"Psychic" abilities are real, but depending on where you're coming from your perspective must be shifted so you can not only recognize the phenomenon but understand it.

Some people will not even see what is happening to be able to understand it. In the video dclements posted, the people who contacted JREF were either rejected, couldn't deliver, or never showed up. Sometimes a person will have a static idea of what it's supposed to be. But unless they are seriously dedicated they may never see that specific demonstration and not recognize the more mundane but real manifestations of "psychic" abilities.

You just rightly rejected the idea that something could come from nothing — apokrisis

Doesn't the rest of the post suggest that nothing is everything? Especially when vagueness is brought up. There isn't a difference between a state of anything and everything that is really absolute vagueness and nothing.

Suppose, you are something that exists at time 12 pm. Once it is 12:01 pm, the guy (you), which existed at 12 pm is non-existent now. — elucid

I guess that would be true.

Yes, but that square is not a circle, they are two different things.

Right.

This is my explanation for why change seems to exists even though things that tell us that it is not possible exist. I will use a circle and a square in this example. I will guess that a circle becoming a square is impossible, but a circle becoming non-existent and a square appearing is possible, making it seem like a circle became a square. — elucid

I think the problem with this is not that there would be no circle at one point (or that we would be dead), but that the circle would have to stop existing, and that the square would have to start existing. But let's say we grant that. It seems the time between the circle's non-existence and the square's existence is indifferent. How long do I, the guy that exists at 12 pm, exist before I become the next guy? Maybe you didn't really mean "a circle becoming non-existent and a square appearing is possible" and you just happened to say it that way.

Statement 1 in your first post says,
"A circle is never the same as anything that is not a circle."

If a circle must be a circle and cannot be something else, time is irrelevant. I mean, you could omit all time-related words and say,

"A circle is the same as anything that is not a circle. Therefore a circle is something that is not anything that is not a circle."
"Something existent is not the same as something non-existent. Therefore, something existent is something that is not non-existent."

A circle would be a-temporal, the same way a man is, the same way something existent is, the same way something non-existent is, etc.

It just occurred to me that this explanation is not very logical because it would mean that we are all dead by now. — elucid

Does it really? When would we be dead? I know you said we would be dead "by now", but when the circle disappears and the square appears, wouldn't there be a square "by now"?

If you've found you can't defend your atheistic beliefs anymore, then why have them?

It may not be as important as you think, what you say or how you say it.

I feel I can't justify what I feel about something in a few words as you do in a social interaction — Aidan buk

I don't think you're supposed to.

You just say something; if you have anything to say, it will come to you, and if you've been engaged in the conversation, a lot of the "what you say or how you say it" will have been decided for you. I have found that I struggle the most to express myself when I am not interested in the conversation, or when I don't have anything to say. And the conversations that ask for more thoughtfulness will ask for it on both sides. If someone says or asks you something without giving it much thought, I wouldn't think to hard about how to respond.

I guess it'll depend on where you are from, but for example, when someone asks "how are you?", often times they aren't really asking how you are, and you shouldn't sweat on being very accurate about it. You could, but then the other person will let you know one way or another if they actually cared.

There is some interesting stuff being discussed here...but mostly it seems to be an exercise in at least one person INSISTING that his blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...HAS TO BE CORRECT.

That kind of insistence seems to me to be at the heart of so much discord on planet Earth. I wish we could get past it. — Frank Apisa

If those "blind guesses" are correct, does it matter that at least one person insists on them?

Never mind, I think I've misunderstood. I've been asking my questions thinking a presentist would say only the present exists, but according to what I've just read on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, he would actually say only present things exist. If the presentism you talk about is the former and not the latter, maybe I do understand.

Presentism is incompatible with a start of time so that leads to the conclusion that 'only now always existed' follows from 'only now exists'. — Devans99

So presentism has no start of time. There is also no end, right? And no intermediary points?

Presentism (believe that only now exists) is the opposite view of eternalism (belief that past, present and future are real).

Presentism posits 'only now always existed' so all forms of it require an infinite regress, which is not only undesirable, its actually impossible — Devans99

If in presentism only now exists, is there really any regress to speak of?

How does 'only now exists' lead to 'only now always existed'?