What if God calls it quits?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
What do nationalism and atheism have to do with eachother ? Im certainly not a nationalist.
seeing that god/heaven doesnt exsist then nothing will change it will still be the same!!
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
perhaps, but I think you would agree that a greater opportunity for exploitation exists under the banners of nationalism - if you disagreed you would probably smash shop windows
really?
you have direct perception that god and heaven doesn't exist?
do tell ...
Why would an omnipotent life form have emotion to begin with? Why would such a life form experience disappointment? Clearly emotion is necessary for human survival, but what would it have to do with a 'God'?
Properties or qualities That Come in Degrees
(1) In chains of causes and effects the cause is or has more than the effect.
(2) As the sun has more light and heat than the sunrays.
(3) As a lecturer has more knowledge than given in a lecture (and ideally he will increase in knowledge).
(4) So there is an Entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree, and is increasing in properties or qualities.
(5) Hence the Perfect Being exists.
Either you don't understand physics - or you're deliberately using logical fallacies... I'm not sure which.
1. If something has no effect - it does not exist. Existence is only defined by the effect. Likewise a cause is only known by an effect it has.
2. To equate total cause to the "sun" and total effect to the "sunrays" is a logical fallacy. For a cause to be in any way more or less than the effect is to defy physics and the laws of the universe. Yes - you can cherry pick what you deem as the "cause" and the "effect" - but doing so is nothing more than an absurdism of sophistry designed to make your argument appear valid.
Nice try though.
3. Again - sophistry. The lecturer is not a "cause" and his lecture is not an "effect". Pathetic reasoning, LG.
4. This is a Non Sequitur - it does not follow from the previous statements (even if the previous statements were accepted as unflawed). Further, to say something has a property to the "maximum possible" and that they are still increasing implies that they do not yet have that property to the infinite level - and thus are inferior to the Entity that does.
You are trying to have your cake and eat it.
5. Non Sequitur.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Im confused, what did nationalism have to do with anything considering this thread ?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Do you have a direct perception God and heaven DO exist ?
I think he claims the former... not sure of the latter.
What Sarkus said and regardless, this does not answer the question I asked.
Supposing that god existed, in a hypothetical scenario:
Leave a viceroy. Duh.
Or at least a Governor-General figure.
Why would it take everything with him/her?
That'd be like saying Britain would collapse if Queen Elizabeth died.
Supposing that a god existed, it would probably have a successor lined up.
If not, the figure is too stupid to deserve the position of a god.
Obviously. But in a hypothetical scenario, certain things are taken as given.
ok, babies dieing, mums dieing, famine, droughts, floods, hurt, pain, sexism, unfairness, severe weather conditions, murder, rape, child abuse, if he did exsist why does he let all that happen, and please dont say because people have got free will because that is just a cop out and for people who dont know the answer.
then, your personal philosophical issues aside, you don't have direct perception that god doesn't exist
(I would argue that you have flaws on the platform of theory - namely understanding the proper definitions of god, the living entity, the material world and the relationships between all three)
Last edited:
if I said yes, how would you propose to determine if I was lying?
Quantum opened with the question "should we take things for granted?"
I suggested that if people entertain the idea's he suggested, they would take things more for granted
You suggested that was a good thing
I suggested that the mood of exploitation leads to civil unrest (smashing shopping windows)
you evidenced that atheists don't smash windows en masse
I suggested that is because greater opportunities for exploitation exist under the banners of nationalism (if the power that holds the national identity, ie law and order, wavers, then you get smashed shop windows etc)
savvy?
Last edited:
Sarkus
of their potency, their potency no longer becomes omnnipotent
I can't see how my post contravenes this statement
so the desire for an effect (say, a burning match stick) that is understood to manifest through a cause (say, striking a matchbox with the said match stick) is a logical fallacy?
so for a person desiring to learn something from attending a lecture (an effect), it is not a requirement that the person giving the lecture also attends (a cause)?
the quality of knowledge and the quality of omnipotency necessitates expanding potency and expanding knowledge - if an entity knows the extent
of their potency, their potency no longer becomes omnnipotent
for one subscribing to atheistic ideals, perhaps ...
Ok let's try again
see number 2
we experience disappointment but god doesn't
emotion is necessary for our thinking/willing/feeling - if god also possesses similar (although much greater) capacities for thinking/willing/feeling (like say we will to organize the kitchen and god wills to organize the universe) the need for emotion arises