if we prefer sophism
Paradigm shifts occur in philosophy just as they do in science and religion … well they do now anyway.
Retardation occurs in philosophy just as it does in science and religion… it has done so for a long time… it’s not just a modern trend… it is often correlated with the size of ones prefrontal cortex.
As Plato characterized sophists; they are superficial manipulators of rhetoric and dialectic.
I think plenty of quantum physicists would argue with that as a disproof of the law of identity.
That is why First Philosophy has not been surpassed in over two millenniums.
Quantum physics can be reconciled now, after understanding what comes next… 
First of all, no one can prove or disprove anything AT ALL without appealing to consistency (law identity, law of non-contradiction).
That quantum physics is INCONSISTENT is not a disproof of the law of identity but a disproof of quantum physics.
And it never will be surpassed by necessity.
So I was somewhat right. Everything IS Nothing.
From a certain perspective.
That is why I said yes & no, but mainly NO! 
Your God-imposed limitations are your own, “prophet”.
Lets see you create or destroy energy. Lets see you disprove a logical tautology.
Even God has limits. He cannot do anything contrary to his nature.
You think philosophic beliefs should be akin to trivial fashions that have no foundational substance?
Let’s see you define energy, Einstein. 
Don’t tell me what I can or cannot do unless you’re looking for a fight.
[b]What???[/b]
On the contrary, He already has…
Of course not. That is why First Philosophy has not been surpassed … until now.
lol, in philosophy “energy” is called substance. Use Spinoza’s definition (as per Einstein);
“By substance, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself; in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception.”
http://frank.mtsu.edu/~rbombard/RB/Spinoza/ethica1.html#Definitions
For example, God cannot destroy himself without negating his eternal nature, if God destroyed himself he would not be eternal and thus would not have been God… which is absurd! Therefore God cannot destroy himself!
There is a limit for you proven through reductio ad absurdum.
example?
Realun you have more to learn than you do to teach.
I’ve been waiting for a teacher for some time now Smears – you should know that already.
No one wants to teach you when you think you already know things which are clearly absurd at first glance. There’d have to be alot of unlearning first.
That would be very difficult. Only a ‘true believer’ could concoct another implication of the observed phenomena. It seems a no brainer; the ‘facts’ put the ‘law’ of identity to rest. How can the ‘evidence’ be twisted and stretched to accommodate another ‘conclusion’ discounting the ‘obvious’.
Yet, I agree with your statement and respond, so what? It has no logical meaning. ‘Plenty’ of people still ‘believe’ that the earth is flat… The ‘facts’ are simple, and only a ‘believer’ needing to defend a ‘belief’, can find ‘validation’ in support of their (emotional/egoic) ‘belief’. ‘Plenty of physicists’ ‘believe’ in ‘miracles’. So?
Actually, science ‘proves’ nothing. Ever.
Disproof needs no ‘consistency’. You posit that you can jump off a roof and fly (under non-extreme conditions). A quick ‘leap’ will either confirm your hypothesis, in that moment, or will disprove your hypothesis, in that moment.
The psychological ‘need’ for consistency is anathema to human growth, understanding, evolution. It is anathema to existence, everything ‘changes’, all the time!
Nonsense. Every single prediction by quantum has manifested. The results of quantum investigation and evidence counts for 1/4 of the US economy and holds out brilliant ‘predictions’ to come.
The evidence itself refutes your ‘law’. ‘Laws’ are not some 'carved-in-stone objective thing that has been discovered. It is a consistent pattern of nature that we find. It is only considered a ‘law’ (subject to change at any time with the finding of new evidence, which we have done), until new data forces us to reconsider.
Your ‘backwards’ statement essentially says that if you have have never seen an apple, you might involve that ‘lack of evidence to the contrary’ as some sort of ‘law’. That ‘law’ becomes so confortable that when presented with an actual apple, you squeeze your eyes tightly shut and claim that your ‘law’ disproves the apple. That is how ‘belief’ works, and the cognitive symptoms thereof.
Ah, the words of a ‘true believer’.
Even inductive reasoning (science) appeals to consistency… i.e. to distributed rational laws of nature.
What does “confirm your hypothesis” mean without appealing to consistency?
You say; “everything ‘changes’, all the time!”
Are you claiming that everything is in an ETERNAL flux?
A thing which is “all the time” or eternal DOES NOT CHANGE, which makes your proposition “everything changes, all the time” absurd, therefore some things do not change. reductio ad absurdum
You didn’t just appeal to that law called CONSISTENCY did you? LOL
Like I said… you cannot even try to disprove the law without appealing to it.