Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:For the last time, if X and Y have the same exact properties without any distinction then X and Y are one and the same just called by a different name. It truly is that basic but yet it escapes you (maybe).

Let's say for example you have 2 tools; tool X and tool Y. And those tools are the exact same inside and out. Are you saying those two tools are the same? That they are not 2 separate tools? Is this what you are claiming?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:For the last time, if X and Y have the same exact properties without any distinction then X and Y are one and the same just called by a different name. It truly is that basic but yet it escapes you (maybe).

Let's say for example you have 2 tools; tool X and tool Y. And those tools are the exact same inside and out. Are you saying those two tools are the same? That they are not 2 separate tools? Is this what you are claiming?

Ken

Kenny when you find two tools EXACTLY the same in every which way, even down to the sub atomic level, I will concede your point, I promise.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:For the last time, if X and Y have the same exact properties without any distinction then X and Y are one and the same just called by a different name. It truly is that basic but yet it escapes you (maybe).

Let's say for example you have 2 tools; tool X and tool Y. And those tools are the exact same inside and out. Are you saying those two tools are the same? That they are not 2 separate tools? Is this what you are claiming?

Ken

Kenny when you find two tools EXACTLY the same in every which way, even down to the sub atomic level, I will concede your point, I promise.

I am speaking in theory. Care to answer the question?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:For the last time, if X and Y have the same exact properties without any distinction then X and Y are one and the same just called by a different name. It truly is that basic but yet it escapes you (maybe).

Let's say for example you have 2 tools; tool X and tool Y. And those tools are the exact same inside and out. Are you saying those two tools are the same? That they are not 2 separate tools? Is this what you are claiming?

Ken

Kenny when you find two tools EXACTLY the same in every which way, even down to the sub atomic level, I will concede your point, I promise.

I am speaking in theory. Care to answer the question?

Ken

Theoretically it's still not possible in the universe we reside, you can never have two things exactly the same. Unless you can actually prove you can have two things exactly the same and have them be separate items I don't feel the need to refute something that cannot be proven.

The burden of proof is one the one making the claim.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:For the last time, if X and Y have the same exact properties without any distinction then X and Y are one and the same just called by a different name. It truly is that basic but yet it escapes you (maybe).

Let's say for example you have 2 tools; tool X and tool Y. And those tools are the exact same inside and out. Are you saying those two tools are the same? That they are not 2 separate tools? Is this what you are claiming?

Ken

Kenny when you find two tools EXACTLY the same in every which way, even down to the sub atomic level, I will concede your point, I promise.

I am speaking in theory. Care to answer the question?

Ken

Theoretically it's still not possible in the universe we reside, you can never have two things exactly the same. Unless you can actually prove you can have two things exactly the same and have them be separate items I don't feel the need to refute something that cannot be proven.

The burden of proof is one the one making the claim.

So....... Where's your proof?

K

Kenny wrote: So....... Where's your proof?

I am not making a claim, you are claiming you can have two things which are exactly the same in every way possibly yet be separate items, this is not my claim, I am asking for proof of your claim as it is your assertion.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... n_of_proof

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote: So....... Where's your proof?

I am not making a claim, you are claiming you can have two things which are exactly the same in every way possibly yet be separate items, this is not my claim, I am asking for proof of your claim as it is your assertion.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... n_of_proof

I asked a question using a hypothetical of two things being the same, and I specifically told you I was only speaking in theory. You responded with a claim that it is impossible in this Universe, then you said the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. So I ask you; where's your proof?

Ken

RickD! Got any more of that aspirin? I'm getting low.

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote: So....... Where's your proof?

I am not making a claim, you are claiming you can have two things which are exactly the same in every way possibly yet be separate items, this is not my claim, I am asking for proof of your claim as it is your assertion.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... n_of_proof

I asked a question using a hypothetical of two things being the same, and I specifically told you I was only speaking in theory. You responded with a claim that it is impossible in this Universe, then you said the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. So I ask you; where's your proof?

Ken

RickD! Got any more of that aspirin? I'm getting low.

Let's take a look at what you have said.

No; I am arguing against a single beginning; for the possibility of multiple beginnings.

That is a claim that there can be multiple beginnings.

If there can be one, logic tells me there can be more than one.

Another claim that logic says there can be more than one, prove it please.

Multiple things that are identical are not one; they are just multiple things that are identical

Another claim, you need to prove the identical in every way things actually exist or can exist.

No; Identical but separate.

Another claim that identical things can be separate.

Right now I am looking at several blank sheets of paper, each identical, and indistinguishable from each other, yet they are not the same sheet of paper.

This is another claim, can you prove they are absolutely identical without just saying they are, where are these unicorn papers?

I have 2 socket wrenches each identical to each other, yet they are not the same tool.

Same as before. Prove that these identical in every way sockets can actually exist.

I don't see the point of proving our position if you cannot attempt to prove your claims.

If you want to believe these things can exist that is fine but don't expect to convince anyone else without actual proof.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote: So....... Where's your proof?

I am not making a claim, you are claiming you can have two things which are exactly the same in every way possibly yet be separate items, this is not my claim, I am asking for proof of your claim as it is your assertion.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... n_of_proof

I asked a question using a hypothetical of two things being the same, and I specifically told you I was only speaking in theory. You responded with a claim that it is impossible in this Universe, then you said the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. So I ask you; where's your proof?

Ken

RickD! Got any more of that aspirin? I'm getting low.

Let's take a look at what you have said.

No; I am arguing against a single beginning; for the possibility of multiple beginnings.

That is a claim that there can be multiple beginnings.

If there can be one, logic tells me there can be more than one.

Another claim that logic says there can be more than one, prove it please.

Multiple things that are identical are not one; they are just multiple things that are identical

Another claim, you need to prove the identical in every way things actually exist or can exist.

No; Identical but separate.

Another claim that identical things can be separate.

Right now I am looking at several blank sheets of paper, each identical, and indistinguishable from each other, yet they are not the same sheet of paper.

This is another claim, can you prove they are absolutely identical without just saying they are, where are these unicorn papers?

I have 2 socket wrenches each identical to each other, yet they are not the same tool.

Same as before. Prove that these identical in every way sockets can actually exist.

I don't see the point of proving our position if you cannot attempt to prove your claims.

If you want to believe these things can exist that is fine but don't expect to convince anyone else without actual proof.

Are you kidding me? You're bringing up conversations I've had with other people? Look! If you wanna talk about what I've said to other people, in the context of the conversation we were having during that time; we can back-track all you want later. but first things first! Right now let's address our current conversation. I've made no claims; I've only asked a question using a hypothetic scenario. You've made claims; and correctly stated the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim!
Now here are your choices; you can "tap out" now, and admit you've misspoke; or you can take your beating like a man and actually try to back up the claim you've made.

What cha gonna do?

Ken

Kenny wrote:If you want to believe these things can exist that is fine but don't expect to convince anyone else without actual proof.
Are you kidding me? You're bringing up conversations I've had with other people? Look! If you wanna talk about what I've said to other people, in the context of the conversation we were having during that time; we can back-track all you want later. but first things first! Right now let's address our current conversation. I've made no claims; I've only asked a question using a hypothetic scenario. You've made claims; and correctly stated the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim!
Now here are your choices; you can "tap out" now, and admit you've misspoke; or you can take your beating like a man and actually try to back up the claim you've made.

What cha gonna do?

Ken

Ok Kenny, what claim would you like proof for, quote me and be specific.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:If you want to believe these things can exist that is fine but don't expect to convince anyone else without actual proof.
Are you kidding me? You're bringing up conversations I've had with other people? Look! If you wanna talk about what I've said to other people, in the context of the conversation we were having during that time; we can back-track all you want later. but first things first! Right now let's address our current conversation. I've made no claims; I've only asked a question using a hypothetic scenario. You've made claims; and correctly stated the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim!
Now here are your choices; you can "tap out" now, and admit you've misspoke; or you can take your beating like a man and actually try to back up the claim you've made.

What cha gonna do?

Ken

Ok Kenny, what claim would you like proof for, quote me and be specific.

01/09/15 at 8:02 pm you said:

"in the universe we reside, you can never have two things exactly the same."

I would like you to provide proof of this.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:If you want to believe these things can exist that is fine but don't expect to convince anyone else without actual proof.
Are you kidding me? You're bringing up conversations I've had with other people? Look! If you wanna talk about what I've said to other people, in the context of the conversation we were having during that time; we can back-track all you want later. but first things first! Right now let's address our current conversation. I've made no claims; I've only asked a question using a hypothetic scenario. You've made claims; and correctly stated the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim!
Now here are your choices; you can "tap out" now, and admit you've misspoke; or you can take your beating like a man and actually try to back up the claim you've made.

What cha gonna do?

Ken

Ok Kenny, what claim would you like proof for, quote me and be specific.

01/09/15 at 8:02 pm you said:

"in the universe we reside, you can never have two things exactly the same."

I would like you to provide proof of this.

Ken

Here you go Kenny. Have at it.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity ... scernibles

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:If you want to believe these things can exist that is fine but don't expect to convince anyone else without actual proof.
Are you kidding me? You're bringing up conversations I've had with other people? Look! If you wanna talk about what I've said to other people, in the context of the conversation we were having during that time; we can back-track all you want later. but first things first! Right now let's address our current conversation. I've made no claims; I've only asked a question using a hypothetic scenario. You've made claims; and correctly stated the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim!
Now here are your choices; you can "tap out" now, and admit you've misspoke; or you can take your beating like a man and actually try to back up the claim you've made.

What cha gonna do?

Ken

Ok Kenny, what claim would you like proof for, quote me and be specific.

01/09/15 at 8:02 pm you said:

"in the universe we reside, you can never have two things exactly the same."

I would like you to provide proof of this.

Ken

See that's not what happened.

You said to Byblos

Kenny wrote:Let's say for example you have 2 tools; tool X and tool Y. And those tools are the exact same inside and out. Are you saying those two tools are the same? That they are not 2 separate tools? Is this what you are claiming?

I said

Kenny when you find two tools EXACTLY the same in every which way, even down to the sub atomic level, I will concede your point, I promise.

I specificlly asked you to back you claim that they can actually exist.

You responded.

Kenny wrote:I am speaking in theory. Care to answer the question?

You asked me to respond to a question you asked Byblos and refused to back your assertion.

I responded.

Theoretically it's still not possible in the universe we reside, you can never have two things exactly the same. Unless you can actually prove you can have two things exactly the same and have them be separate items I don't feel the need to refute something that cannot be proven.

I responded with my own assertion, because if that's all we are going to do is make assertions without proof then I will join the game.

So do you have any actual proof that two objects can be exactly the same in every way and be separate objects.

It's only fair that you answer first since you made your assertion first, if you can answer that I will attempt to back my claim.

I will wait on your reply, if you come back with anything else but proof, I will be forced to leave the conversation as it won't be fruitful any more.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:If you want to believe these things can exist that is fine but don't expect to convince anyone else without actual proof.
Are you kidding me? You're bringing up conversations I've had with other people? Look! If you wanna talk about what I've said to other people, in the context of the conversation we were having during that time; we can back-track all you want later. but first things first! Right now let's address our current conversation. I've made no claims; I've only asked a question using a hypothetic scenario. You've made claims; and correctly stated the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim!
Now here are your choices; you can "tap out" now, and admit you've misspoke; or you can take your beating like a man and actually try to back up the claim you've made.

What cha gonna do?

Ken

Ok Kenny, what claim would you like proof for, quote me and be specific.

01/09/15 at 8:02 pm you said:

"in the universe we reside, you can never have two things exactly the same."

I would like you to provide proof of this.

Ken

Here you go Kenny. Have at it.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity ... scernibles

The website you listed said:

"but this is intended as a metaphysical principle rather than one of natural science"

If he were speaking metaphysically, I think he should have said so. I don't know if this was his intention because he didn't lead me to this site, you did. When he mentioned the Universe, that lead me to believe he was talking about natural science. But thanks for the info.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:If you want to believe these things can exist that is fine but don't expect to convince anyone else without actual proof.
Are you kidding me? You're bringing up conversations I've had with other people? Look! If you wanna talk about what I've said to other people, in the context of the conversation we were having during that time; we can back-track all you want later. but first things first! Right now let's address our current conversation. I've made no claims; I've only asked a question using a hypothetic scenario. You've made claims; and correctly stated the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim!
Now here are your choices; you can "tap out" now, and admit you've misspoke; or you can take your beating like a man and actually try to back up the claim you've made.

What cha gonna do?

Ken

Ok Kenny, what claim would you like proof for, quote me and be specific.

01/09/15 at 8:02 pm you said:

"in the universe we reside, you can never have two things exactly the same."

I would like you to provide proof of this.

Ken

Here you go Kenny. Have at it.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity ... scernibles

The website you listed said:

"but this is intended as a metaphysical principle rather than one of natural science"

If he were speaking metaphysically, I think he should have said so. I don't know if this was his intention because he didn't lead me to this site, you did. When he mentioned the Universe, that lead me to believe he was talking about natural science. But thanks for the info.

Ken

Kenny,

It's an ontological principle. It deals with the nature of how things exist.