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 10:53 am

Hobbes wrote:Seriously, if you were getting at, isn't it possible that God had a Creator? Well the bible negates the possibility...

Actually, and even how strongly you might disagree, the Bible and its contents have no a priori bearance upon the philosophical question of the existence of deities.

Hobbes wrote:...so we'd have to cast the bible aside first. The mere thought of someone or something being more powerful than God should send a nice, cold, tingly shudder down the spine of every bible-believing Jew and Christian on the globe. Think of the implications. God could be overpowered, even destroyed.

That's only one case. I've invented myself hierarchical polytheisms for fantasy tales in which some gods might overpower each other but lack the power to destroy each other. You're overthinking it

. And it doesn't even need to be logically coherent, after all...

Hobbes wrote: Then we'd be left with this universe running on its own with no guide, no future, no heaven.

Pretty much a situation that could exist right now.

Hobbes wrote: It would be at best, Deism gone amuck, and at worst, atheism come true, leading straight toward nihilism.

Non sequitur. Purpose is an assumption separate from the existence of a deistic creator, and sometimes implicit in theism, but nonetheless separate. In my personal opinion, meaning is something acquired in the human condition and not preexistent, so I can't consider myself a nihilist.

Hobbes wrote: In other words, if God has to answer to someone or something more powerful that may not have our best interests in mind? Welcome to hell.

All this you are saying can very well apply to God, but you seem to have a hard time separating "deity" from (your own picture of) the "Judeo-Christian God". Look at the concepts of misotheism and dystheism which can be monotheistic.

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

Shermana wrote:Go ahead and create one.

I have just created a thread to debate the ozone layer and the order of creation so that we no longer go off-topic here.

adammfr · Post by **adammfr** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 3:32 pm

I see. But if I say that nothing can exist without an Ozone layer because it would meet massive radioactive death and nothing's been proven yet that can exist i such conditions, and you deny this fact, that's not special pleading. Got it!

I said I didn't have an answer to the Ozone question. I never denied any of that.
Just because I don't have an answer doesn't mean God is the answer.

Surely they must be aware that the "Big Bang" requires matter and energy to make a Bang! And something big enough to make that bang.

Ugh, please, no more double standards. We know this. What makes God so special that he doesn't require energy to exist, let alone that he doesn't need a creator?

If a big explosion needs a creator, why doesn't a deity? We both know which one is more complex.

The difference between our ideas, is that I am going by Occam's Razor, and you are going with something even more complex.

Just because something doesn't make sense to us, doesn't mean it isn't true. Saying that, I fully acknowledge that a god or many gods may exist, and even that I might have an afterlife of some kind of rebirth, but I can't say that I believe in any of that stuff because there is no proof for it.[/b]

Shermana · Post by **Shermana** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 3:35 pm

"
The difference between our ideas, is that I am going by Occam's Razor, and you are going with something even more complex. "

I use Occam's Razor all the time, and the idea that the Solar System formed on its own in the face of Entropy slices itself across Occam's Razor neatly into two. Logically, Design is far simpler.

I'll side with Newton and Leibniz, you don't have to.

And let me know when you have an explanation for free energy and pre-existent matter. Otherwise, if you don't mind those just having no explanation, any argument against God is special pleading 200%

If you accept that nothing can exist without an Ozone layer in place first but you can't accept that nothing existed without the Ozone layer in place first, that's also special pleading.

Basically all arguments against God boil down to extreme special pleading.

adammfr · Post by **adammfr** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 3:44 pm

I use Occam's Razor all the time, and the idea that the Solar System formed on its own in the face of Entropy slices itself across Occam's Razor neatly into two. Logically, Design is far simpler.

I could just as easily say, "The idea that an omniscient, omnipresent, invincible, and all powerful being existed for no reason slices itself across Occam's Razor neatly into two. Logically, this makes no sense."

Why do you only apply this kind of thinking to the universe, and don't feel a need to explain how God exists?

If you say that God could have existed without a creator, you must also concede that the universe could exist without a creator, or else you are using a double standard.

Doesn't that sound like reasonable logic? Both are complex, one of them is just a whole lot more complex (God).

Shermana · Post by **Shermana** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 3:49 pm

No you can't just as easily say that.

You'd have to prove logically how the Solar System could form itself and the Earth with life as you see it today (including electro-magnetic gravitational perfection of orbits and to not have everything tumble into each other) is more likely than the idea of "Aliens".

And if you ask where the "Aliens" came from, you have to be prepared to accept that if you don't ask the same thing for pre-existent matter and free energy, then you are by definition, special pleading.

The idea of "God" doesn't need a Creator, only Creation. Your concept of "God" needing a Creator is assuming what you think "God" is. Only matter itself needs an origin. But apparnetly you really don't care where free energy or pre-existent matter came from to the same degree you care where "God" came from.

My belief is similar to many Eastern beliefs that say the Cosmic Intelligence always existed without prior Creation.

adammfr · Post by **adammfr** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:00 pm

My belief is similar to many Eastern beliefs that say the Cosmic Intelligence always existed without prior Creation.

This is possible, but not provable, and not proof of God.

This topic was about finding proof of God. In your sense, I believe, you have defined God in such a way that he does not need proof to exist. You are saying that God is special in that he doesn't need a creator. See, you just came right out and said it.

The idea of "God" doesn't need a Creator, only Creation

You just came right out and made a very explicit example of special pleading. I don't accept your definition of God, as it is a definition that is defined so that it cannot be falsified, therefore it cannot even be discussed scientifically.

You'd have to prove logically how the Solar System could form itself and the Earth with life as you see it today

I don't have to prove anything. I don't have to know everything. I am not the one saying that I know how it got there.

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.

We are not discussing how the universe came into existence, we are discussing whether or not there is any proof that God made the universe come into existence.

you have to be prepared to accept that if you don't ask the same thing for pre-existent matter and free energy

We know for a fact that it got here some way. Due to Occam's Razor, it isn't God.

No atheist scientist claims to know what happened before existence. It is unknowable, and only religious people say they know what happened before existence. Atheists do not fill that lack of knowledge with an impractical idea.

Wyvern · Post by **Wyvern** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:00 pm

Shermana wrote:"
The difference between our ideas, is that I am going by Occam's Razor, and you are going with something even more complex. "

I use Occam's Razor all the time, and the idea that the Solar System formed on its own in the face of Entropy slices itself across Occam's Razor neatly into two. Logically, Design is far simpler.
How is design a simpler explanation? If you are going to accept design you then have to explain how the designer got there. Saying that god did it may be a simpler explanation it doesn't actually answer any questions nor is it logical.

I'll side with Newton and Leibniz, you don't have to.
When Newton produced his works on gravity did he invoke god as an explanation?

And let me know when you have an explanation for free energy and pre-existent matter. Otherwise, if you don't mind those just having no explanation, any argument against God is special pleading 200%
Just because you see lots of ads on the internet about free energy doesn't mean that it's real. Actually arguments FOR god are special pleading, after all the argument goes everything needs a cause except for god.

If you accept that nothing can exist without an Ozone layer in place first but you can't accept that nothing existed without the Ozone layer in place first, that's also special pleading.
Plenty of things existed before there was an ozone layer. The bigger problem is your inability to accept that plants and cyanobacteria are vastly different organisms, instead you hand wave the whole thing away by saying they both make oxygen so are the same.

Basically all arguments against God boil down to extreme special pleading.
Until you can explain why the creator god does not need a creator all arguments for god is special pleading.

Shermana · Post by **Shermana** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:01 pm

"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.

Plenty of things existed before there was an ozone layer.

Back this statement or retract it.

When Newton produced his works on gravity did he invoke god as an explanation?

You must be completely unaware of Newton's views.

I don't think you understand what "Free energy" means by your "ads" comment, nor do I think you understand what "Special Pleading" means.

adammfr · Post by **adammfr** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:08 pm

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.

No, see, it could possibly have been designed. I cannot completely disprove intelligent design, but I don't have to disprove it. You have to prove it.

I have just said that it makes more sense that it formed on its own, not that it definitely formed on its own.

You have to prove to me that God exists. I am content not having an explanation that doesn't make sense.