What if God calls it quits?

[lightgigantic]

Is that supposed to show me God and heaven exist ?
That is not even near evidence-like...

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?

 

[lightgigantic]

I have never heard of Emnos and his posts..
So i cant know if they exist or not..

sorry

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

:m: :m:

 

[ashura]

BG 7.7: O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.

if you take away the thread from a string of pearls, what will happen?

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

 

[Enmos]

sorry

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

:m: :m:

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

 

[lightgigantic]

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

you must be mistaken

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

 

[lightgigantic]

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

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 ....

 

[Enmos]

you must be mistaken

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

Im sure Emnos would agree

 

[ashura]

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 ....

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

 

[Enmos]

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?

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

 

[lightgigantic]

Im sure Emnos would agree

he would agree if he existed, I am sure

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

but if god leaves the picture, so does his will

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

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

 

[Enmos]

he would agree if he existed, I am sure

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

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

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

 

[lightgigantic]

Enmos

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
he would agree if he existed, I am sure

”
I guess he would agree sooner just because he doesnt exist..

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

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
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 was talking about for yourself, not what you discuss on here.

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

 

[ashura]

but if god leaves the picture, so does his will

Unless he leaves some sort of substitute.

 

[lightgigantic]

Unless he leaves some sort of substitute.

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

 

[Sarkus]

cause and effect should be equal?

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.

truly bizzare!!

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

still it remains that one can make yogurt out of milk but one cannot make milk out of yogurt

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.

no

Yes.

I can only assume you didn't read what I posted before you responded

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.

perhaps I would have something to respond to if you could tell us why it is a non sequitur (since as far as I can tell at the moment, the only reason it doesn't make sense is because it disturbs your atheistic ideals)

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

So let's go through this...

(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.

(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.

 

[ashura]

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

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

 

[Tnerb]

God is Quantum Quack....

The rest of the nonsence about god leaving?

 

[lightgigantic]

sarkus
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
cause and effect should be equal?

”
Yes - ever heard of conservation of energy / momentum / angular momentum etc?

ever heard of entropy and heat death?

Obviously I am not talking "equal" as in "identical".

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

“
still it remains that one can make yogurt out of milk but one cannot make milk out of yogurt
”
Logical fallacy.
This statement has no bearing to the issue in hand - or are you claiming that it does? If so - elaborate.

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

“
I can only assume you didn't read what I posted before you responded
”
Ah - yes - another of your unproven assumptions.
Your claim was that an omnipotent being could not have infinite knowledge -

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

So let's go through this...
“
(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.
”
(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.

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

(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).

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

(1) is a claim (albeit a fallacious one).

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

 

[lightgigantic]

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

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

 

[ashura]

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?