Prove that I am not God

[Musika]

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.

How many times does your nose have to be rubbed in this fact, the actions of an omnimax god are not testable by human beings. Even if a statement by such a god could be shown to be irrational or untrue, it can't be be used as evidence to disprove its identity.When you postulate a god that can do anything, you have to assume the possibility that such a god will do anything. As a bilogical unit, your statements are testable, and can be check for there veracity, thus making your presidential claims incomparable.

We've been all over this before, but just to reiterate ...

Yes, God could charade as an atheist illiterate in philosophy and history.
Yes, that charade would be seamless.

The problem with God manifesting in such a form is that He would be treated as an atheist illiterate in philosophy and history ... after all, the charade would be seamless. If God was revealing Himself on that platform for reestablishing or reengineering social or philosophical norms or influence, that form simply wouldn't work. If it was to work, sooner or later there would have to be some qualitative expression that identifies one as God, which would effectively dispel the persona of an ignorant atheist, or at least reveal it as the charade of God posing as an ignorant atheist. In the absence of you establishing anything "Godlike", we are left with an ignorant atheist charading as God. Much like in the absence of me establishing any connection, either by, intelligence or capacity, to the position of presidency, we are left with an online crank charading as the USA president. If I want to start "moving and shaking" as the president, I can't do that from the position of an online crank. I have to do it from the oval office. Or, at the very least, I have to do it from the handle of Trump's twitter feed.

You may say that the revelation of God is irrational and thus devoid of any qualitative signifier. IOW as far as God goes, there is no ultimate connection between knowing someone is God and the quality that gives rise to that knowledge, or the likelihood of someone being God and the variables that support such a likelihood (a case Baldee took up with more vigour than yourself ... which certainly landed him in some strange philosophical territory ...). But this is also precisely the sort of thing an atheist illiterate in philosophy and history would say (specifically, their ignorance with the subject of enlightenment, revelation, samadhi etc .... which is a subject lodged in the practical application of philosophical and historical ideas surrounding knowledge of God, etc). As such, it becomes another feather in the cap for the 100% accurate portrayal of an ignorant atheist.

That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet

The same principle, to converse ends, is at work for our manner of identifying used nappies, illiterate atheists, etc.

The most tenable perspective any human being can assert regarding any claim associated with God would be the actual iconic Sergeant Schultz line, “I know nothing.”

It is no surprise that one flew over your head. The irony is that Sergeant Schultz only ever said that when there was actually something to see.

 

[Write4U]

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.

The cute part is that Capracus does not need to prove anything he says......

 

[iceaura]

If God was revealing Himself on that platform for reestablishing or reengineering social or philosophical norms or influence, that form simply wouldn't work.

Now we have the oA theist telling us what God's motives can and cannot be, for revealing "Himself" (sic).

No motives such as chastising a false believer, or mocking a Pharisee, are allowed to the oA God. Any entity even apparently or possibly displaying such a motive is therefore not God.

It's one of reverse ten commandments: God shall not mock the pious that are "His" believers.

That is a step forward - we actually have an oA theist posting criteria by which they reject or accept God: God must behave according to their preconceptions of a proper deity, whatever those preconceptions may be in any given situation, or be denied and rejected.

Obviously a conflict with an "omnimax" God, but more interestingly a conflict with the conception of a God as something independent of theistic whim, a God independent of the theists themselves.

But still, however silly, a step forward in the long, long approach to honest posting by these guys.

5 - 4 - 3 - 2 -

 

[river]

Now we have the oA theist telling us what God's motives can and cannot be, for revealing "Himself" (sic).

No motives such as chastising a false believer, or mocking a Pharisee, are allowed to the oA God. Any entity even apparently or possibly displaying such a motive is therefore not God.

It's one of reverse ten commandments: God shall not mock the pious that are "His" believers.

That is a step forward - we actually have an oA theist posting criteria by which they reject or accept God: God must behave according to their preconceptions of a proper deity, whatever those preconceptions may be in any given situation, or be denied and rejected.

Obviously a conflict with an "omnimax" God, but more interestingly a conflict with the conception of a God as something independent of theistic whim, a God independent of the theists themselves.

But still, however silly, a step forward in the long, long approach to honest posting by these guys.

5 - 4 - 3 - 2 -

Well Said , iceaura

god to most , is abrahmaic based , well whatever

I'm not god because I cannot control this Universe . Nor can I , more importantly , can I stop what this Universe is doing every mi-nute moment of every mi-nute moment , every hour , every minute of every day .

 

[Michael 345]

5 - 4 - 3 - 2

1.0000000001

Will never make 1 let alone get to 0

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Oh please

Hey!

It doesn't even have to be 50/50. Maybe 60/40 or 70/30! Was Jesus still Jesus while he was passed out, and if he was, could he know it?

Man, I'm soo Christian!

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.

Well if anything this exercise shows that you do know God Is.
I don't recall any conversation on here where the theist argues that God has the capacity to do anything, or be anything.
I may be wrong, but theists here wouldn't go down that road with atheists. But here you are, without any provocation telling us about God.

These aren't tears, I have something in my eyes....

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were

Anyway, lets move on with this interesting game.

So did you write, or inspire man to write, the scriptures?
What is the correct position, theist, agnostic, or atheist?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The cute part is that Capracus does not need to prove anything he says......

That's really convenient for you, isn't it?

This is a really cool thread, full of revelation.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Well Said , iceaura

god to most , is abrahmaic based , well whatever

What do you think is wrong with that?

I'm not god because I cannot control this Universe . Nor can I , more importantly , can I stop what this Universe is doing every mi-nute moment of every mi-nute moment , every hour , every minute of every day .

Again with another clearly defined attribute of God.

Do you believe in God, river?

Jan.

 

[Capracus]

We've been all over this before, but just to reiterate...

Yes, God could charade as an atheist illiterate in philosophy and history.
Yes, that charade would be seamless.

The problem with God manifesting in such a form is that He would be treated as an atheist illiterate in philosophy and history ... after all, the charade would be seamless. If God was revealing Himself on that platform for reestablishing or reengineering social or philosophical norms or influence, that form simply wouldn't work. If it was to work, sooner or later there would have to be some qualitative expression that identifies one as God, which would effectively dispel the persona of an ignorant atheist, or at least reveal it as the charade of God posing as an ignorant atheist. In the absence of you establishing anything "Godlike", we are left with an ignorant atheist charading as God. Much like in the absence of me establishing any connection, either by, intelligence or capacity, to the position of presidency, we are left with an online crank charading as the USA president. If I want to start "moving and shaking" as the president, I can't do that from the position of an online crank. I have to do it from the oval office. Or, at the very least, I have to do it from the handle of Trump's twitter feed.

So you finally acknowledge that God may be posing as a shit throwing zoo monkey. But you insist that a God desiring to effect some ideal social reform would manifest in a more anthropomorphically dignified manner. Haven’t a number of non theists in this forum already proposed that if a god was interested in convincing humans of its existence, that it would do so in a more convincing manner than has been depicted by the various religions? I mean a shit throwing zoo monkey spelling out the Ten Commandments on a wall with it’s thrown shit would be more convincing than all of the mystical nonsense put forth by theists over the millennia.

It is no surprise that one flew over your head. The irony is that Sergeant Schultz only ever said that when there was actually something to see.

No, I understood your intent, even though you got the Schulzt quote wrong.

Well if anything this exercise shows that you do know God Is.

Biological units Capracus, Jan and Musika have no idea if there is a God. Only God can know that.

I don't recall any conversation on here where the theist argues that God has the capacity to do anything, or be anything.

Biological unit Musika did. That’s why biological unit James started this thread.

Anyway, lets move on with this interesting game.

So did you write, or inspire man to write, the scriptures?

Stan Lee and all other writers of historical fiction relied on their own fertile imaginations to craft their works of fantasy.

What is the correct position, theist, agnostic, or atheist?

Always agnostic, because you can never conclusively know God.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Biological units Capracus, Jan and Musika have no idea if there is a God. Only God can know that.

If you are God, as you claim to be, then we can have an idea because you’ve just told us you’re God. So what is it we don’t have any idea of?

Biological unit Musika did. That’s why biological unit James started this thread.

I see. So Bio-unit Musika gave you the idea, and you’re just going along with it?
How is that God (Musika defined), cannot be known by Musika, yet here you are (God) defining yourself as the Musika defined God?

Stan Lee and all other writers of historical fiction relied on their own fertile imaginations to craft their works of fantasy.

...Which would be great info in thread about Stan Lee.
But we’re talking scriptures, where you’re attributes are laid out so that insignificants like me can know more about you (God). Guess what? What you described about yourself, is in a lot of scriptures.

So did you write them, or did you inspire man to write them??

Always agnostic, because you can never conclusively know God.

But you’re here.
How is agnosticism or atheism even possible?

Jan.

 

[Capracus]

If you are God, as you claim to be, then we can have an idea because you’ve just told us you’re God. So what is it we don’t have any idea of?

If I ‘m God, you have no way of knowing it, because human beings don’t have the capacity to distinguish God from non God.

I see. So Bio-unit Musika gave you the idea, and you’re just going along with it?
How is that God (Musika defined), cannot be known by Musika, yet here you are (God) defining yourself as the Musika defined God?

Since unit Musika refused to provide its knowledge of God’s existence, I supplied it with one of equal justification.

Which would be great info in thread about Stan Lee.
But we’re talking scriptures, where you’re attributes are laid out so that insignificants like me can know more about you (God). Guess what? What you described about yourself, is in a lot of scriptures.
So did you write them, or did you inspire man to write them??

The contents of religious scriptures have as much relevance to my true nature as do the works of Stan Lee.

But you’re here.
How is agnosticism or atheism even possible?

But I just may be an imposter who has the capacity to convince you that I am God. You don’t think that such an entity might exist? As your God, I’m telling you that there is no way for you to know me. Your only choice is to take reality as it comes and hope for the best.

 

[Musika]

So you finally acknowledge that God may be posing as a shit throwing zoo monkey.

Sure. I may even be the president of the united states. You may even be a shit throwing monkey. You may even be a shit throwing monkey who is the president of the united states.
Such are the unlimited boundaries of special pleading completely divorced from the standard of knowledge.
I'm not sure why one would be proud of successfully lodging that argument, though.

But you insist that a God desiring to effect some ideal social reform would manifest in a more anthropomorphically dignified manner.

Actually I said "Godlike".
And I think its hardly an insistence peculiar to myself.
I mean if a shit throwing monkey suddenly was revealed to be the president of the united states, I hardly think that the dominant concern would be that something more anthropomorphic was required. "President-like" isn't an actual word, but one can join the dots sufficiently to understand intentions.

Haven’t a number of non theists in this forum already proposed that if a god was interested in convincing humans of its existence, that it would do so in a more convincing manner than has been depicted by the various religions?

Actually I wasn't aware that they were proposing that is the highest problem facing the "God" issue. Atheism, being an unavoidable antithetical position, is only as capable as the thesism it poses itself as reactionary to. If you take the dumbest form of theism ("Just belieb") as one's source material, one just ends up with a dumb form of atheism as the final product.

This is the inherent problem when one tries to be a vocal atheist, yet remain philosophically and historically illiterate of religious issues. This is not just "atheist-bashing." It's a legitimate concern voiced by your fellow atheists (the non-illiterate varieties, of course).

I mean a shit throwing zoo monkey spelling out the Ten Commandments on a wall with it’s thrown shit would be more convincing than all of the mystical nonsense put forth by theists over the millennia.

Over the millenia, huh?

Bold words coming from a guy who is not even up to speed with the last 100 years of history or anything beyond that funny stuff that Jehovah witnesses peddle on the doorstep.

No, I understood your intent, even though you got the Schulzt quote wrong.

Your desperation to end on a winning point in any of your discussions, despite all odds to the contrary, is perhaps your most endearing quality.

 

[Capracus]

You may even be a shit throwing monkey who is the president of the united states.

No, Donald J Trump is not your God.

Such are the unlimited boundaries of special pleading completely divorced from the standard of knowledge.
I'm not sure why one would be proud of successfully lodging that argument, though.

It’s you who should be proud, it’s your standard of God I chose to defend.

Actually I said "Godlike".
And I think its hardly an insistence peculiar to myself.
I mean if a shit throwing monkey suddenly was revealed to be the president of the united states, I hardly think that the dominant concern would be that something more anthropomorphic was required. "President-like" isn't an actual word, but one can join the dots sufficiently to understand intentions.

What capacity qualifies you or anyone else to know what Godlike would be like?

Actually I wasn't aware that they were proposing that is the highest problem facing the "God" issue. Atheism, being an unavoidable antithetical position, is only as capable as the thesism it poses itself as reactionary to. If you take the dumbest form of theism ("Just belieb") as one's source material, one just ends up with a dumb form of atheism as the final product.

You disparage the “Just beliebers,” yet you offer nothing of your own to justifiably exceed that position. Please, show them the way, show the atheists the way.

This is the inherent problem when one tries to be a vocal atheist, yet remain philosophically and historically illiterate of religious issues. This is not just "atheist-bashing." It's a legitimate concern voiced by your fellow atheists (the non-illiterate varieties, of course).

If you can show something philosophically or historically relevant to the issue of personally knowing God, go ahead and present it.

Over the millenia, huh?

Bold words coming from a guy who is not even up to speed with the last 100 years of history or anything beyond that funny stuff that Jehovah witnesses peddle on the doorstep.

Well if you’ve got a better angle than the Jehovah Witnesses, let’s hear it. At least they’ll give an honest account of their personal beliefs so that it can be debated on your doorstep. Afraid your sales pitch won’t measure up?

Your desperation to end on a winning point in any of your discussions, despite all odds to the contrary, is perhaps your most endearing quality.

A true aficionado of Hogan's Heroes wouldn't have made such a gaffe. Or maybe where you're from it could be chalked up to a translation issue.

One could say, the magnanimity of God suddenly appearing on sciforums is a directive that asserts a dominance that makes passivity (aka, the Sergeant Schultz mantra, deep neutral "I don't know" etc) untenable, even for an atheist.

The most tenable perspective any human being can assert regarding any claim associated with God would be the actual iconic Sergeant Schultz line, “I know nothing.”

 

[Jan Ardena]

If I ‘m God, you have no way of knowing it, because human beings don’t have the capacity to distinguish God from non God.

Could we know if you told us you were God?

Since unit Musika refused to provide its knowledge of God’s existence, I supplied it with one of equal justification.

So you're saying you're not God?
I guess that's the end of the game then.

The contents of religious scriptures have as much relevance to my true nature as do the works of Stan Lee.

We're back on!

You define yourself thusly...

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.

This definitely defines a part of your nature, which can only be found in scriptures.
So how is it we can't know you, when you are identified in any scripture?

But I just may be an imposter who has the capacity to convince you that I am God.

But you obviously don't have the capacity to convince me, or Musika , that you're God.
But you being able to identify God, shouldn't go unmissed.
You should follow up on that.

You don’t think that such an entity might exist?

An imposter? I think that lot's of imposters exist.
But none of them are God. They are imposters.
Even if they fool me, they are still imposters.

I’m telling you that there is no way for you to know me.

But you do exist thought, right?
Otherwise who am I talking to?

Your only choice is to take reality as it comes and hope for the best.

You said choice. What is the other option?

But we do that anyway, so it's not a really a choice.
A choice would be to be able tohave an option, not have to live like that?

jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

Me: (avoids suggesting that one try googling "2+2=5" to find out how even that can be framed with context

If you think something can be framed in context, the onus is on YOU to provide the context. You have not done that, most likely because you know very well that it is irrelevant in this example. Put up or shut up.

 

[Musika]

No, Donald J Trump is not your God.

It’s you who should be proud, it’s your standard of God I chose to defend.

Another one that flew over your head.
Arguing on the strength of special pleading seasoned by a conscious effort to divorce subject from object is nothing to be proud of.
The reason being, that anyone can say anything is anything. You are God. You are the president of the USA. You are shit throwing monkey. You are a shit throwing monkey who is president of the USA.
Your argument says less about God, and more about the limitations of atheists who try to launch such arguments while remaining willfully ignorant of religious history and philosophy.

What capacity qualifies you or anyone else to know what Godlike would be like?

Your desperate search for the most profane thing you can imagine to represent God reveals that you already have something of a clue.

You disparage the “Just beliebers,” yet you offer nothing of your own to justifiably exceed that position. Please, show them the way, show the atheists the way.

I took some pains to talk about obscurantism, the brief historical window that irrational revelation gained some popularity (notoriety?) and how this fits in the broader category of the history of enlightenment/revelation/ samadhi.
But these were all subjects you haven't, can't and won't investigate.
I also mentioned how the way forward, if one wanted to ply the subject of "I'm God/we're all God/everything is God" would be to look at the philisophers who somewhat vigorously pursued that philosophy. Specifically, I suggested one take note of how they problematized the notion of "category" and "quality", since these are the main stumbling blocks in such arguments.
But once again, this is another subject you haven't, can't and won't investigate.
In fact even now, you still can't fathom the stumbling blocks of your argument (which are, in case you are still rattling your empty peanut shell, that your argument also paves they way for me being the president, or even a shit throwing monkey acting as the president of the USA and so on and so forth). If you are convinced of the sublime nature of your small-mindedness, there simply isn't the space for anything else.

In short, I provided an introduction to the problems you need to address in order to take your argument to higher standard than the sub-moronic. You ignored all this, made the most flame-worthy strawman possible, and noted how easily it burns.
You own the stupid.

If you can show something philosophically or historically relevant to the issue of personally knowing God, go ahead and present it.

Done already.
You weren't interested.

Well if you’ve got a better angle than the Jehovah Witnesses, let’s hear it. At least they’ll give an honest account of their personal beliefs so that it can be debated on your doorstep. Afraid your sales pitch won’t measure up?

Done already.
You weren't interested.

A true aficionado of Hogan's Heroes wouldn't have made such a gaffe. Or maybe where you're from it could be chalked up to a translation issue.

In the true spirit of the intellectually sloth, again you missed it. I would ask you to try researching the thread and see how ownership of the phrase "I don't know" turns up amongst the discussion. This would not only help determine whether the quote is attributed to sergeant schultz or someone else (it would also help determine the point in bringing schultz to the discussion in the first place ... I mean if the quotated reference is not a direct quote from schultz, what would be the point in referring to a character famous for his stubborn denial of the blatantly obvious?).

...I say, "I would ask you", because such a task would involve getting off your arse to research posts, reading stuff and so on... which all seems to be something you haven't, can't and won't do.

 

[Musika]

If you think something can be framed in context, the onus is on YOU to provide the context.

Like saying something like, "read baldeees assertion to work out what I am responding to"?

You have not done that, most likely because you know very well that it is irrelevant in this example. Put up or shut up.

In this case, the broader context are not the red herrings you are spouting in the name of mathematics, but that you are equal parts a hypocrite and lazy.
You have just crawled out of a thread having faced allegations of paedophilia. Your saving grace was a desperate plea for context. And now, disregarding context is suddenly the flavour of your month.

Explaining to a hypocrite how they are a hypocrite is much like trying to explain common sense to a drunkard. Works every time, no?

 

[sideshowbob]

Like saying something like, "read baldeees assertion to work out what I am responding to"?

No. Like actually pointing out the context that backs up your nonsense. Not telling me to go and find the context for you.

You still have not shown any context that backs up your nonsense. Put up or shut up.

 

[Capracus]

Could we know if you told us you were God?

No, the only way to know God is to be God.

So you're saying you're not God?
I guess that's the end of the game then.

I’m saying that you don’t have the capacity to know me from God. So I might be God.

We're back on!

You define yourself thusly...

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.

This definitely defines a part of your nature, which can only be found in scriptures.
So how is it we can't know you, when you are identified in any scripture?

It has nothing to do with scriptures. It’s an imaginary extention of any concept of quantity and quality. Like infinite time, power, or intelligence.

But you obviously don't have the capacity to convince me, or Musika , that you're God.

Unit Musika already admitted that I could be. In time you may come around as well.

An imposter? I think that lot's of imposters exist.
But none of them are God. They are imposters.
Even if they fool me, they are still imposters.

That’s my point, there’s no one on the planet that’s any better qualified than you to be able to unmask the imposter.

But you do exist thought, right?
Otherwise who am I talking to?

You are talking to an entity that claims to be God.

You said choice. What is the other option?

But we do that anyway, so it's not a really a choice.
A choice would be to be able tohave an option, not have to live like that?

The choice is to cultivate sound reason or not, and to accept where it leads you or not.