No one will ever know

Spaceman13 · Post by **Spaceman13** » Sun Apr 24, 2011 2:30 am

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 · Post by **Ragna** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:12 pm

Shermana wrote:"The burden of proof is on the person who says that they know how it happened, not the person who says he doesn't know."

If you say that it couldn't possibly have been designed, and it has to have formed on its own, the burden of proof is on you. All I've done so far is prove the Ozone layer is necessary for any plant life and thus the model of a Sun first is impossible.

Shermana, this doesn't make any sense. That the ozone layer is necessary for viridiplantae or some closely-related alga to exist cannot be logically connected to the Sun. Deal with this.

Stating that the Sun didn't came before the Earth is a potent claim, and one I invite you to provide evidence for here. You were really willing to discuss all these things, you even said that the topic was evaded: now there's a place for it.

Also, to the new poster:

adammfr wrote:[...]Both atheists and theists must believe an absurdity:

Atheism: A single cell did not need a creator.
Theism: An infinitely complex super-entity did not need a creator.

I believe the lesser of two improbabilities, because, we know that one of them must have happened.

First, nice to meet you.

And going to what I want to address: abiogenesis is not such an absurdity, in fact it's a pretty coherent model. If you are interested, you can check this video (skip to 2:55) for one of the most plausible origins I've seen of the first proto-cells.

Wyvern · Post by **Wyvern** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:12 pm

Shermana wrote:"The burden of proof is on the person who says that they know how it happened, not the person who says he doesn't know."

If you say that it couldn't possibly have been designed, and it has to have formed on its own, the burden of proof is on you. All I've done so far is prove the Ozone layer is necessary for any plant life and thus the model of a Sun first is impossible.
And you keep ignoring the fact that plants are not cyanobacteria. Yes plants need the ozone layer to survive but cyanobacteria do not. Continually proving something which is not being disputed and has nothing to do with the argument doesn't really help you.

When Newton produced his works on gravity did he invoke god as an explanation?
You must be completely unaware of Newton's views.
You never like simply answering a question do you? Did he invoke god as an explanation for gravity?

I don't think you understand what "Free energy" means by your "ads" comment, nor do I think you understand what "Special Pleading" means.
Please explain what you think it is then. I am quite aware of what special pleading is and that god can not logically exist without it.

Shermana · Post by **Shermana** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:22 pm

Ragna wrote:
Shermana wrote:"The burden of proof is on the person who says that they know how it happened, not the person who says he doesn't know."

If you say that it couldn't possibly have been designed, and it has to have formed on its own, the burden of proof is on you. All I've done so far is prove the Ozone layer is necessary for any plant life and thus the model of a Sun first is impossible.
Shermana, this doesn't make any sense. That the ozone layer is necessary for viridiplantae or some closely-related alga to exist cannot be logically connected to the Sun. Deal with this.

Yes plants need the ozone layer to survive but cyanobacteria do not.
Back this statement up with facts or kindly retract.

Stating that the Sun didn't came before the Earth is a potent claim, and one I invite you to provide evidence for here. You were really willing to discuss all these things, you even said that the topic was evaded: now there's a place for it.

What doesn't make sense? How do you suppose the Ozone layer came to be then?

Ragna · Post by **Ragna** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:25 pm

Shermana wrote:
Ragna wrote:
Shermana wrote:"The burden of proof is on the person who says that they know how it happened, not the person who says he doesn't know."

If you say that it couldn't possibly have been designed, and it has to have formed on its own, the burden of proof is on you. All I've done so far is prove the Ozone layer is necessary for any plant life and thus the model of a Sun first is impossible.
Shermana, this doesn't make any sense. That the ozone layer is necessary for viridiplantae or some closely-related alga to exist cannot be logically connected to the Sun. Deal with this.

Stating that the Sun didn't came before the Earth is a potent claim, and one I invite you to provide evidence for here. You were really willing to discuss all these things, you even said that the topic was evaded: now there's a place for it.
What doesn't make sense? How do you suppose the Ozone layer came to be then?

I will answer this question (and in fact have already answered) in the pertinent thread; the one I linked.

Shermana · Post by **Shermana** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:26 pm

Regarding Newton's beliefs and gravity:

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newt ... ious_views"

Newton's view has been considered to be close to deism but differed in that he invoked God as a special physical cause to keep the planets in orbits.[20] He warned against using the law of gravity to view the universe as a mere machine, like a great clock. He said:
Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.[8]

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" [pantokratr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.[4]

Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.[21]

To Ragna, please feel free to copy and paste your explanation of how the Ozone layer came to be and how it contradicts Genesis, on this thread here. Since its relevant to the topic you know.

Ragna · Post by **Ragna** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:34 pm

Shermana wrote:To Ragna, please feel free to copy and paste your explanation of how the Ozone layer came to be and how it contradicts Genesis, on this thread here. Since its relevant to the topic you know.

It is not. This might be the 20th time I say this, but there's no dichotomy between "scientific theory X" and "Genesis creationism", and in fact Genesis creationism is, as a whole, irreconciliable with reality unless you misrepresent what it says. Check Gen 1:7.

Shermana · Post by **Shermana** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:34 pm

Just because you think its not relevant, doesn't make it so. And just because you think its not consistent with reality, doesn't make it so. And Arguing Ad Nauseum 20 times the same thing doesn't cement it.

If you want to ignore my request for you to copy and paste your explanation of how the Ozone layer came to be and what existed before the Ozone layer to produce the Oxygen, feel free.

Wyvern · Post by **Wyvern** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:36 pm

Shermana wrote:Regarding Newton's beliefs and gravity:

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newt ... ious_views"
Newton's view has been considered to be close to deism but differed in that he invoked God as a special physical cause to keep the planets in orbits.[20] He warned against using the law of gravity to view the universe as a mere machine, like a great clock. He said:
Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.[8]

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" [pantokratr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.[4]

Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.[21]
Which just demonstrates that even the most learned of men can be wrong. Kepler described the planetary orbits without ascribing it to god. This demonstrates mans desire to explain things even when they have no actual idea. Something Newton did not undestand is the causation of gravity so he ascribed it to god. Even to this day we do not know fully what causes gravity but we have a good hypothesis about it which is why CERN was built. If we would just say god did it to everything which we don't understand and let it go at that little past fire would ever have been invented.

Shermana · Post by **Shermana** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:36 pm

"Which just demonstrates that even the most learned of men can be wrong"

You'll have to demonstrate he was wrong or retract.

Wyvern · Post by **Wyvern** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:39 pm

Shermana wrote:Just because you think its not relevant, doesn't make it so. And just because you think its not consistent with reality, doesn't make it so. And Arguing Ad Nauseum 20 times the same thing doesn't cement it.

If you want to ignore my request for you to copy and paste your explanation of how the Ozone layer came to be and what existed before the Ozone layer to produce the Oxygen, feel free.

Personally I want to see you prove the sun came after plants specifically how plants came to be on a world that had no solar radiation to warm it.