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]

Sorry Ragna, but this thread is what it's about. So if you have a basic simple explanation that disproves what I said, post it here. Otherwise, talking about my maturity may be against the rules.

You have not proven what you claim, nor have proven that it's relevant to what this thread is about by proving the Genesis 100% accurate (which would be needed). I have not spoken about your maturity, I have said that attitudes and behaviors speak for people's maturity, and I don't think that's disrespectful.

[Shermana]

I have proven that you absolutely refuse to copy and paste anything to this thread, where its relevant, what you believe came before the Ozone.

What I meant to say about Genesis is that it's 100% correct in this regard, I don't know where the light source came from. But you apparently are stumbling to bring evidence to prove what would create the Ozone layer other than saying "go to this link". Well, how about we keep it HERE where the Thread is relevant.

As for 'attitudes" I don't think you're allowed to comment on my attitude either, of what you think it is, or how it reflects on my maturity.

If you feel I have attitude problems I'm asking for proof of your counterclaim, that certainly speaks volumes, but I won't say of what.

[Ragna]

I have proven that you absolutely refuse to copy and paste anything to this thread, where its relevant, what you believe came before the Ozone.

What I meant to say about Genesis is that it's 100% correct in this regard, I don't know where the light source came from. But you apparently are stumbling to bring evidence to prove what would create the Ozone layer other than saying "go to this link". Well, how about we keep it HERE where the Thread is relevant.

Unless you prove Genesis to be 100% correct, something which disproves or proves anything other than proving Genesis 100% correct will not have any bearing on the existence of God, which is the current topic.

You have not presented such evidence, but you just claim you do.

As for 'attitudes" I don't think you're allowed to comment on my attitude either, of what you think it is, or how it reflects on my maturity.

If you feel I have attitude problems I'm asking for proof of your counterclaim, that certainly speaks volumes, but I won't say of what.

I think I can certainly comment on what I observe in this thread if I do so respectfully, as far as I know. I specially commented that impression because it striked me as strange, but I didn't derail the topic, rather addressed a post.

[Shermana]

If I can prove that oxygen-producing life wouldn't exist before an Ozone, that would strike a blow against the "Naturalistic" idea that the Sun came first to produce what we see today. Thus, it would be a big suggestion towards Design. And thus a Designer.

And as I said about the Free energy and pre-existent matter, if you don't question these equally, you are in fact specially pleading.+

[Ragna]

If I can prove that oxygen-producing life wouldn't exist before an Ozone, that would strike a blow against the "Naturalistic" idea that the Sun came first to produce what we see today.

This is simply not correct (and, also, in fact what you seek to prove is something I already debunked in the adequate section), as I stated here:

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.

Thus, it would be a big suggestion towards Design. And thus a Designer.

You have not proven the previous claim, let alone this.

And as I said about the Free energy and pre-existent matter, if you don't question these equally, you are in fact specially pleading.+

Another derailment of the topic. These are science issues, and there's a forum rule concerned with this special thing:

4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

If you can't use 5. to prove your claim and show that it's relevant to the existence of God here, at least follow 4. and go to the science section to debate this non-religious issues.

[Wyvern]

Wyvern, please quote from that link where it says they'd be able to survive without the Ozone at such levels specifically. I've shown that NASA states it would be about 10x the radiation, since it wouldbe 6.7x at 2/3 gone. Thanks.

No you've extrapolated from NASA by stating the levels would be 10x. If you want to dismiss out of hand cyanobacterias ability to respond to UV radiation that is not my concern.

I can't recall anyone ever getting a sunburn from lying out at night.

And I can't recall any experiments of testing people lying out without the Ozone layer.

Since according to you there was no sun why is this relevant?

As for the massive radioactive and lighting power of Active Galactic Nuclei, I will look into this further and get back on this.

I thought you ascribed to Occams razor but instead of going with the simplest explanation you bring up quasars and active galactic nuclei?

Either way, this issue is only about ONE verse in Genesis, not Genesis altogether. I can discuss the rest of Genesis later, but this about one particular element of it.

You are free to bring up any aspect of Genesis you wish.

[Shermana]

"If you want to dismiss out of hand cyanobacterias ability to respond to UV radiation that is not my concern. "

The NASA Simulation was at 6.7x the UV at .333 x the Ozone. What am I dismissing? What specifically?

[Shermana]

"Another derailment of the topic. These are science issues, and there's a forum rule concerned with this special thing:"

No, this is not derailing the topic.

If you blindly accept Free Energy and Pre-existent Matter, but you refuse to accept the idea of a Pre-existent "Creator" of this matter, it is in fact Special pleading. Why is it not?

[Zzyzx]

.

I use Occam's Razor all the time . . .

The uninformed and unscientific often apply their conception of "Occam's Razor" indiscriminately and without understanding. They typically ignore the basic requirement that alternative explanations are EQUALLY applicable.

Religionists very frequently claim that "goddidit" is the simplest "explanation" for nearly anything, so that is what they prefer. I agree that it is simple (actually simplistic) and that it is preferred by people who like simple "solutions" and "explanations" (without concern with whether they are right or not).

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects.[2] For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place.
The principle is often inaccurately summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one." This summary is misleading, however, since the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions.[3] That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories (see justifications section below) until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation. Philosophers also add that the exact meaning of "simplest" can be nuanced in the first place.[4]
Bertrand Russell offered what he called "a form of Occam's Razor" which was "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities."[5]

Occam's razor is attributed to the 14th-century English logician, theologian and Franciscan friar Father William of Ockham (d'Okham) although the principle was familiar long before.[6] The words attributed to Occam are "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem), although these actual words are not to be found in his extant works.[7] The saying is also phrased as pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate ("plurality should not be posited without necessity").[8] To quote Isaac Newton, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."[9]

In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[10][11] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.[12][13][14][15]
In 2005 Marcus Hutter mathematically proved[16] that shorter computable theories have more weight when calculating the expected value of an action across all computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations (universal artificial intelligence).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

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

CORRECTION: All arguments FOR "god" boil down to extreme special pleading.

"I do not accept your fanciful tales of knowledge about an invisible, undetectable, supernatural "god" as being truthful, accurate or demonstrable" is NOT "special pleading". "Those tales are true because the bible says they are true (or church dogma says they are true)" IS special pleading.

[Shermana]

"They typically ignore the basic requirement that alternative explanations are EQUALLY applicable. "

But of course there's no need to prove how a Solar System forms on its own in the face of Entropy. None. One day Science will figure it out......

Especially that pesky Gravity thing, maybe the Hadron Collider will provide some details on this "magical time traveling" Higgs Boson.