Prove that I am not God

iceaura said:
The motive behind this obvious falsehood is the only interesting aspect of it. It's trolling, of course, but why?
Note that the silly provocation, if taken seriously as a claim, throws away the entire thread and the one it was split off: the attempt to get some overt Abrahamic theist to state in public some cause of their belief in, or rejection of, some God.
So that would bring it into the standard oA theist post pattern - vandalize the thread and prevent discussion of its topic, simultaneously disparaging any sciencey leaning or reason reliant forum member handy.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

There is Capracus, those who accept, and those who deny. Got it.
Click to expand...

Wow! You actually make some sort of sense, with this remark. Well done!

The theists who deny, however, have presented no reasons - no evidence, no argument, nothing but the statement of denial itself.
Click to expand...

What do you think ''theist'' means?
I'll tell you. A theist is a person who believes in God.
A theist is not an atheist.
An atheist is a person who does not believe in God.
Those positions aren't just words, they are real positions, and they are identifiable.

You probably don't get what that means in real terms, but others might.

iceaura said:
As long as you continue to refuse to post any, that remains an empty claim - and given its perfect fit within the pattern of dishonesty displayed in your posting, and its perfect fit within your visible agenda here, a most unlikely one.
Click to expand...

Not to a theist, or any person who can actually think independently.
A blind person cannot see. That is the way it is.
An atheist cannot comprehend God. That's the way it is.
You can deny it all you like, but it doesn't change anything.
You're simply deceiving yourself by thinking your worldview is all there is.

jan.
 
Capracus said:
The biological unit Capracus has never denied the existence of God, he simply has not seen evidence of such presented by those claiming to know it. As God, I can tell you that your universe is teaming with lesser entities that are capable of meeting any expectation of God you or anyone else could imagine, so sensing God in your heart is by no means a reliable way to know me.
Click to expand...

So let me see what you're saying.
Capracus is not an atheist, and not a theist.
But Capracus is God.

As a theist, I don't really understand that position. Can you break it down.
Firstly: What is God?

jan.
 
Musika said:
Take it to a discussion about 2+2=5, and you may be relevant
Click to expand...
It's the same discussion.

The only serious q here is why are you so hypocritical.[/qs]
As I said, there is a time to look at context and a time when context is not needed.

Your post that I responded to in this thread was flat-out, dead wrong and needed no reference to context to understand that it was flat-out, dead wrong. There are other times when context is relevant. There is no hypocrisy in understanding that.
Click to expand...
 
Jan Ardena said:
An atheist cannot comprehend God. That's the way it is.
You can deny it all you like, but it doesn't change anything.
Click to expand...
Your posting, on the other hand, is comprehensible - once the aberrant language has been adjusted. We agree on that.
Unless you are now confusing your posting with the words of God Almighty.
Jan Ardena said:
You're simply deceiving yourself by thinking your worldview is all there is.
Click to expand...
The world here is one in which you have posted no evidence or argument to justify rejecting and denying Capracus as your God.
 
Last edited:
Baldeee said:
There are but two options: either I know which number you're thinking of, or I don't know.
Two options.
According to you that is a 50/50 chance.
Either I know, or I don't.
Either God exists, or God doesn't exist.
Either Capracus' claim that he is God is correct, or it isn't.
In each case there are 2 options.
All 50/50 according to your way of thinking.
Click to expand...
What if Capracus is God 50/50 chance at the time? Would then there not be a third option?
 
sideshowbob said:
So you don't know what hypocrisy means either.
Click to expand...
You: your statement is babbling nonsense.

Me: it was a response to the babbling nonsense Baldeee was proposing. You have to see the weirdness he was trying to float in the name of philosophy to understand what is going on.

You: There is no need for me to do that. All I need to do is read what you say.

Me: Context is kind of important. It's about 50% of any discussion. Ignore it at your peril.

You: No its not.

Me: Didn't you just emerge battered and bruised from a particular thread where you were on the brink of being banned for apparently supporting paedophilia?

You: Sure, what of it.

Me: I guess you are fortunate that some ulterior context to the discussion was looked at, and not just merely half a dozen of your posts in isolation.

You: The difference here is that I know when context is important, and I know when context is not. 2+2 doesnt equal five you know.

Me: (avoids suggesting that one try googling "2+2=5" to find out how even that can be framed with context, since its now apparent exactly what sort of fool one is dealing with). Um, I think you are a hypocrite.

You: You don't know what a hypocrite is.

Me: Bye now.
 
Last edited:
Jan Ardena said:
So let me see what you're saying.
Capracus is not an atheist, and not a theist.
But Capracus is God.

As a theist, I don't really understand that position. Can you break it down.
Firstly: What is God?

jan.
Click to expand...
With the capacity to do anything I can be all things. I can be Capracus the agnostic biological unit, Jan the ignornat thiest, and omnimax God all at the same time or independently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top