Many Atheists DO Believe in the Supernatural

[RickD]

RickD wrote: ↑ when you say that there's nothing in existence that you CALL God, that's the same as you ASSERTING that there's nothing in existence that IS God

kenny wrote:
No it isn’t the same. If I meant “nothing in existence that IS God” I would have said it that way.

Of course it's the same. That's why when I said that if I pointed at a tree, and asked you what do you CALL that, you replied, "I would address YOU by telling you it is a tree."

I didn't say that; I said I would tell you that it is a PICTURE of a tree, and at this point I've become convinced that trees actually exist.

Nope. I'm talking about this post of yours.

Yes! Only after becoming convinced trees exist. But before becoming convinced, there would have been nothing that I would have called a tree. This refutes nothing I've said.

I'm not trying to refute what you said. I'm trying to get you to understand the logical conclusion of your own words. In your mind, God doesn't exist. So there's nothing in existence that you call God.

[Kenny]

Of course it's the same. That's why when I said that if I pointed at a tree, and asked you what do you CALL that, you replied, "I would address YOU by telling you it is a tree."

I didn't say that; I said I would tell you that it is a PICTURE of a tree, and at this point I've become convinced that trees actually exist.

Nope. I'm talking about this post of yours.

Yes! Only after becoming convinced trees exist. But before becoming convinced, there would have been nothing that I would have called a tree. This refutes nothing I've said.

I'm not trying to refute what you said. I'm trying to get you to understand the logical conclusion of your own words. In your mind, God doesn't exist. So there's nothing in existence that you call God.

I see no logical confusion with my words, I see you reading a little too deep into what I said and misunderstanding the point I was making to the person I was talking to.

[RickD]

I didn't say that; I said I would tell you that it is a PICTURE of a tree, and at this point I've become convinced that trees actually exist.

Nope. I'm talking about this post of yours.

Yes! Only after becoming convinced trees exist. But before becoming convinced, there would have been nothing that I would have called a tree. This refutes nothing I've said.

I'm not trying to refute what you said. I'm trying to get you to understand the logical conclusion of your own words. In your mind, God doesn't exist. So there's nothing in existence that you call God.

I see no logical confusion with my words, I see you reading a little too deep into what I said and misunderstanding the point I was making to the person I was talking to.

I said, logical conclusion. Not logical confusion.

You need to see the logical conclusion of your own words.

You asserted, without evidence, that God doesn't exist. As a materialistic atheist, you have no choice but to figuratively stand on the branch of evidence. And when you, as a materialistic atheist, assert something without evidence, you figuratively saw off the very branch you stand on.

In other words, your foundation is crumbling beneath you.

[Kenny]

Nope. I'm talking about this post of yours.

Yes! Only after becoming convinced trees exist. But before becoming convinced, there would have been nothing that I would have called a tree. This refutes nothing I've said.

I'm not trying to refute what you said. I'm trying to get you to understand the logical conclusion of your own words. In your mind, God doesn't exist. So there's nothing in existence that you call God.

I see no logical confusion with my words, I see you reading a little too deep into what I said and misunderstanding the point I was making to the person I was talking to.

I said, logical conclusion. Not logical confusion.

You need to see the logical conclusion of your own words.

You asserted, without evidence, that God doesn't exist. As a materialistic atheist, you have no choice but to figuratively stand on the branch of evidence. And when you, as a materialistic atheist, assert something without evidence, you figuratively saw off the very branch you stand on.

In other words, your foundation is crumbling beneath you.

I think Storyteller understood what I was saying that was my only intention. Anybody else listening in could feed free to ask me for clarification if they are unsure of my point

[Philip]

In other words, your foundation is crumbling beneath you.

WHAT foundation???

[PaulSacramento]

You know why there can ONLY be One first cause and that has to do with the attributes that a first cause MUST have, remember?
It must be PURE ACTUALITY or else something can effect cause on it.

And why can’t there be multiple eternal causes causing effect upon each other?

It must be Eternal and all present or else it subject to time/space.
Etc, etc.

Why can’t there be multiple that are eternal and together are all present? And what do you mean subject to time/space?

And there can't be more than one because you would have to be able to distinguish between them,

What’s wrong with the ability to distinguish them?

obviously, and that would mean that one of them is lacking something the other has and as such, can't be Pure Actuality.

And what’s wrong with that?

According to science, in particular physics, not two things can occupy the same space at the same time.

If the multiple eternal things are different, of course they won’t occupy the same space and time.

Also, according to physics, no two things can be exactly alike ( or they would be the same thing, obviously).

If the multiple eternal things are different, of course they won’t be exactly alike

According to theoretical science, a thing that is pure actuality ( pure act wit no potential to be acted upon) would be not be lacking anything at all.

If the multiple eternal things are different, to lack nothing is not necessary for each of them as long as all bases are covered by a combination of all of them

Wow, you just wrote "multiple eternal things".
Please state how you would differentiate one from the other.

[Kenny]

You know why there can ONLY be One first cause and that has to do with the attributes that a first cause MUST have, remember?
It must be PURE ACTUALITY or else something can effect cause on it.

And why can’t there be multiple eternal causes causing effect upon each other?

It must be Eternal and all present or else it subject to time/space.
Etc, etc.

Why can’t there be multiple that are eternal and together are all present? And what do you mean subject to time/space?

And there can't be more than one because you would have to be able to distinguish between them,

What’s wrong with the ability to distinguish them?

obviously, and that would mean that one of them is lacking something the other has and as such, can't be Pure Actuality.

And what’s wrong with that?

According to science, in particular physics, not two things can occupy the same space at the same time.

If the multiple eternal things are different, of course they won’t occupy the same space and time.

Also, according to physics, no two things can be exactly alike ( or they would be the same thing, obviously).

If the multiple eternal things are different, of course they won’t be exactly alike

According to theoretical science, a thing that is pure actuality ( pure act wit no potential to be acted upon) would be not be lacking anything at all.

If the multiple eternal things are different, to lack nothing is not necessary for each of them as long as all bases are covered by a combination of all of them

Wow, you just wrote "multiple eternal things".
Please state how you would differentiate one from the other.

Imagine 2 rocks that have existed eternally. How would you distinguish one from the other?

[RickD]

You know why there can ONLY be One first cause and that has to do with the attributes that a first cause MUST have, remember?
It must be PURE ACTUALITY or else something can effect cause on it.

And why can’t there be multiple eternal causes causing effect upon each other?

It must be Eternal and all present or else it subject to time/space.
Etc, etc.

Why can’t there be multiple that are eternal and together are all present? And what do you mean subject to time/space?

And there can't be more than one because you would have to be able to distinguish between them,

What’s wrong with the ability to distinguish them?

obviously, and that would mean that one of them is lacking something the other has and as such, can't be Pure Actuality.

And what’s wrong with that?

According to science, in particular physics, not two things can occupy the same space at the same time.

If the multiple eternal things are different, of course they won’t occupy the same space and time.

Also, according to physics, no two things can be exactly alike ( or they would be the same thing, obviously).

If the multiple eternal things are different, of course they won’t be exactly alike

According to theoretical science, a thing that is pure actuality ( pure act wit no potential to be acted upon) would be not be lacking anything at all.

If the multiple eternal things are different, to lack nothing is not necessary for each of them as long as all bases are covered by a combination of all of them

Wow, you just wrote "multiple eternal things".
Please state how you would differentiate one from the other.

Imagine 2 rocks that have existed eternally. How would you distinguish one from the other?

Kenny,

For something to exist eternally, it must be unchanging. Are rocks unchanging?

[Kenny]

And why can’t there be multiple eternal causes causing effect upon each other?


Why can’t there be multiple that are eternal and together are all present? And what do you mean subject to time/space?

What’s wrong with the ability to distinguish them?
And what’s wrong with that?

According to science, in particular physics, not two things can occupy the same space at the same time.

If the multiple eternal things are different, of course they won’t occupy the same space and time.

Also, according to physics, no two things can be exactly alike ( or they would be the same thing, obviously).

If the multiple eternal things are different, of course they won’t be exactly alike

According to theoretical science, a thing that is pure actuality ( pure act wit no potential to be acted upon) would be not be lacking anything at all.

If the multiple eternal things are different, to lack nothing is not necessary for each of them as long as all bases are covered by a combination of all of them

Wow, you just wrote "multiple eternal things".
Please state how you would differentiate one from the other.

Imagine 2 rocks that have existed eternally. How would you distinguish one from the other?

Kenny,

For something to exist eternally, it must be unchanging. Are rocks unchanging?

How do you know something eternal can't be in a constant state of change?

[RickD]

If the multiple eternal things are different, of course they won’t occupy the same space and time.

If the multiple eternal things are different, of course they won’t be exactly alike

If the multiple eternal things are different, to lack nothing is not necessary for each of them as long as all bases are covered by a combination of all of them

Wow, you just wrote "multiple eternal things".
Please state how you would differentiate one from the other.

Imagine 2 rocks that have existed eternally. How would you distinguish one from the other?

Kenny,

For something to exist eternally, it must be unchanging. Are rocks unchanging?

How do you know something eternal can't be in a constant state of change?

We went over this before. Were you not paying attention? Anything that is changing, is caused by something else. Which leads logically back to the unmoved mover.

[Kenny]

Wow, you just wrote "multiple eternal things".
Please state how you would differentiate one from the other.

Imagine 2 rocks that have existed eternally. How would you distinguish one from the other?

Kenny,

For something to exist eternally, it must be unchanging. Are rocks unchanging?

How do you know something eternal can't be in a constant state of change?

We went over this before. Were you not paying attention? Anything that is changing, is caused by something else. Which leads logically back to the unmoved mover.

That's only if we assume a single eternal object. If multiple eternal objects, they can in theory act upon each other thus be in a constant state of change.

[RickD]

Imagine 2 rocks that have existed eternally. How would you distinguish one from the other?

Kenny,

For something to exist eternally, it must be unchanging. Are rocks unchanging?

How do you know something eternal can't be in a constant state of change?

We went over this before. Were you not paying attention? Anything that is changing, is caused by something else. Which leads logically back to the unmoved mover.

That's only if we assume a single eternal object. If multiple eternal objects, they can in theory act upon each other thus be in a constant state of change.

No Kenny. We don't assume a single eternal "object". Logic dictates one, and only one. But if you were paying attention when we went over this before, you'd know this.

[Kenny]

Kenny,

For something to exist eternally, it must be unchanging. Are rocks unchanging?

How do you know something eternal can't be in a constant state of change?

We went over this before. Were you not paying attention? Anything that is changing, is caused by something else. Which leads logically back to the unmoved mover.

That's only if we assume a single eternal object. If multiple eternal objects, they can in theory act upon each other thus be in a constant state of change.

No Kenny. We don't assume a single eternal "object". Logic dictates one, and only one.

Okay.... so I guess because you say it, that must make it true; right? We're never going to agree on this; I've explained it to you every way I know, and you keep insisting there can only be one! I don't know what else to tell ya.

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
I don't know what else to tell ya.

Tell me, and others that have spent time having discussions with you, how you actually understand what is put forth to you, before you just dismiss what is said, solely because you don't like the implications.

Put forth logical reasons for what you're saying. Make us understand that we're not wasting our time explaining things to you, only to have you dismiss them out of hand.

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
I don't know what else to tell ya.

Tell me, and others that have spent time having discussions with you, how you actually understand what is put forth to you, before you just dismiss what is said, solely because you don't like the implications.

Put forth logical reasons for what you're saying. Make us understand that we're not wasting our time explaining things to you, only to have you dismiss them out of hand.

This “uncaused cause” argument always leads to the same place. We both agree at least one thing had to have always existed, but you guys always insist it could ONLY be one (because of your agenda) while I insist the possibility of more than one. I see no reason why it can’t be more than one and you guys always insist it can only be one. Even today, your last explanation was “logic says there can only be one” well that’s your logic, my logic tells me otherwise.
A couple months from now, I’m sure this will come up again, and you guys will insist we’ve gone over it before, you guys will insist you’ve given me the answer and I refuse to learn, you guys will insist I just dismiss what you guys are saying because I don’t like the implications; and so on and so on
Well I hate to break it to ya, but “logic says there can only be one” is not a reasonable explanation for me because logic does not tell ME there can only be one. So I’m sure this one will end like all the others ended (usually with a meme of someone preforming the “face palm”) until we meet again (probably a few weeks from now) to beat this dead horse again.