You could try wiki.
Prove that I am not God
- Thread starter Capracus
- Start date
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No, no, no..... I want you to present your evidence.
I just did.
Or, equivalently, a person who believes in Capracus.
Or a person who doesn't believe in Capracus. Like Musika, for example. And I suspect you're another a-Capracus-ist. In denial about Capracus.
And, thus, you cannot comprehend Capracus.
Right. If Capracus is God, your denial doesn't change the fact.
What we're all wondering here is what method you used to reach the conclusion that Capracus is not God. What make you think your worldview is all there is?
What about the problem of a God who fails to manifest at all? How would He be treated? I imagine he would be treated as somebody who doesn't exist, and the charade would be seamless.
As you say, for God to work, sooner or later there would have to be some qualitative expression that identifies something as God, which would reveal the charade of God's Hiding himself away from detection.
I recall that I started another thread asking for some "qualitative expression", although in that thread I called it "evidence".
It seems to me that your regular God concept suffers from the same basic problem that you identify for the Capracus-as-God concept.
Last edited:
We've been through this before.
We all agree that God is a real character, Jan, in the same way that Santa Claus is a real character. I believe "real fantasy figure" was your preferred term.
Did we establish that God/Capracus is a real fantasy figure? I forget what conclusion you reached on that question.
Last edited:
Sure.
If illusion wasn't also a seamless experience for us, it would be very difficult to justify our everyday position. Think the plotline of the matrix, and the requirement of someone coming in from outside the system with red and blue pills.
Or alternatively, the plotline of the matrix if someone didn't.
"Hiding" is probably not the right word. For instance the Indian government tends to define their position as "protecting" the Andaman Islanders. IOW to come out of "hiding", as you say, would unilaterally destroy the lifestyle and existence of the other party (regardless whether it is health/cultural issues arising from a dissolved quarantine border or removing the basis of an environment for the living entity to have the opportunity to express desires separate from God).
Which you took to mean empirical.
I think here we are merely talking about the relationship between subject and object.
Namely,
A. are there specific qualities (subjects) one can attribute to God (object)?
And,
B. are there specific qualities one can attribute to being an illiterate atheist?
Is it really sufficient to problematize the problem of God by having someone ticking none of the boxes of A and all of the boxes of B by saying, "Hey everyone, I'm God."?
How would this work if we replaced the object categories with "USA president" and "online crank"?
If Capracus is ticking all the boxes (subjects) of an illiterate atheist (object) and no boxes (subjects) for God (object), is it not reasonable to treat Capracus as an illiterate atheist?
And you can't isolate this perception to something behavioural on my part. EVERYONE (including atheists) is treating Capracus as an (illiterate) atheist charading as God.
Last edited:
Capracus, while claiming to be God, said that I am the best person to judge whether or not he is an imposter.
I conclude that Capracus is not God, but a person who instinctively knows there is a God. Like yourself.
jan.
Nope.
You don't know anything about your God's boxes, for starters - no such premise tenable.
And the atheists here can tell you exactly why Capracus is not in their opinion a God - he doesn't meet my criterion of having a population of believers who tell me about him, for example.
But Capracus meets all your posted evidence for being your God, and conflicts with none of it.
Until you post otherwise, you're in the denial you project onto others.
That characteristic and particular fog of misused language, that fieldmark of the oA theist posting on a science forum, is interesting.
- - - - -
Leo Kottke once introduced a song he'd written as derived from an interest he had in poetry that did not quite make sense - iirc the best he found was some stuff written by a chloroform addict in 19th Century England. The key attribute was that it almost made sense - it would pass for legitimately obscure if skimmed. And that was its interest.
That's not a conclusion. There's no argument or evidence. That's just a denial, unsupported.
Obviously..'
No it wasn't. I gave my preferred term.
What is to establish?
If we are the best persons to determine whether or not someone is an imposter, then job done.
Capracus, as God, told us of some of his attributes.
They are the same attributes of God in the scriptures.
As those attribute can only be attributed to God, we can find out about God.
Just like the imposter Capracus did.
Do you think Capracus is an imposter, or do you think he is God?
jan.
Not until you do it.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Then you may as well pack it in. Wiki is not evidence for a sentient supernatural power.
It is evidence of dominant (or at least an introduction to the prominent range of views) within contemporary and historical Judaism ... which is precisely just a small part (of what is a vast slice) that is missing in your ambitious estimations of familiarity with "everything related to religion and God from tens of thousands of years."
Last edited:
As I heard, someplace, the internet (at least parts of it) might help to cast doubt on the
The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
If you were literate you'd know that atheists are among the most knowledgeable about religions, mainly in defense of maintaining intellectual freedom.
http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/
So your argument is that God is following a Star Trek plot line, in that it is attempting to adhere to a noninterference clause like that contained in the Federation Prime Directive. You could call it the Divine Prime Directive.
You already assigned an answer to that question and it blew up in you face. So what’s next, put some strings on the omnimax God and give it an anthropomorphic makeover?
You’re the one who set a standard of God that contains all possible boxes, which includes posing as an illiterate atheist. The only way to get out of the box you put yourself into is to redefine the god that you had no actual capacity to define in the first place. Time to go navel gaze a new god into existence.
The problem is unit Jan, that even though the best human being is no better than the worst human being in their ability to know God's true nature, no human being that's ever existed is capable of knowing God's true nature.
The Capracus God(actually the Musika God) would send Jesus to hell for eternity just for kicks. Does that sound like your God?
According to unit Musika, you can't know the answer.
If you were literate you'd know that atheist are among the most knowledgeable about religions, mainly in defense of maintaining intellectual freedom.
http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/
In addition, fewer than half of Americans know that the Dalai Lama is Buddhist and only 38% correctly associate Vishnu and Shiva with Hinduism. About a quarter of all Americans correctly answer that most people in Indonesia - the country with the world's highest concentration of Muslims - are, in fact, Muslim
.Nine general knowledge control questions on history, politics, science and literature suggested that less than 60% of Americans can name the vice president of the United States, or understand that lasers do not work by focusing sound waves. More than 70% correctly associate Susan B. Anthony with the suffragette movement, while only 42% know that Herman Melville was the author of the novel Moby Dick.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...nostics-more-knowledgeable-about-religion?amp
Goes back to my earlier statement about intellectual sloth and the alleged problems with falling out of trees infant sloth's face on account of mistaking their arms and legs for tree branches.
It's probably wiser to pick up the conversation where you left off rather than dropping in unawares and unannounced :
www.sciforums.com/threads/prove-that-i-am-not-god.161251/page-20#post-3548137
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
The ape is the first mammal to invent God. This has been proven by observation of male Chimpanzee behavior during natural weather phenomena. During a seasonal thunder monsoon, the Alpha male may pick up a run around the clearing beating the surrounding bushes to flush out any possible enemies and during a thunderclap will raise the stick to the unseen enemy above, hidden in those dark clouds and throwing water at him and his family and scream his defiance.As I heard, someplace, the internet (at least parts of it) might help to cast doubt on the
The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
The assumption of possible hidden demons (gods) in the clouds is a survival mechanism, an abstract "fight or flight" response mechanism build into our evolved hominid brain functions through time immemorial. Later came the worship.
Last edited:
The ape is the first mammal to invent God. This has been proven by observation of male Chimpanzee behavior during natural weather phenomena. During a seasonal thunder monsoon, the Alpha male may pick up a run around the clearing beating the surrounding bushes to flush out any possible enemies and during a thunderclap will raise the stick to the unseen enemy above, hidden in those dark clouds and throwing water at him and his family and scream his defiance.
Self imposed labour of digging a trench just to throw yourself in while in the middle of a thread that repeatedly reminds everyone of the perils of subject/object divides employed in the service of intellectual sloth ... and all that
Last edited: