Bullshyt. Just because something is fundamental to a field doesn't mean it's covered in the introductory courses
Except you don't realize what you're saying is ridiculous.
If it's fundamental to the field, YOU MUST LEARN ABOUT IT.
You cannot learn algebra without understanding addition.
I'm still waiting to hear what physics courses a biologist would take that deal with the fundamental nature of spacetime
And you're going to continue waiting, because
1. I ain't nobody's dancing monkey. If I felt up to providing evidence for something, I'd do that, but you ain't my father, and you ain't old enough to be my father. And
2. it's irrelevant. I'm not a biologist; I studied biology. There's a difference, one that you don't seem to understand, as it's clear when you called yourself a physicist, you meant you took courses. At least, that's what it seems like.
Gravity warps spacetime but you don't discuss what implications that has for the nature of time in your introductory physics course; in fact, the only place where "gravity warps spacetime" is even dealt with in anything more than a perfunctory sense is in general relativity courses (NOT the special relativity that you "might" have encountered in your 1st or 2nd physics course) and in advanced astrophysics courses that assume knowledge of general relativity
What do you think you're saying here? Are you e-peening, right now, attempting to preen your prefucntory knowledge of a topic on the internet, like some kind of digital peacock?
Fam, we're not debating spacetime, we're debating the supernatural, and why you believe it makes sense for the supernatural to exist. Let's stick to that topic, because we've been from here to Timbuctoo.
You obviously didn't read the links, because they cited numerous peer-reviewed papers
Citing papers and writing a paper are completely different things. Why are you playing dumb?? Do you think you're debating a fool?
I can cite a paper in a debunk. Wake me up when those arguments are published in a scientific journal, and have undergone peer review, and stop fukking insulting my intelligence.
That's because the only thing physicists have come up with to explain the existence of spacetime are potential hypotheses
NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment | Science Mission Directorate
NASA has announced the results of an epic physics experiment which confirms the reality of a space-time vortex around our planet.
science.nasa.gov
This is a textbook circular argument. You don't want the supernatural to explain anything, therefore you declare it isn't allowed to explain anything
What explanative power does the supernatural have, Rhakim? What the hell are you talking about?!
You are out of your mind right now
But that's not my argument. My argument isn't "we don't know what happened therefore God did it". My argument is, "the nature of reality doesn't even allow a valid naturalistic explanation for how spacetime could come into being"
First of all, this argument is incredibly, and utterly wrong.
But further, that was not your argument. Your argument was:
Thus it seems perfectly logical that a supernatural being can exist outside of time and thus be eternal and non-created, but no natural, material realm can.
I'll accept you that this is you attempting to clarify, even though it's a backpedal, but you quite clearly started this by telling me it's perfectly logical (to you) that a supernatural being can exist outside of time. That's a god of the gaps argument. We don't know, therefore it's logical (to you) that a supernatural being exists there
Sorry, but that's what you said
You're playing with words. Evidence exists in reality, but "measurable" is not a requirement of it
Breh, you sound like xCivicx right now. This is nonsensical.
For example, I have plenty of evidence my wife loves me, but there's no objective way to measure that, and any claimed measurement for to prove she "loves" me could also be explained away by other factors
Your wife is still with you. That is measurable, in that we can see, and count the amount of days/months/years you've been together. That's one way. Another is that when you die, if she is still alive, she will almost certainly cry. That is a indisputable sign that someone loves you, and that can be verified through physical means.
The same goes for numerous concepts we all base our lives around (like free will, moral truth, any experiential feelings, or philosophy and logic in general), and yet we still base our lives around those beliefs based on the impossible-to-measure evidence that we've seen
And yet, none of those concepts matter in the realm of the hard sciences, therefore, have no bearing on this topic.
Now, for the last time-- let's take this to the DMs.