Page 8 of 22

Re: Many Atheists DO Believe in the Supernatural

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:21 am
by RickD
Again Kenny,

Here's the explanation from Byblos, that you either cannot refute, or refuse to acknowledge. From the discussion here

Ken
The reason is very simple and very logical (and I and Jac have stated it many timers before, in this thread and others). But it keeps coming up again and again so I guess it's worth repeating.

First some background review: From reason alone we can deduce that the uncaused cause must be atemporal (i.e. eternal), immaterial (not composed of matter), and immutable (unchanging, i.e. asbsolutely necessary without any contingencies whatsover (pure actuality), for if it were contingent it would then be dependent on another and therefore not the first uncaused cause and not pure actuality).

Now if there were more than one pure actuality then there must be some way to distingwish them. And if there were a way to distingwish them then there must be something that one of them lacks and the other one doesn't. But if one of them lacks something it would then be contingent, depending on another for the feature it lacks and therefore would not be pure actuality.

But if there were two of them that are absolutely identical without any distingwishing features then they would be one and the same and cannot be two. Therefore pure actuality (or the uncaused cause or the unmoved prime mover) must be one and only one.
So, you can either refute what was said, or stop wasting people's time, by asking the same question about why there can't be multiple uncaused causes.

Re: Many Atheists DO Believe in the Supernatural

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:34 am
by Byblos
Kenny wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:52 am well that’s your logic, my logic tells me otherwise.
lol, Kenny's back it again, with subjective logic. To say 'oxymoron' is a grave insult to all oxymorons ever uttered. :pound:

Re: Many Atheists DO Believe in the Supernatural

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:02 am
by PaulSacramento
Imagine 2 rocks that have existed eternally. How would you distinguish one from the other?
They wouldn't be rocks and there wouldn't be two of them.

And Ken, you don't need to "imagine", this isn't an exercise in imagination, but logical reasoning.
Maybe that is the problem, you think we are "imagining" this.

Re: Many Atheists DO Believe in the Supernatural

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:27 am
by Philip
Apparently Ken is not carefully studying the argument and he just seems obsessed with being satisfied for what he already believes is possible. But what he believes isn't logical.

Re: Many Atheists DO Believe in the Supernatural

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 4:31 pm
by Kenny
RickD wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:21 am Again Kenny,

Here's the explanation from Byblos, that you either cannot refute, or refuse to acknowledge. From the discussion here

Ken
The reason is very simple and very logical (and I and Jac have stated it many timers before, in this thread and others). But it keeps coming up again and again so I guess it's worth repeating.

First some background review: From reason alone we can deduce that the uncaused cause must be atemporal (i.e. eternal), immaterial (not composed of matter), and immutable (unchanging, i.e. asbsolutely necessary without any contingencies whatsover (pure actuality), for if it were contingent it would then be dependent on another and therefore not the first uncaused cause and not pure actuality).

Now if there were more than one pure actuality then there must be some way to distingwish them. And if there were a way to distingwish them then there must be something that one of them lacks and the other one doesn't. But if one of them lacks something it would then be contingent, depending on another for the feature it lacks and therefore would not be pure actuality.

But if there were two of them that are absolutely identical without any distingwishing features then they would be one and the same and cannot be two. Therefore pure actuality (or the uncaused cause or the unmoved prime mover) must be one and only one.
So, you can either refute what was said, or stop wasting people's time, by asking the same question about why there can't be multiple uncaused causes.

(Byblos)
The reason is very simple and very logical (and I and Jac have stated it many timers before, in this thread and others). But it keeps coming up again and again so I guess it's worth repeating.

First some background review: From reason alone we can deduce that the uncaused cause must be atemporal (i.e. eternal), immaterial (not composed of matter),

(reply)
Why can’t eternal things be material?

(Byblos)
and immutable (unchanging, i.e. asbsolutely necessary without any contingencies whatsover (pure actuality), for if it were contingent it would then be dependent on another and therefore not the first uncaused cause and not pure actuality).

(reply)
Perhaps if it were single, but for multiple things this wouldn’t apply.

(Byblos)
Now if there were more than one pure actuality then there must be some way to distingwish them.

(reply)
Why is pure actuality necessary if multiple things?

(Byblos)
And if there were a way to distingwish them then there must be something that one of them lacks and the other one doesn't. But if one of them lacks something it would then be contingent, depending on another for the feature it lacks and therefore would not be pure actuality.

(reply)
Again; if multiple, why is pure actuality necessary for each of the eternal things?

(Byblos)
But if there were two of them that are absolutely identical without any distingwishing features then they would be one and the same and cannot be two. Therefore pure actuality (or the uncaused cause or the unmoved prime mover) must be one and only one.


(reply)
I’m not talking about identical, just eternal.


If I recall correctly, I responded pretty much the same way last time, and we wound up getting into a debate over the possibility of two things being the same. I was talking about the same meaning appear alike to the naked eye, and he was talking about the same meaning identical to the sub-atomic level to include occupying the same space; thus we were talking past each other, everything went off topic, and my original replies never got answered.

Basically my replies were:

*How do you know there can only be one eternal thing,
*How do you know that which is eternal cannot be material

Re: Many Atheists DO Believe in the Supernatural

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:46 pm
by Storyteller
Why cant eternal things be material?
Because matter changes.
Something eternal cannot change.

Re: Many Atheists DO Believe in the Supernatural

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:58 pm
by Kenny
Storyteller wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:46 pm Why cant eternal things be material?
Because matter changes.
Something eternal cannot change.
Why can't something eternal be in a constant state of change? Also, we only know of approx 4% of the Universe. We shouldn't assume we can judge the 96% we know nothing about based on the 4% we do know about.

Re: Many Atheists DO Believe in the Supernatural

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:18 am
by Storyteller
Because if it changes it's affected by something else. If it's affected by something else it can't be the first cause.

Re: Many Atheists DO Believe in the Supernatural

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:34 am
by Kenny
Storyteller wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:18 am Because if it changes it's affected by something else. If it's affected by something else it can't be the first cause.
I am arguing about the possibility of multiple things acting upon each other while being a first cause. Why isn't that possible?

Re: Many Atheists DO Believe in the Supernatural

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:43 am
by RickD
Kenny wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:34 am
Storyteller wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:18 am Because if it changes it's affected by something else. If it's affected by something else it can't be the first cause.
I am arguing about the possibility of multiple things acting upon each other while being a first cause. Why isn't that possible?
Seriously?

I just posted the answer to this in post #106 of this thread. Again:
Ken
The reason is very simple and very logical (and I and Jac have stated it many timers before, in this thread and others). But it keeps coming up again and again so I guess it's worth repeating.

First some background review: From reason alone we can deduce that the uncaused cause must be atemporal (i.e. eternal), immaterial (not composed of matter), and immutable (unchanging, i.e. asbsolutely necessary without any contingencies whatsover (pure actuality), for if it were contingent it would then be dependent on another and therefore not the first uncaused cause and not pure actuality).

Now if there were more than one pure actuality then there must be some way to distingwish them. And if there were a way to distingwish them then there must be something that one of them lacks and the other one doesn't. But if one of them lacks something it would then be contingent, depending on another for the feature it lacks and therefore would not be pure actuality.

But if there were two of them that are absolutely identical without any distingwishing features then they would be one and the same and cannot be two. Therefore pure actuality (or the uncaused cause or the unmoved prime mover) must be one and only one.

Re: Many Atheists DO Believe in the Supernatural

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:11 am
by Byblos
Kenny wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2019 4:31 pm
Basically my replies were:

*How do you know there can only be one eternal thing,
*How do you know that which is eternal cannot be material
I know because you have proven time and again that you have no concept of what logic is even though you pretend otherwise. From time to time I engage in your threads hoping to benefit other readers. A long time ago I lost hope of having a rational conversation with you. It is sad but true.

So once again, for the benefit of others:

*How do you know there can only be one eternal thing,

I (or any aristotelian/classical/scholastic philosopher) never said there can only be one eternal. In fact, Aquinas' five ways are predicated on this very assumption, that it CANNOT be shown from reason alone that the universe (i.e. matter and energy) is not eternal. That is precisely why he formulated his 5 ways from the perspective of essentially ordered causal series (here and now), rather than accidentally ordered causal series (temporal).

- Can matter and energy be eternal? YES (insomuch as it cannot be shown otherwise from reason alone)
- Does that change the fact that the unmoved more must be one and only one? NO
- Why(1)? Because matter and energy are still contingent (though possibly eternal). They change (form, location, composition, etc). Anything that changes owes its change to another (in an essential or even ontological sense). And from essentially ordered causal series we know change MUST start with an unchanging agent, otherwise we have an infinite regress making change impossible.
- Why(2)? Because from the Principle of sufficient reason and the law of non-contradiction everything must have an explanation and one explanation must be absolutely necessary, otherwise nothing is explained (books on a shelf, shelf on brackets, brackets attached to a wall, but wall attached to what, nothing?).

There are many more WHYs but that's a good summary


*How do you know that which is eternal cannot be material

I've already explained that matter and energy cannot be shown from reason alone NOT to be eternal but that's not what you meant to ask. What you meant to ask is more fundamental, i.e. if matter is eternal, why can't it be the unmoved mover?

Well for one, matter/energy is NEVER unmoved so right off the bat it is disqualified as the unmoved mover. Can it be thought as the uncaused cause? And once again, the answer is a resounding NO. Because matter is contingent and any contingent thing is a mixture of actuality and potentiality (this is another why(3) by the way). For an uncaused cause to be just that, it must pure actuality with no potential whatsoever. For it had any potential it would depend on something else to actualize that potential and, therefore, would not be the uncaused cause after all.

The uncaused cause and unmoved mover must be pure actuality, immutable (unchanging), and atemporal. Those are some of the attributes that we can deduce from reason alone, there are others.

Can there be more than one pure actuality? NO
Because if there were more than one, it would mean they are somehow distinguishable, some feature in one is lacking in the other. But if a feature is lacking in one it would mean there is some potential in it that can be actualized. But if there is potential to be actualized it would mean it is not pure actuality to begin with.
And pure actualities that are indistinguishable are one and the same, therefore there is only one pure actuality.

And all of that from logic, go figure. Theists actually championing logic and reason. :mrgreen:

Re: Many Atheists DO Believe in the Supernatural

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:39 am
by Kenny
RickD wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:43 am
Kenny wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:34 am
Storyteller wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:18 am Because if it changes it's affected by something else. If it's affected by something else it can't be the first cause.
I am arguing about the possibility of multiple things acting upon each other while being a first cause. Why isn't that possible?
Seriously?

I just posted the answer to this in post #106 of this thread. Again:
Ken
The reason is very simple and very logical (and I and Jac have stated it many timers before, in this thread and others). But it keeps coming up again and again so I guess it's worth repeating.

First some background review: From reason alone we can deduce that the uncaused cause must be atemporal (i.e. eternal), immaterial (not composed of matter), and immutable (unchanging, i.e. asbsolutely necessary without any contingencies whatsover (pure actuality), for if it were contingent it would then be dependent on another and therefore not the first uncaused cause and not pure actuality).

Now if there were more than one pure actuality then there must be some way to distingwish them. And if there were a way to distingwish them then there must be something that one of them lacks and the other one doesn't. But if one of them lacks something it would then be contingent, depending on another for the feature it lacks and therefore would not be pure actuality.

But if there were two of them that are absolutely identical without any distingwishing features then they would be one and the same and cannot be two. Therefore pure actuality (or the uncaused cause or the unmoved prime mover) must be one and only one.
Post #110 I offered why I disagree.

Re: Many Atheists DO Believe in the Supernatural

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:43 am
by Byblos
Kenny wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:39 am Post #110 I offered why I disagree.
Kenny must have me on ignore. There is hope after all. :lol:

Re: Many Atheists DO Believe in the Supernatural

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 10:18 am
by RickD
Byblos wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:43 am
Kenny wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:39 am Post #110 I offered why I disagree.
Kenny must have me on ignore. There is hope after all. :lol:
No, I think Kenny has logic on ignore.

Re: Many Atheists DO Believe in the Supernatural

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:09 pm
by Kenny
Byblos wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:43 am
Kenny wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:39 am Post #110 I offered why I disagree.
Kenny must have me on ignore. There is hope after all. :lol:
No you aren't on ignore, I'm at work right now and only have a few minutes at a time to respond; yours is quite long so I will have to respond later when I get more time