No one will ever know

[Spaceman13]

Does anyone have "proof" that God/Satan exists? If there is evidence I'd sure like to hear it. This being a debate site we should have proof but I can't think of any.

[Ragna]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 163330.htm

ScienceDaily (Mar. 16, 2011) — If the latest theory of Tom Weiler and Chui Man Ho is right, the Large Hadron Collider -- the world's largest atom smasher that started regular operation last year -- could be the first machine capable of causing matter to travel backwards in time.


http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/short ... s-sab.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/scien ... 13lhc.html

http://www.zimbio.com/CERN+Hadron+Colli ... el+Futures

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/13/migh ... -to-destr/

It could have something to do with Hyperdrive Propulsion...but maybe unrelated.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hyperdri ... 3687.shtml

Might have something to do with wormholes. Wormholes would explain A LOT.

http://www.universetoday.com/12732/larg ... travelers/

Great, but do you realize all of these are just speculation? Look at what I said:

I'd say anything regarding time travel is highly speculative right now.

Even if time travel turned to be right, I doubt any of those theories you refer to includes a "goddidit". They will provide, if scientific, a factual and naturalistic explanation.

The issue that Cyanobacteria could not exist without an Ozone layer already in place...kinda...proves...Genesis 100% correct.

Don't confuse, like you did in some other thread, modern and ancient organisms, nor modern and ancient conditions. However, I'm not going to argue cyanobacteria here since it's irrelevant. This is so because even given that evolution were wrong, Genesis would still be 0% reliable. You create a false dichotomy.

[100%atheist]

I'd say if particles can time travel, that might be indicative of some kind of Higher power....

Shermana, please stop telling nonsense. Particles do travel in time. And yes, the electroweak INTERACTION (which you call "Electroweak" ?) is discovered quite a while ago. And no, the discovery of Higgs Boson will NOT make a dent in the Big Bang theory, but o0n contrary the opposite is true.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Let us know if you have questions about science and physics, but please, again please, stop making things up.

[Shermana]

"Don't confuse, like you did in some other thread, modern and ancient organisms, nor modern and ancient conditions. However, I'm not going to argue cyanobacteria here since it's irrelevant. This is so because even given that evolution were wrong, Genesis would still be 0% reliable. You create a false dichotomy."

What does this mean exactly?

I clearly proved in the other thread, that Cyanobacteria could not exist on its own in the beginning without an ozone layer already in place. If you say that this would make Genesis 0% reliable, even if Macro-evolution were wrong, you are spouting a backless claim. False dichotomy? No, YOU created a false dichotomy in this case by calling it 0% reliable off the spot without analyzing the argument.

As for the speculation, if you have counter-speculation against what they said, ESPECIALLY regarding the wormholes, let's hear it.

You know what else is pure speculation? Macro-evolution, but I don't see you fighting against that one in the Science board.

And 100%atheist, please try actively debunking what I said instead of telling your opinion how I "don't know what I'm talking about", that would actually contribute to the debate! I don't need to include the word "Interaction" to those who know what Electroweak is. It's in a way like saying "Evolution" without "Theory of". As for making a dent in the Big Bang theory, it would disprove the sheer randomness of it in my humble opinion, combined with what is being re-discovered abotu the Compton effect, everything would change about it.

[Ragna]

"Don't confuse, like you did in some other thread, modern and ancient organisms, nor modern and ancient conditions. However, I'm not going to argue cyanobacteria here since it's irrelevant. This is so because even given that evolution were wrong, Genesis would still be 0% reliable. You create a false dichotomy."

What does this mean exactly?

In some other thread you had a discussion with Nygreenguy about monkey and "monkey-like" ancestor. I propose that maybe such a distinction exists between pre- and post-ozone layer cyanobacteria (I'm just suggesting, but since it's irrelevant, I won't expand any more in this thread). You probably confused "some other thread" with "the other thread" you had in mind.

I clearly proved in the other thread, that Cyanobacteria could not exist on its own in the beginning without an ozone layer already in place. If you say that this would make Genesis 0% reliable,...

I say that Genesis, by itself, is not reliable, independently of which scientific theory is true. It's a mythical book, it has to be checked externally to see if it has some bearing on reality or none. Disproving evolution is not such a check, since aliens could be manipulating mutations via remote control and there could very well be no god in this scenario. Also, all of our modern science has disproved most of the creation myth (there's no water above the sky, the stars came first, then Sun then Earth, etc.).

...even if Macro-evolution were wrong, you are spouting a backless claim.

Which claim I made is unsupported?

False dichotomy? No, YOU created a false dichotomy in this case by calling it 0% reliable off the spot without analyzing the argument.

Genesis is not reliable unless it contains true knowledge. Any knowledge Genesis could've had would've been obtained without the scientific method (because of the time), and as expected, is not reliable, because the people who wrote it wrote a myth. Like the Greek Theogony.

As for the speculation, if you have counter-speculation against what they said, ESPECIALLY regarding the wormholes, let's hear it.

Why should I? I've made no claim that they are neither true nor false, because it has no bearing on the main topic of this thread.

You know what else is pure speculation? Macro-evolution, but I don't see you fighting against that one in the Science board.

This is as off-topic as the previous quote. It's ok that you express your thoughts about macroevolution, but this is about proofs for God and Satan.

[Shermana]

" It's a mythical book, i"

This statement totally ignores what I said about the Cyanobacteria. Prove its 100% mythical in this regard or retract.

Your suggestion assumes there is some Cyanobacteria that could have withstood 10x the UV as today on its own. I disagree.

Now prove that the Cyanobacteria could have lived without an Ozone layer or kindly retract your claim that Genesis is mythical, because on this regard it's 100% scientifically backed.

If you have no counter-speculation to the Wormholes, well then, I'd say that's proof of some kind of intelligence at hand with the time travel thing, which you call speculation, but don't offer any counter to.

And it's not off topic at all, it's completely on topic. You're not against one speculation, but you are against another which proves my case.

Shifting the goalposts in a way. Modifying the playing field to suit what you want.

[Ragna]

" It's a mythical book, i"

This statement totally ignores what I said about the Cyanobacteria. Prove its 100% mythical in this regard or retract.

I've said twice that I'm not debating cyanobacteria. That isolated "quote" was referred to Genesis, but you probably know this. This strikes me as quote-mining.

Your suggestion assumes there is some Cyanobacteria that could have withstood 10x the UV as today on its own. I disagree.

Now prove that the Cyanobacteria could have lived without an Ozone layer or kindly retract your claim that Genesis is mythical, because on this regard it's 100% scientifically backed.

On which regard? You seem to have a hard time understanding that cyanobacteria not withstanding UV has no bearance on Genesis being accurate. As far as I know, the writers of Genesis didn't have any knowledge of the Young Earth nor microorganisms.

For me to retract anything, there should be a verse saying something like:

And then the Lord made proto-cyanobacteria, but he warned them: "O, do not develop poperly before the Ozone Layer is set, or you will face the wrath of my 10x UV radiation!" And God made the Ozone Layer, and cyanobacteria obeyed. And the evening and the morning were the ? day.

To my knowledge, there's none. In which day did God create the Ozone Layer, by the way? Support scripturally.

If you have no counter-speculation to the Wormholes, well then, I'd say that's proof of some kind of intelligence at hand with the time travel thing, which you call speculation, but don't offer any counter to.

Your ability to proclaim non sequuntur as arguments stuns me. Even if it's incredible for me to have to point this out too, that I have or show no counter-speculation does not prove your speculation true, since speculations can't, by definition, be proven true (or they'd stop being speculations).

I know it's hard to stay on topic, but the topic of this thread is evidence for God and Satan.

[Shermana]

Well if you're not gonna debate Cyanobacteria, then kindly retract your claim that Genesis would be 0% reliable. Say that it's possibly reliable involving the order of plants first, sun second.

Are you aware that Genesis states plants first, sun second? That might clear up the confusion.

None of these arguments are non-sequitur.

It's just that when facts and evidence are presented that prove the countrary wrong, the goalposts get changed every time it seems.

Basically, there could be no such thing as plants before an ozone layer. Impossible.

Thus, Genesis Creationism is by default correct.

That would be evidence of "God".

If you don't accept this argument as valid, that's your problem.

Accusing me of not being on topic is proof of not wanting to play on a level playing field. This surely proves a Creator and that Plant life somehow existed before a sun.

(PS the Ozone layer would probably have something to do with the firmament)

What kind of evidence of God would you accept exactly? You don't want to offer a counter-speculation to these scientists, you don't want to accept any idea that time-traveling Wormhole-shifting particles is evidence of any kind of Design, so what kind of evidence would you even accept?

I'm somehow thinking...none.

[Ragna]

Well if you're not gonna debate Cyanobacteria, then kindly retract your claim that Genesis would be 0% reliable. Say that it's possibly reliable involving the order of plants first, sun second.

Are you aware that Genesis states plants first, sun second? That might clear up the confusion.

None of these arguments are non-sequitur.

Cyanobacteria are not even eukaryotes, let alone plants. Adapting the scriptures to your needs is another non sequitur.

I will repeat: Genesis is not reliable because it's a mythical story, any knowledge it has needs to be externally checked. I stand by this claim.

It's just that when facts and evidence are presented that prove the countrary wrong, the goalposts get changed every time it seems.

Basically, there could be no such thing as plants before an ozone layer. Impossible.

Thus, Genesis Creationism is by default correct.

That would be evidence of "God".

I will patiently repeat why this logic is flawed.

There's not a dichotomy between "current scientific theory" and "creationism". For Biblical creationism to be true, we would need another world (one with a sea above the atmosphere, to begin with). Therefore, creationism is not a scientific position.

If you don't accept this argument as valid, that's your problem.

That I don't accept flawed logic as valid is not something which can be considered a problem, since it by definition is invalid.

Accusing me of not being on topic is proof of not wanting to play on a level playing field.

Accusing you of being off-topic is something I do because you're off-topic.

This surely proves a Creator and that Plant life somehow existed before a sun.

No life on Earth has existed before the Sun, because Earth didn't exist before the Sun. Your claim blatantly negates all knowledge in the fields of biology and astrophysics.

(PS the Ozone layer would probably have something to do with the firmament)

The answer to this is the same than that for your erroneous comparison of plants and bacteria (which form different domains of life). You cannot fit reality into Genesis as you please. Well you can, but it will damage credibility and render your logic invalid.

At the end of your post you speculate that nothing will convince me of God. I'm thinking something similar: any scientific knowledge available to you today, no matter how advanced, will be attributable to a millennia old book, no matter how many errors we commit and things we invent (like placing an prokaryote into eukaryotes).

What kind of evidence of God would you accept exactly?

Depends on which God, but my requirements are that of any critical mind.

You don't want to offer a counter-speculation to these scientists, you don't want to accept any idea that time-traveling Wormhole-shifting particles is evidence of any kind of Design, so what kind of evidence would you even accept?

I'll make something clear again. I've refused to speculate because regardless of which scientific theory is true, there's no supernatural hole left. You simply go on with this assumption believing it's true that if any of these is proven, God is true. This is false.

I'm somehow thinking...none.

To begin with, I don't accept fallacious logic.

[Shermana]

1. "Depends on which God, but my requirements are that of any critical mind. "

You could have filled in some criteria other than shifting the playing field but you didn't. Now's your chance. Name what you'd call proof for whatever concept of "God", whether Christian Theist or Deist or Taoist even. What do YOU think a "God" is, and what would you personally take for proof.

2. The prevanlent theory as I understand is that Cyanobacteria caused the Ozone layer. What Eukaryotes do you believe could survive 10x the UV radiation and give off oxygen?

3. "No life on Earth has existed before the Sun, because Earth didn't exist before the Sun. Your claim blatantly negates all knowledge in the fields of biology and astrophysics. "

Back up this statement with facts or retract.

[Ragna]

1. "Depends on which God, but my requirements are that of any critical mind. "

You could have filled in some criteria other than shifting the playing field but you didn't. Now's your chance. Name what you'd call proof for whatever concept of "God", whether Christian Theist or Deist or Taoist even. What do YOU think a "God" is, and what would you personally take for proof.

Since I've recently became ignostic, for my personal stance, I first demand you to provide a meaningful definition of God. As far as I understand, the universe is "all which exists", so there's no room for a creator.

Define the nature of existence beyond the universe and it will be meaningful. While you're at it, I'd also like any proof that there is a divine consciousness in the universe with volition, desires, intention, etc.

Not to be repetitive, but doing this will get you off-topic, since this thread is not about my personal beliefs.

2. The prevanlent theory as I understand is that Cyanobacteria caused the Ozone layer. What Eukaryotes do you believe could survive 10x the UV radiation and give off oxygen?

Just for your knowledge, prokaryotes come before eukaryotes. Prokaryotes are coreless cells (bacteria and archaea), eukaryotes are the rest (including plants, animal, fungi and protozoa). But there are a lot of organisms even today that can survive extreme conditions even worse than that, including vacuum. Take a look at extremophiles.

3. "No life on Earth has existed before the Sun, because Earth didn't exist before the Sun. Your claim blatantly negates all knowledge in the fields of biology and astrophysics. "

Back up this statement with facts or retract.

In normal conditions I would, but I don't have to provide evidence for the most common knowledge of astrophysics and biology, which is the consensus among scientists. You're the one negating this in favor of a millennia-old book, and so the burden of proof is for you. This is not an evasion, since a quick search through Wikipedia will tell you the stimate age of the Earth and the Sun, and common knowlegde in star formation physics will let you know you how planets form after their stars.

But do so in a separate thread . Or maybe I'll create one tomorrow.

I remind you your (unsupported) claim which triggered mine:

This surely proves a Creator and that Plant life somehow existed before a sun.