Prove that I am not God

[iceaura]

I followed up on that (while I accepted you as God), then I decided that you're an imposter. Based on what you said.
-
"But if it can - show us. What was said {by Capracus}, and how did that conflict with your God?"

I’ve no clue what you’re on about.

. "But you need to know something about God's nature to say anything about it - such as, say, that it is different somehow from that of Capracus."

How do you know?

The oA theist posts on a science forum.

How weirdly entitled they must feel, to behave like that in the sight of a judgmental God. There's three or four Commandment violations in there, just for starters.

When it comes to God, atheists simply aren’t informed. So what use is their understanding of religion, to a theist?

To an oA theist? Probably none.
Jesus pointed that out, long ago - riffing on the common metaphor of pearls for understanding, and swine for fundies.

But once again we face the question of all these threads: why are the oA theists posting like that on science forums?

 

[Write4U]

When it comes to God, atheists simply aren’t informed. So what use is their understanding of religion, to a theist?
I could care less about the term “religion”, and what atheists think they know.

And you’re atheist because you do not believe in God, for no other reason.

Jan.

Religions are the science/history of universal spirituality, no?

 

[Write4U]

But once again we face the question of all these threads: why are the oA theists posting like that on science forums?

For our entertainment? ......

 

[Write4U]

When it comes to God, atheists simply aren’t informed. So what use is their understanding of religion, to a theist?
I could care less about the term “religion”, and what atheists think they know.

And you’re atheist because you do not believe in God, for no other reason.

Jan.

I do not believe in God for many reasons.............you are one of them.....

p.s. would you die for your God?

 

[Jan Ardena]

p.s. would you die for your God?

It’s your God too, let’s not forget that.

I don’t know what it means to die for God, in this relaxed, armchair, state of mind. I could easily just blurt “yes”. But does that mean I actually would, if and when the time came?
I can’t say.

So the answer to that question would be revealed at the moment I realise that I’m going to die for God.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I do not believe in God for many reasons.............you are one of them.....

Like I said you simply deny, and reject God.

You are an atheist who likes to construct reasons to not believe in God.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Religions are the science/history of universal spirituality, no?

Which religions?
Why are they?

Jan.

 

[James R]

Musika:

"Hiding" is probably not the right word. For instance the Indian government tends to define their position as "protecting" the Andaman Islanders.

You think that God is protecting us by making it look like he doesn't exist?

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?

You tell me. What specific qualities (subjects) do you attribute to God, and how is it that you have determined that Capracus does not have those qualities?

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?

Which boxes (subjects) for God is Capracus not ticking?

 

[James R]

No it wasn't. I gave my preferred term.

I could, of course, link back to the previous discussion, but let's shortcut the process. What's your preferred term?

If we are the best persons to determine whether or not someone is an imposter, then job done.

How did you do the job of determining that Capracus is an imposter, and not God? What steps did you take to confirm Capracus's status as an imposter?

Obviously, it will be useful to apply the same process to other claimed Gods.

Capracus, as God, told us of some of his attributes.
They are the same attributes of God in the scriptures.

How did you identify Capracus as an imposter, if he shares all the same traits as the God of your scriptures?

Do you think Capracus is an imposter, or do you think he is God?

I'm an atheist, Jan. My position is consistent. Yours, on the other hand, is puzzling. You're an a-Capracus-ist, but you do believe in a God. Like the quote goes, it looks to me like we're both atheists, in reality. I just believe in one less God than you do.

 

[Musika]

Musika:


You think that God is protecting us by making it look like he doesn't exist?

In a sense, yes.
Although it's probably more accurate to say our predilection for ignorance requires a special sort of existence to be sustained.
That said, however, you can argue that there are inherent spanners thrown into the works of this "special existence" to push us along on the desired learning curve.

You tell me. What specific qualities (subjects) do you attribute to God, and how is it that you have determined that Capracus does not have those qualities?


Which boxes (subjects) for God is Capracus not ticking?

That is quite a large topic unto itself, but I think at this stage it's sufficient to say that your ideas (or anyone else's, for that matter) on why Capracus didn't make the grade as God are not remarkably different from my own.
If the calling card of atheism is "a lack of belief in God", why is it that Capracus's face-value claim not only failed to even begin to convince you (after all, now we apparently have God before us, which would effectively spell the end of your atheism, if the claim was true, right?), but rather trekked down the regular garden path of giving the impression this is but another chapter in his antics as an (illiterate) atheist?
Along the lines of "walking the talk", the "talk" of God may have been there, but why does everyone perceive nothing in the "walk" of God ... but rather perceive it as the "walk" of an (illiterate) atheist?
God appearing on sciforums would certainly be an amazing event for humanity, yet why does Capracus's antics fail to even arouse the bile secretions of our dour and derermined atheist community, who have an established history of being spruiked to the frontline by even mere appearance of a theist discussing God?
What was it that was so catastrophic in Capracus's presentation that granted him such a flatline fail?

 

[Musika]

You forgot to mention that the Pew report shows atheists to be the people least inclined to be sloth about gaining knowledge about religion.
It's the religions themselves which breed unquestioned acceptance of religious dogma.
If you want to compare who is closest to sloth in knowledge and practice of religion it is theists. Now you can play that little piece of animal torture.

Which is really weird, being that sloth is one of the deadly sins .

The study is flawed on so many levels. It's like they interviewed 3412 idiots on the phone in America to determine who is the least moronic. If anything, it probably says more about people in america who are willing to cooperate in surveys over the phone, or the height of the bar amongst the lowest common denominators, or perhaps the futility of orchestrating surveys in the pursuit of soundbites amongst miniscule populations than anything else.

And the absolute height in stupidity in you even bringing this up, is even if the survey was capable of presenting accurate truths (which it isn't), this still offers you zero credibility with your bombastic rants about familiarity with "not only the last 2000 years of christianity, but everything related to God and religion from tens of thousands of years ago."
Even if atheists do happen to be statistically more up to speed on religious philosophy and history, you are obviously not representative of them.
If you were, you would be holding your own in discussion instead of citing useless surveys that place you in the top 38% of religious aficionado's who can correctly identify that the Dalai Lama as Buddhist.
Hence baby sloths, and falling out of trees, and all that.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I could, of course, link back to the previous discussion, but let's shortcut the process. What's your preferred term?

I can’t remember. But I know it wasn’t what you said.

How did you do the job of determining that Capracus is an imposter, and not God? What steps did you take to confirm Capracus's status as an imposter?

He told me he was an entity claiming to be God?

I'm an atheist, Jan. My position is consistent. Yours, on the other hand, is puzzling. You're an a-Capracus-ist, but you do believe in a God. Like the quote goes, it looks to me like we're both atheists, in reality. I just believe in one less God than you do.

This is interesting.
So despite Capracus telling you he was God, you still remain atheist?

Wasn’t that evidence good enough for you?

So what type of evidence are you holding out for?

Jan.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

I can’t remember. But I know it wasn’t what you said.

It was what you said in a previous thread, where we discussed it at some length. But never mind.

He told me he was an entity claiming to be God?

You didn't answer the question I asked you. Try again.

This is interesting.
So despite Capracus telling you he was God, you still remain atheist?

Wasn’t that evidence good enough for you?

No, it wasn't. But I'm interested in why it wasn't good enough for you? What more would you need to accept Capracus's claim?

So what type of evidence are you holding out for?

I've explained that to you at length elsewhere.

What type of evidence are you holding out for when it comes to accepting Capracus's claim? Or is it more a matter of just not feeling the vibe for you? Capracus doesn't set off the magical God sense you have?

 

[Write4U]

Along the lines of "walking the talk", the "talk" of God may have been there, but why does everyone perceive nothing in the "walk" of God ... but rather perceive it as the "walk" of an (illiterate) atheist?

Do explain the "talk" and "walk" of God and why atheists could not "walk" the "talk" in deed rather than by word. Atheists can be good people too, yanno.

And it is curious you should cite "illiterate" atheists as being unable to grasp the concept of God.
The bible was "told" by illiterate theists and the "walk" was just behaving as was proscribed from limited knowledge of the phenomenon of homo sapiens (wise man) and his social behaviors.

He sets out to explain how we, Homo sapiens (Latin for “wise person”), came to dominate the Earth and what may lie ahead for our species.

https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Sapiens-A-Brief-History-of-Humankind

So your declaration that atheists are "illiterate" (in the broadest sense) is an incorrect interpretation of humanity, social mores, and scientific "knowledge from observation"

You do not hear me say that Santa Claus was Opus Dei. I could not prove it, but it sure sounds that way.

He gave the organization the name "Opus Dei", which in Latin means "Work of God",[14] in order to underscore the belief that the organization was not his (Escrivá's) work, but was rather God's work.[15] Throughout his life, Escrivá held that the founding of Opus Dei had a supernatural character

In 1939, Escrivá published The Way, a collection of 999 maxims concerning spirituality for people involved in secular affairs.[21] In the 1940s, Opus Dei found an early critic in the Jesuit Superior General Wlodimir Ledóchowski, who told the Vatican that he considered Opus Dei "very dangerous for the Church in Spain," citing its "secretive character" and calling it "a form of Christian Masonry."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Dei

....... "Spooky Language" (talk)............

Religions tend to be confused that way........everywhere!........

 

[Musika]

Do explain the "talk" and "walk" of God and why atheists could not "walk" the "talk" in deed rather than by word. Atheists can be good people too, yanno.

I don't know what you are talking about regarding "atheists being good people." It seems irrelevant (namely whether they are, or aren't, or whether it's an exercise in futility to assign a moral compass to it in the first place) to anything currently under discussion.

 

[Write4U]

I don't know what you are talking about regarding "atheists being good people." It seems irrelevant (namely whether they are, or aren't, or whether it's an exercise in futility to assign a moral compass to it in the first place) to anything currently under discussion.

I am talking about enlightenment in the form of knowledge. If you cannot explain your "knowledge" you can't claim "knowledge".

Then get off your high horse and just admit you have no clue. You know you don't, don't you?

Faith = Illiterate belief in matters spiritual

 

[Jan Ardena]

You didn't answer the question I asked you. Try again.

For me it was a no-brainier when he stated that he was an entity claiming to be God.
But I will go with scriptures.
God doesnt identify Himself as an entity claiming to be God.

No, it wasn't. But I'm interested in why it wasn't good enough for you? What more would you need to accept Capracus's claim?

He would need to be God.

What type of evidence are you holding out for when it comes to accepting Capracus's claim?

Not holding out for anything.
God is not an entity who claims to be God.

Or is it more a matter of just not feeling the vibe for you?

Never really went past his admission that he was an entity claiming to be God.

Capracus doesn't set off the magical God sense you have?

What do you mean?

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

God doesnt identify Himself as an entity claiming to be God.

Yes he does!

......."I am That, I am"......is self identification as an entity

Let's see what you are gonna do with that.........

 

[Musika]

I am talking about enlightenment in the form of knowledge. If you cannot explain your "knowledge" you can't claim "knowledge".

If you didn't fall for Capracus's gig, you are already there (even if its only in a trickle down, half-arsed, percolated form)

 

[Michael 345]

Yes he does!

......."I am That, I am"......is self identification as an entity

Let's see what you are gonna do with that.........

I am what I am
I don't want praise, I don't want pity
I bang my own drum
Some think it's noise, I think it's pretty
And so what if I love each sparkle and each bangle
Why not try to see things from a different angle
Your life is a sham
Till you can shout out
I am what I am

Gloria Gaynor

Google - I am what I am

Fitting