If an entity called “God” existed, how could he convince you that he was “all-powerful” and was able to defy the laws of science as we currently understand them? I think I might be convinced if I were allowed to watch him create a universe, while perhaps creating a square circle.
Cubs win World Series?
Descriptive titles in GD?
Heal a few amputees or burn victims.
I don’t believe in God or gods, but I don’t think the square circle complaint is reasonable. Omnipotence does not mean the ability to do the self-contradictory. The words circle and square are mutally exclusive. A shape may be either, or something else entirely, but not both at once.
I also don’t think omnipotence, or even omniscience, is a necessary component of a creator deity. Even if it were, I contend that neither word necessarily means what people who criticize theism on omnimax grounds means. Omnipotent can mean “unlimited in authority; sovereign; subject to the restraint of no other person or entity” just as well as it means “able to do anything that can be expressed in words as well as things that cannot be expressed in words, no matter that any given description contradicts itself.” Likewise, omniscient can mean “able to find out anything one desires” as well as “consciously aware at all times of all factual information.”
Anyway, why would a vastly powerful, incredibly long-lived being capable of creating a world or universe feel lthe need to prove itself to you?
For the same reason it needs us to praise it?
I will grant that such an entity needing worship is unlikely as well.
It hardly matters anyway, as I do not believe such entities exist. I was merely commenting on Czarcasm’s post.
I’m kind of curious how God would know that it was all powerful, or that it knew everything.
How could God be certain that there wasn’t a trickster demon sitting on his metaphorical shoulders using magic to convince him that he was God?
Because he needs money?
He lost a lot on that Cub’s game where the fan interfered with the ball. Damn Satan, just like Buckner all over again.
Win Randi’s challenge.
For the purposes of this thread it really doesn’t matter, does it? I asked what would convince you-I gave no guarantee that he would comply with your request.
Bring someone back from the dead.
So to convince you that he was all-powerful, all he would have to do sucessfully dowse for water?
Low standard there, dude.
I can see how that would convince you he could raise the dead, but how would that convince you he was all-powerful?
Pfft, I’d settle for a mind-bent spoon.
Or a Klondike Bar.
Ah, gotcha. I thought you were doing one of those rhetorical questions. As I decline to pose them as a matter of personal policy, I sometimes misinterpret the actions of others.
Carry on.
:: takes a bite of rice cake ::
Well, as we currently understand them, the laws of physics don’t allow (to my knowledge) any exception to the law of gravity, so… all the entity would need to do is levitate something in order to convince me he can “defy the laws of science as we currently understand them.”
Somehow I think that’s not what you mean to ask though–I think you mean to ask how the entity could prove it can defy the laws of science.
The answer is, if I’m being rational, the entity can’t prove it. For if I believe there are scientific laws at work in reality, then whatever observations I make, I’ll be able to either subsume them under a law, or else understand them to be the result of laws I don’t know yet.
- Levitation might convince you that he could defy that particular law of nature, but would you then automatically assume that he could defy all the others?
- What would convince you that he was all-powerful?