Hell and God cant Co-exist.

[madog]

...bad philosophical arguments, etc....

If they are so bad then why haven't you attempted to demonstrate their flaws. 

I have read some of your stuff, even questioned it, but you are very selective with your answers.

Problem is with trying to disprove fantasy with fact or reality is you require and do use fantasy to support your premises? there are a different set of rules for you to those you disagree with .... maybe a theist forum would be a better place to preach?

[Esquilax]

"Some things change and only actual things can cause change" Agree or disagree? Same for the other two. That's all I'm asking.

I disagree with the bald, fiat assertion that the only thing that can cause change is actual things. You haven't demonstrated it, which is bad enough, and by the way, simply pointing at actual things you observe that effect change, or expressing incredulity that I might have an open mind about the contrapositive, is an argument from ignorance and an argument from incredulity, respectively.

[Catholic_Lady]

So do you actually dispute any them or do you just disagree with their logical conclusions? Please enlighten me. Which of the facts about reality that have been observed since the dawn of time do you reject?

The problem is the conclusion. You've given absolutely no justification for why that is the conclusion you draw from the observations you list.

That justification is actually hugely important. It's literally the difference between an actual argument and a baseless assertion.

Why don't you guys do a debate?

[madog]

Lost me here .... you want to ascertain "supernatural" fantasy with reality? you seem to want to explain supernatural with natural?

"Some things change and only actual things can cause change" Agree or disagree? Same for the other two. That's all I'm asking.

Yes unexplained things happen, I accept that, you however wish to insert god their?

[Neo-Scholastic]

The problem is the conclusion. You've given absolutely no justification for why that is the conclusion you draw from the observations you list.

That justification is actually hugely important. It's literally the difference between an actual argument and a baseless assertion.

Then why is that when presented with the actual demonstrations in Question 2 of the Summa Theologica, you don't challenge the logic; but rather, the observations about reality on which those demonstrations are based.

[Neo-Scholastic]

"Some things change and only actual things can cause change" Agree or disagree? Same for the other two. That's all I'm asking.

I disagree with the bald, fiat assertion that the only thing that can cause change is actual things. You haven't demonstrated it, which is bad enough, and by the way, simply pointing at actual things you observe that effect change, or expressing incredulity that I might have an open mind about the contrapositive, is an argument from ignorance and an argument from incredulity, respectively.

So you think that things that do not exist can make changes happen?

[Esquilax]

The problem is the conclusion. You've given absolutely no justification for why that is the conclusion you draw from the observations you list.

That justification is actually hugely important. It's literally the difference between an actual argument and a baseless assertion.

Then why is that when presented with the actual demonstrations in Question 2 of the Summa Theologica, you don't challenge the logic; but rather, the observations about reality on which those demonstrations are based.

... Because logical arguments can be totally valid within their own structure, while still not aligning with reality?

What does this have to do with your utter failure to connect your conclusion to your observations, by the way? Someone's playing dodgeball.

[Neo-Scholastic]

"Some things change and only actual things can cause change" Agree or disagree? Same for the other two. That's all I'm asking.

Yes unexplained things happen, I accept that, you however wish to insert god their?

I didn't say anything about the unexplained. I asked if you disagree with the idea that only things that exist can have causal effects. Or do you image that things that do not exist can?

[madog]

I disagree with the bald, fiat assertion that the only thing that can cause change is actual things. You haven't demonstrated it, which is bad enough, and by the way, simply pointing at actual things you observe that effect change, or expressing incredulity that I might have an open mind about the contrapositive, is an argument from ignorance and an argument from incredulity, respectively.

So you think that things that do not exist can make changes happen?

I can't answer for anyone else but I don't .... but you do

[Esquilax]

I disagree with the bald, fiat assertion that the only thing that can cause change is actual things. You haven't demonstrated it, which is bad enough, and by the way, simply pointing at actual things you observe that effect change, or expressing incredulity that I might have an open mind about the contrapositive, is an argument from ignorance and an argument from incredulity, respectively.

So you think that things that do not exist can make changes happen?

I disagree with the bald, fiat assertion you made that only actual things can effect change. That is not, at all, the same thing as believing the extreme opposite thing; your failure to support your assertions does not require I hold an opposing belief. Though I do appreciate you reaching for the argument from incredulity fallacy right away, even after I pointed out what that would entail.

I also, by the way, don't believe that this line of argument from you is at all relevant to the real world, which is a much larger objection to it that I would make, but that wasn't the question you asked.