Hell and God cant Co-exist.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.  

That would be you. You said that the evidence presented, "that only things that actually exist can cause change", was merely an assertion. My question back to you was "so you think that non-existing thing can cause change?" Instead of answering the question you pop off that the conclusions don't follow from the premise. Maybe they don't. But we aren't there yet because you cannot even commit to basic and clearly evident facts about objective reality.

[madog]

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?

I know you are trying to use the argument that the universe/multiverse came from nothing, but that is a piece of string as to whether you keep going back .... That I don't believe doesn't mean the opposite that something cannot come from nothing it just means I haven't been shown any proof yet .... you do the opposite and insert god because we don't know?

[Esquilax]

That would be you. You said that the evidence presented, "that only things that actually exist can cause change", was merely an assertion. My question back to you was "so you think that non-existing thing can cause change?" Instead of answering the question you pop off that the conclusions don't follow from the premise. Maybe they don't. But we aren't there yet because you cannot even commit to basic and clearly evident facts about objective reality.

Where did you demonstrate that only actual things can be the cause of change? Where did you even begin to demonstrate that?

[IATIA]

There is NO evidence.  Your sig is strictly opinion biased toward a belief in a god.  It does not have any substance.  I cannot prove god does not exist, but my attempt at disproving god has significantly more substance than that.

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?

There is no logical conclusion, which is the point.  It is an assumption which, again, can only come from a biased belief in a god.  I do not believe in god and I can run the same scenario and come up with a different preconceived answer that is just as valid.  (though, I would not agree with that one either for the same reason)

There can be no infinite regression and there can be no first cause.  Both scenarios (infinite regression and first cause) are illogical.

[robvalue]

That would be you. You said that the evidence presented, "that only things that actually exist can cause change", was merely an assertion. My question back to you was "so you think that non-existing thing can cause change?" Instead of answering the question you pop off that the conclusions don't follow from the premise. Maybe they don't. But we aren't there yet because you cannot even commit to basic and clearly evident facts about objective reality.

Where did you demonstrate that only actual things can be the cause of change? Where did you even begin to demonstrate that?

Wait, doesn't quantum mechanics indicate things change all the time without an efficient cause?

[Neo-Scholastic]

That would be you. You said that the evidence presented, "that only things that actually exist can cause change", was merely an assertion. My question back to you was "so you think that non-existing thing can cause change?" Instead of answering the question you pop off that the conclusions don't follow from the premise. Maybe they don't. But we aren't there yet because you cannot even commit to basic and clearly evident facts about objective reality.

Where did you demonstrate that only actual things can be the cause of change? Where did you even begin to demonstrate that?

It's an observation. Empirical evidence. You always want to see evidence, right? Well there it is staring you in the face. Have you ever observed something being caused by something that doesn't exist? Does that even make sense to you that that could happen?

[robvalue]

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?

I would love to see that!

[IATIA]

Wait, doesn't quantum mechanics indicate things change all the time without an efficient cause?

It seems to, but if true, then the laws of conservation must be revised and rewritten.

[madog]

Where did you demonstrate that only actual things can be the cause of change? Where did you even begin to demonstrate that?

Wait, doesn't quantum mechanics indicate things change all the time without an efficient cause?

Yes, stuff can pop into existence from nothing or it appears to be from nothing ,,,

Thing is that doesn't lead me to a belief like CL

It may be that stuff pops into existence from nothing but hold off from belief, hence not believing ....

[Neo-Scholastic]

Where did you demonstrate that only actual things can be the cause of change? Where did you even begin to demonstrate that?

Wait, doesn't quantum mechanics indicate things change all the time without an efficient cause?

I never heard of anyone getting bit by a potential dog. And I doubt you have. Only actual dogs can bite people.