What if God calls it quits?

you didn't ask for evidence

you asked how we would know if you are lying or not

For instance if I tell you that water is made up of cadmium and nitrogen are you required to produce evidence to determine the truth/falsity of that, or is it sufficient to look for some indication in a chemistry book?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

sorry

I must have mistaken you for someone else ....

:m: :m:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Depends, do I immediately will another thread to be in the original thread's place? Cause God can do that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess.. but if you mean Enmos, i think i have seen him around here somewhere..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

you must be mistaken

I have it on good authority that nothing exists
not even Enmos

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

well if you can't even will that you don't visit the dentist, it tends to indicate a bit of a gap between your willing and gods ....

 

Im sure Emnos would agree

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Er, the point was that god could easily replace the string of pearls with his will, not me.

 

You dont need evidence for yourself to know something is true ? :scratchin:

 

he would agree if he existed, I am sure

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but if god leaves the picture, so does his will

certainly not

if sciforums was limited to the discussion of things that are evidenced by the contributors, the threads would be about what their mothers cooked for dinner last night

 

I guess he would agree sooner just because he doesnt exist.. :scratchin:

I was talking about for yourself, not what you discuss on here.

And i dont feel the need to discuss Chinese food.. lol

 

Enmos

I see, so we wouldn't want to doubt his existence to the point of doubting the ideas he advocates ....

if you want to know what is true for yourself, you have to gain the relative qualification

if you want to know what is true in general, you can approach persons established in the field

this explains why people take their cars to mechanics when they break down
(as opposed to becoming a qualified mechanic)

this explains why people go to a doctor when they are sick
(as opposed to becoming a qualified doctor)

this explains why people approach a lawyer when they are in trouble with the law
(as opposed to becoming a qualified lawyer)

etc etc

 

Unless he leaves some sort of substitute.

 

substitute for god with or without having the qualities of god?

 

Yes - ever heard of conservation of energy / momentum / angular momentum etc?
Obviously I am not talking "equal" as in "identical".
And to be honest - if you thought I was then I am disappointed in you.

Nothing that a quick check in a physics book won't cure you of.

Logical fallacy.
This statement has no bearing to the issue in hand - or are you claiming that it does? If so - elaborate.

As I stated - you are cherrypicking your "cause" and your "effect" for pure sophistry.

Yes.

Ah - yes - another of your unproven assumptions.
Your claim was that an omnipotent being could not have infinite knowledge - or else they would have knowledge of the extent of their potency.
So which is greater - your entity with potencies increasing - or a being with infinite potencies?
A simple answer would suffice.

Pathetic. Ideals have nothing to do with the (il)logical consistency of statements.

So let's go through this...

(4) does not follow from (1), (2) or (3) - and is thus a non sequitur.
There is NOTHING within the assumptions and conclusions of the first three that leads to the conclusion in the fourth.

(5) does not follow from (4) - and is thus a non sequitur.
There is nothing in the claim in (4) that leads to the claim of (5).

(1) is a claim (albeit a fallacious one).
(2) and (3) are examples (albeit reaffirming the fallacious claim in (1)).
(4) just doesn't follow at all. It is a new claim - with no bearing to the prior three.
(5) does not follow from (4).

Maybe you missed out a number of steps between (3) and (4) and again between (4) and (5)?

Either way - as they stand - (4) and (5) are non sequiturs.

 

No clue, but God can do anything right? I'm sure he'd manage to get this right if he wanted to do it.

 

God is Quantum Quack....

The rest of the nonsence about god leaving?

 

sarkus
“

ever heard of entropy and heat death?

so in what ways would they not be "identical"?

milk is the cause of yoghurt
if cause and effect are equal, turn yoghurt back into milk

no - I claimed that infinite knowledge is constantly unlimited in its expansion

if we have certain properties, there must exist a person who has it in the maximum

nobody is the richest?
nobody is the most intelligent?
etc etc

until you can turn yoghurt back into milk, it remains sound

 

so the question remains, would the substitute have the qualities of god or not - if you answer yes, then it doesn't really address what would happen if god left. If you answer no, then it doesn't really address how things would go on in the absence of god

 

Could you clarify what the qualities of god are please?