No, no, no - it’s use “prima fascia” is evidence on its own for flyingbaconboy’s god …
Any Latin geeks on here? how would that translate, first sheet maybe? Primary layer perhaps? Does it describe the first covering layer of muscle?
Perhaps @TheFlyingPig can tell us what it means?
Since he used it, he should explain its meaning.
And go down the rabbit-hole of attempting to coax a definition out of a theist who is reticent?
That word denotes a more “positive” spin on his reluctance to be forthcoming.
My take…his brain-cells are rusty from lack of use and no “grease of knowledge”.
Reticence and ambiguity are the smokescreen unevidenced faith hides behind sometimes, I almost have more respect for theists who take the blinkered intransigent position that faith is enough, almost, but not quite.
There is a reason the largest church in the largest religion still conducts it’s public displays of mumbo jumbo in a long dead language. Latin seem to lend some sort of poetic gravitas to claims that otherwise appear as they are, risible and slightly childish mantras from an archaic superstition.
Well there are plenty of people , many on this site , who claim that man invented the laws .I personally believe that we discovered the laws and only invented the language to describe what we discovered .
Q- So where did the laws come from ? Are they pre or post Big Bang ?
You are being disingenuous again. Given how many questions you dodge evade and ignore I don’t know that you deserve your ignorance be clarified, but I’ll grant you this boon.
Scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive, that is what the method of science has allowed us to create, explanations of the functioning of the universe. No one here has ever claimed nor even implied that humans created the functions those laws describe.
NB Now you can rehash your argumentum ad ingnorantiam fallacy with a god of the gaps polemic to ask tediously yet again where the functioning of the universe came from, as if not knowing justifies your unevidenced and superstitious claim it was created, by an equally unevidenced deity, using equally unevidenced and inexplicable magic, that of course has no explanatory powers whatsoever, and so adds a deity whilst telling us nothing at all.
I note with amusement the irony here, of theists claiming their deity created scientific laws, but yet never mention scientific theories, which are the pinnacle of scientific thought. Did your deity create species evolution? Or are you claiming a creation that acted independently of your deity? Or are you going to deny scientific facts when they inconveniently contradict core myths in your religion?
FWIW If anyone rejects scientific fact in a biased ad hoc fashion. in favour of unevidenced superstition, then why should anyone care what other nonsense they espouse about the scientific method, when they clearly haven’t the most basic or rudimentary understanding of it?
Pre-bang??? Who knows? YOU claim you “know” - yet you don’t understand the description of “laws” post bang theory…
All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on laws .
This would include the causation for the Big Bang .
[TheFlyingPig]
(http://forum.atheistrepublic.com/u/TheFlyingPig)
“All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on laws”
AND THE STUPID COMMENT OF THE MONTH GOES TO THE FLYING PIGGY.
Laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. We look at the world around us and attempt to DESCRIBE it.
No it doesn’t, this is still a lie no matter how many times you repeat it. accepted scientific facts are not based on assumption, though often at the start assumptions are useful, they then have to be properly evidenced, and that evidence properly scrutinised by peer review, and even then a broad consensus based on the same results being obtained consistently and objectively no matter who scrutinises them is needed. So you’re being your usually dishonest self here again.
A begging the question fallacy, what objective evidence can you demonstrate that it was “caused”, that the entire scientific world seems inexplicably to have missed?
You are a thoroughly dishonest fellow, doesn’t your religion claim its deity has a moratorium on fibbing?
All of the laws are known to be false/wrong, so I’d have guessed from your perspective it would be a good thing they are man made.
LOL - if “god” didn’t see fit to evidence it’s existence … why the fuck is it relying on flyingbaconboy to argue for it??? Oh, and using an archaic man made book as “evidence” …
Hahahahahaha…
Evidence of fairies 
provided by “nature” …
Regretfully, no. The very core of science is you do not make assumptions, but follow the evidence. Part of that process may involve assumptions because those are the best we have. For example, scientists studying the surface of Mars assume that crater formation and geological processes are similar to our planet.
Scientists know that this universe is not logical or orderly, we encounter crazy surprises almost every day. For example, one recent discovery is that galactic jets act like particle accelerators.
Science is an established and reliable method used to describe the universe. And we are just beginning to unravel the puzzle that is this known universe.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6MA7jLKnQ4c
Sailingbacon cannot “render” (play on bacon fat 
) a “god of the gaps” … FACE it pigboy 
YOU DO NOT KNOW
Who on this site has claimed that man invented the laws of physics?
That’s a big question. If I could answer it I’d be on my way to Oslo to receive a Nobel Prize. If you’re really interested in the answer, I suggest you study physics rather than theology.
You meant Stockholm, right? The science, literature and economics prizes are handed out in Stockholm. Only the Peace Prize is handed out in Oslo.
Right. Thanks for setting me straight. I’d hate to miss out on my Nobel Prize by going to the wrong city. LOL
Prima Facie is a legal concept, it means ‘at first glance, on the face of it’
Police arriving at a murder scene with a shot dead victim. They find a man leaning over the body holding a gun. THAT is prima facie evidence
What prima facie evidence is not is proof . Evidence is not a synonym for proof. All proof is certainly evidence, but not all evidence is proof.
It seems our little friend has misused the term. There is no prima facie evidence for the existence of god(s) of which I’m aware. However, there are lot of claims based on argument from ignorance,as well as my fav “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” (after this therefore because of this) to mention just two.**
**EG bloke does a little dance around the fire whilst praying for rain. Shortly after, there is rain. Conclusion: God did it due to the little dance and prayer.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Prima facie (/ˌpraɪmə ˈfeɪʃi, -ʃə, -ʃiiː/; from Latin prīmā faciē ) is a Latin expression meaning on its first encounter or at first sight .[1] The literal translation would be “at first face” or “at first appearance”, from the feminine forms of primus (“first”) and facies (“face”), both in the ablative case. In modern, colloquial and conversational English, a common translation would be “on the face of it”. The term prima facie is used in modern legal English (including both civil law and criminal law) to signify that upon initial examination, sufficient corroborating evidence appears to exist to support a case. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that, unless rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. The term is used similarly in academic philosophy. Most legal proceedings, in most jurisdictions, require a prima facie case to exist, following which proceedings may then commence to test it, and create a ruling.[2]
So you would disagree with the Hawking Centre for Theoretical Cosmology who say “ The physical laws that govern the Universe prescribe how an initial state evolves with time.“ . It’s ok though , you know best .
As you well remember I stated that “ Existence’s manifesting from a point one-trillionth the diameter of a proton in 10^-36 seconds “ is enough for me to hang my hat on as regards a First Cause - Creator - God as being the cause of the above .It doesn’t make it true but while there are no other contenders then it works for . It doesn’t work for you , that’s fine , we all live by faith . Me , that God holds it all together , and you and the rest , that the sun will rise tomorrow because it did yesterday . Forget all the fallacy mumbo jumbo , it doesn’t work .
