll all have to start going to church"?
I repeat: We've only known about the Big Bang for approximately one century. That's not enough time to completely understand it. And once again, I have to repeat these things to you because you appear to be completely unable to comprehend them, which makes your participation on a science board pointless for you and a big pain in the ass for everyone else who is thinking twenty times faster than you are.
I feel like I've got a precocious seven-year-old here. You can pronounce the words and you have a basic understand of the meanings of a few of them, but
you can't understand the sentences in which they're used.
Which brings me back to my oft-repeated observation: Religious people are stuck in the mind-set of a seven-year old. Believing in God
in adulthood is not qualitatively different from believing in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.
There is no science for the creation of LAWS OF PHYSICS or for PHYSICS CONSTANTS.
Again, you omit the word
YET. Many of these laws (e.g. relativity) and constants (e.g. the speed of light) have only been known for approximately one century. You need to be more patient as we now struggle to figure out why they are what they are.
Again, this impatience belies the mindset of a seven-year-old. "I don't want to have to go to school for eleven more years before I can vote. I want to do it right now!"
Whatever created those is, by definition, supernatural.
How the hell can you know this, considering that we've barely begun the investigation into their origin? Again: no patience, no maturity, no ability to comprehend science.
What's wrong with "I don't know?"
One of many wonderful lines of dialog that Gene Roddenberry (and his staff) wrote for the Star Trek franchise was:
The basic statement of science, indeed the foundation of science, is "I don't know." [Spoken by Data in TNG if I'm not mistaken, and surely not quoted accurately.]
There is no evidence that anything material existed prior to the big bang.
Once again the seven-year-old comes back to haunt us. I've explained that at least three times and this makes four. The total of matter and antimatter in the universe is zero. In other words: nothing material exists now. All that exists is
order and the Second Law of Thermodynamics permits local increases in order.
If you don't want us to think of you as a hopeless child, then please
STOP ACTING LIKE ONE! Why do you need everything to be repeated four times? If you disagree with the explanation, well that's okay, but then it's up to you to state your disagreement. You don't get to come back three times and speak as though
the explanation was never posted. That is trolling and it's a violation of the rules of the website. And it makes you look like a complete fool. I don't understand why you enjoy that.
Has it ever occurred to anyone how much more intelligent the discourse of this forum would be if only more people would put Mazulu on ignore? Even if only as an experiment for a week?
I'm holding onto the hope that this discussion is very instructive to the young people who log on just to see how science works. If we can deal with Mazulu, then we can handle anything.
Martyrdom in Islam, for example, is all about submission to Islam, to what is good and what is bad (jihad) conveyed through the prophet Muhammad, it is to a cause; surrender and peace through action, beliefs and practices, thought, word, and deed.
But everything the Prophet conveyed was (according to doctrine) revealed to him by God. If there is no God then Mohammed is just one more wacko. Who's going to become a martyr for the sake of a wacko who cannot in fact promise them eternal life starting out with 72 virgins?
Of course, many Muslims don't seek martyrdom, but they will lie through their teeth regarding whatever has been conveyed through Muhammad; Islam.
Of course. This is simply politics and manipulation, and imaginary theology is a great way to found a political system. But it's not one that the founders would die for, since they're in on the scam.
But your premise is that even the
followers are in on the scam. You still haven't explained why
they would be willing to die for it.
Lots of people were willing to die for Hitler who didn't really agree with him, because he had the power to kill their entire family if they didn't obey. But imaginary gods don't have that power. So why would anyone be willing to die for an imaginary god?