Evidence for God from Science

Danieltwotwenty 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

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.

To be honest with you; it doesn’t even matter to me. This matter has led us off topic; and doesn’t really address the question I was really interested in.

I was speaking to somebody else, asking them an example of two tools being the same inside and out, because I was trying to get his perspective on a specific issue; and you interrupted talking about the sub atomic level and a bunch of other stuff that eventually took us off topic. I believe you knew exactly what I was talking about when I asked him the question; I felt you brought all this other noise into the mix just to be argumentative, facetious, or difficult. Perhaps I was wrong, maybe your responses were sincere; I don’t know; If you were sincere, then that was my bad. But I responded in part more out of irritation than anything else.

I understand it is impossible to provide proof of what is possible or not in the entire Universe so don’t worry about it, my actual interest was a reply from someone else.

Ken

Ok no worries Kenny, I will leave it here.

But for anyone else reading this, you can clearly see that there is no proof the two objects can exist that are exactly the same in every way possible but yet seperate. If two objects are exactly the same then they must occupy the same place, because.... They are exactly the same... Having all the same properties...including their location or else they are not the same...hence they must be the same object and not seperate.

Since Ken cannot provide proof for his argument, I think it can be dismissed quite easily.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Ok no worries Kenny, I will leave it here.

But for anyone else reading this, you can clearly see that there is no proof the two objects can exist that are exactly the same in every way possible but yet seperate. If two objects are exactly the same then they must occupy the same place, because.... They are exactly the same... Having all the same properties...including their location or else they are not the same...hence they must be the same object and not seperate.

Since Ken cannot provide proof for his argument, I think it can be dismissed quite easily.

Yup. When something is exactly the same as something else, it is exactly the same in all dimensions. Time, space, speed, velocity, shape, volume, mass, etc.

RickD wrote:Kenny,

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

The website you listed stated this principle was metaphysical; not natural science. Natural science is a science that deals with the physical world; IMO the only world proven to exist.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

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

The website you listed stated this principle was metaphysical; not natural science. Natural science is a science that deals with the physical world; IMO the only world proven to exist.

Ken

I wonder why Kenny wants to argue a metaphysical claim that there can be multiple first causes but then says the natural world is the only one that exists, sounds like he wants to eat his cake and have it to.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Since Ken cannot provide proof for his argument, I think it can be dismissed quite easily.

So is that the game you wanna play? You are gonna accuse me of making an argument that I cannot back-up?
Tell you what; List the date and time of an argument I've made, and I will either back it up or admit to my mistake. I will not twist or contort the meaning of words, and terms in an effort to make it seem as if it were about something, that I know it was not about. Why? Because I am better than that!

Ken

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Ok no worries Kenny, I will leave it here.

But for anyone else reading this, you can clearly see that there is no proof the two objects can exist that are exactly the same in every way possible but yet seperate. If two objects are exactly the same then they must occupy the same place, because.... They are exactly the same... Having all the same properties...including their location or else they are not the same...hence they must be the same object and not seperate.

Since Ken cannot provide proof for his argument, I think it can be dismissed quite easily.

Yup. When something is exactly the same as something else, it is exactly the same in all dimensions. Time, space, speed, velocity, shape, volume, mass, etc.

When people speak of identical twins, are they talking about people who occupy the same time, space, speed, etc? No! In real world conversation the term identical does not include all that stuff. When I said identical; I was having a real world conversation with someone. So why would you pick out a word I said and attempt to apply it in a way that you know was not my intention?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

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

The website you listed stated this principle was metaphysical; not natural science. Natural science is a science that deals with the physical world; IMO the only world proven to exist.

Ken

I wonder why Kenny wants to argue a metaphysical claim that there can be multiple first causes but then says the natural world is the only one that exists, sounds like he wants to eat his cake and have it to.

I was arguing against the claim that one first cause is the only option.

Ken