Prove that I am not God

[Jan Ardena]

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 don’t really see how God is making a claim, here.

Claim - state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.

God was simply asked a reasonable question, to which He gave an answer.

Plus, He didn’t try to convince Moses He was God.

Jan

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

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.

So you reject Capracus as your God because he doesn't conform to something that appears in your scriptures?

You would concede, I suppose, that God could identify himself as an entity claiming to be God, if he chose to. Right?

Who wrote the scriptures, Jan? If you think it was God, couldn't he change his mind later? And if you think it was men, couldn't they have made a mistake?

Are you saying that your scriptures are the reason you reject Capracus as your God?

He would need to be God.

How did you establish that he isn't God? Did you rely on anything other than the scriptures?

God is not an entity who claims to be God.

The God of your scriptures isn't, perhaps. (Out of interest, what does God claim to be in your scriptures, if not God?)

How do you know the scriptures have it right?

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

That seems a bit superficial. He doesn't meet a specific expectation you have, as derived from scripture, so you deny him.

Is checking against scripture the only way to check if a claimed person or thing is God?

What do you mean?

I mean you "just know" that Capracus isn't God, in the same way you "just know" that God is real. That kind of thing. Magic, rather than evidence.

 

[iceaura]

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

Sure he does. (After mentally cleaning up another weird oA theist language fail, so that it doesn't read as God identifying "Himself" as one who makes claims)
It's all over the Bible and the Quran, and of course in Capracus's posts here.

God is not an entity who claims to be God.

Some imposter wrote the Ten Commandments?

For me it was a no-brainier when he stated that he was an entity claiming to be God.

Evaluating a candidate for God according to certain worldly criteria - it's not just for atheists.
Although refusing to involve reason in the process may be just for theists.

 

[James R]

Musika:

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.

My idea is that there is insufficient evidence that Capracus is God. Is that the same idea you're having?

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?

Why do you assume that Capracus's claim failed to begin to convince me?

Suppose I were to start a thread asking for Capracus-believers to present their best evidence that Capracus is God. I imagine that one of the first items of evidence they would present would be: "well, he demonstrably exists, and he said he's God, for starters." We could then go on to have a discussion about how persuasive this evidence is of the truth of the claim under discussion, namely that Capracus is, in fact, God.

I concede that we have some evidence that Capracus is God. He said he's God, and I accept that he said it. Why have I not yet accepted that Capracus is God? For the simple reason that his claim to be God doesn't clinch the matter for me. The weight of evidence is not zero, but nor is it sufficient to establish the rather extraordinary claim that was made.

You're right, of course, that if Capracus does turn out to be God that would spell the end of my atheism. But we've got a ways to go yet to satisfy me on that point.

But enough about me. I'm far more interested in why you and Jan rejected Capracus's claim to be God. After all, as you say, we apparently have God before us, which would effectively be the piece de resistance of your theism if the claim was true, right? But you're trekking down the garden path of calling this potential God an illiterate atheist. Why?

Do you reject Capracus's claim based on the evidence, like I do? Or do you reject it because it is inconsistent with some argument from authority, like Jan says he does? Or do you reject it for some other reason?

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?

How would one recognise the walk of God, and rule out the walk of Capracus as a farcical imitation by an illiterate atheist? You talk about "perceiving". Are you referring to a magical God sense, like the one Jan claims to have? Or just plain old evidence, like I tend to rely on?

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?

Maybe it's because God has never done us the same courtesy of appearing and telling us all about himself directly.

I mean, for example, there's a whole thread asking for evidence for God - any evidence that satisfies a theist - and after 1000 posts or so there the theists have mostly come up blank. At least with Capracus we can say "He told us he is God". That's one more piece of evidence for the Godliness of Capracus than the real theists have presented for the Gods they actually believe in, so far. [Admittedly, a couple of people have suggested evidence for their Gods, but the most prolific theist posters in the Evidence that God is Real thread have come up with exactly nothing, so far.]

We might as well ask: why does the amazing appearance of Capracus on sciforums fail to arouse the excitement of theists, who have an established history of being spruiked to the frontline by the merest suggestion that possibly their Gods are unevidenced? Here, finally, is an opportunity to collect the missing evidence.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So you reject Capracus as your God because he doesn't conform to something that appears in your scriptures?

He did conform, which is how I know he’s not. No need of rejection.

You would concede, I suppose, that God could identify himself as an entity claiming to be God, if he chose to. Right?

If Capracus can, God can.

Who wrote the scriptures, Jan? If you think it was God, couldn't he change his mind later? And if you think it was men, couldn't they have made a mistake?

Vyasadev compiled the vedas, and other Vedic literature. But you should really consult an expert. Why do you ask?

God can do what God wants.
Maybe when He appears on the planet to perform His pastimes, he acts as though He changes His mind. Again you should consult experts.

Man cannot write scripture.

How do you know the scriptures have it right?

Because God is without flaw.

Are you saying that your scriptures are the reason you accept your God, and reject Capracus?

I don’t reject Capracus.

How did you establish that he isn't God? Did you rely on anything other than the scriptures?

I didn’t really have to rely on the scriptures.
But they are always useful.
It’s a no-brainier. God isn’t an entity claiming to be God.

The God of your scriptures isn't, perhaps. (Out of interest, what does God claim to be in your scriptures, if not God?)

I can’t write scriptures.
I suggest you stop regarding scriptures, and God as mine. I don’t own them. They were already established when I arrived.
Otherwise we will get bogged down in this.

That seems a bit superficial.

No it doesn’t.

He doesn't meet a specific expectation you have, as derived from scripture, so you deny him.

Who here declared it was true?
Denial is your specialty.

Is checking against scripture the only way to check if a claimed person or thing is God?

I haven’t thought about it.

I mean you "just know" that Capracus isn't God, in the same way you "just know" that God is real. That kind of thing. Magic, rather than evidence.

I mentioned nothing about magic. You did.

I told how I knew Capracus was an imposter.

I accept your analasys because you’re an atheist.

Why didn’t you accept Capracus as God?

Jan

 

[Write4U]

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.

Doubt?

Abraham didn't have any doubt. He was ready to kill his own son at God's command.

 

[Write4U]

I don’t really see how God is making a claim, here.

Well, let's see.

(Claim - state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.)

God was simply asked a reasonable question, to which He gave an answer.

Well, let's see what Scripture (the historical document) has to say about that.

There (Exodus 40:34–35) we read that God’s kābôd, the visible, earthly manifestation of His presence,[1] descended from the top of Mount Sinai, where it had been hovering since the Israelites arrived there about a year earlier (Exodus 19:1-2a + 24:16-18a).

It immediately took up residence in the miškān, the Tabernacle, the portable divine abode that the Israelites, meticulously following the detailed instructions given by God to Moses many months before, had constructed at the foot of the mountain.

Once the kābôd has settled in the inner sanctum of the miškān, God begins to convey to Moses, in a series of encounters, his commandments.[2] He begins with the instructions for sacrifice (Leviticus 1–7), continues with instructions for the priests (10:8–11), laws of animals whose flesh may and may not be eaten (Leviticus 11), instructions for eliminating bodily impurities (Leviticus 12–15), laws pertaining to the annual day of kippurîm or cleansing of the sanctuary (Leviticus 16), and so forth––legislation covering all areas of life and incumbent upon the people of Israel for all time.

https://thetorah.com/does-god-speak/

How do we recognize God’s kābôd, the visible, earthly manifestation of His presence?
How did it hover if it is a physical manifestation? Fly like a bird? Lighter than air? Blimp? Balloon? Clouds? Thunderclouds, noisy gods?

Plus, He didn’t try to convince Moses He was God.

And what gave you that idea? God gave Moses the Ten Commandments but didn't tell Moses it was God doing the talking? The first three commandments are specifically designed to convince the reader he is reading the words of God.

Note that the atheist perspective on morality is much shorter and still effective for its purpose.......

p.s. I do like the Seven Deadly Sins, but of course these are human foibles, with serious consequences for humans if not heeded. They are not divine but secular moral commandments.

 

[Capracus]

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.

Or just as likely your God views humanity as being so far down the evolutionary chain of existence that it would treat us as indifferently as we treat a species of bacteria. Maybe your God sees animal life on planets like ours as a nuisance, and every so often sends an asteroid our way to keep the infestation in check. It’s happened before, and likely to happen again.

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?

You seem to be missing, or ignoring the main point of the thread. It wasn’t my challenge to pose as a an omnimax God and be judged according to the fitness of some imagined ideal, but to assume a part that would be consistent with the actual evidence that can be demonstrated for a postulated omnimax God. And since no one is even qualified to validate such evidence if it existed, the premise is unfalsifiable from the start.

A rational person wouldn’t accept any demonstration as proof of identity by an entity claiming to be God. But apparently theists like Musika would. It just has to check the right boxes on its foolproof list of expectations.

 

[Musika]

Musika:


My idea is that there is insufficient evidence that Capracus is God. Is that the same idea you're having?

I think there is also the added element of overwhelming evidence that it was a spurious front from an atheist.

Why do you assume that Capracus's claim failed to begin to convince me?

Because you were not even remotely interested in engaging him in dialogue. In fact no atheist was ... except, interestingly enough, one atheist earlier on in the piece, who hadn't clicked on that Capracus was taking the piss. They posted maybe two posts, relishing the flavour of crackpot bashing, before they clicked on to the schtick.

Suppose I were to start a thread asking for Capracus-believers to present their best evidence that Capracus is God. I imagine that one of the first items of evidence they would present would be: "well, he demonstrably exists, and he said he's God, for starters." We could then go on to have a discussion about how persuasive this evidence is of the truth of the claim under discussion, namely that Capracus is, in fact, God.

All of which, never happenef. Which then gets back to the issue of why not.
Of course you could pedantically engineer something like that, of FSM fame. I could similarly pose as the president of the USA. All of which would illustrate nothing more than efforts people are willing to go to in support of the spurious.

I concede that we have some evidence that Capracus is God. He said he's God, and I accept that he said it. Why have I not yet accepted that Capracus is God? For the simple reason that his claim to be God doesn't clinch the matter for me. The weight of evidence is not zero, but nor is it sufficient to establish the rather extraordinary claim that was made.

Hence the suggestion of "walk" that accompanies talk, or "subject" that accompanies "object (regardless whether we are talking of issues of presidency or Godhood).

You're right, of course, that if Capracus does turn out to be God that would spell the end of my atheism. But we've got a ways to go yet to satisfy me on that point.

But enough about me. I'm far more interested in why you and Jan rejected Capracus's claim to be God. After all, as you say, we apparently have God before us, which would effectively be the piece de resistance of your theism if the claim was true, right? But you're trekking down the garden path of calling this potential God an illiterate atheist. Why?

It seems pedantic for you to ask.
The only exception to Capracus being treated as an atheist out to satirize religion, was another atheist who briefly went on the warpath, thinking he was a crackpot.
It seems there was stronger evidence, as established by the behaviour of everyone on this thread, that he is just an atheist (and arguably, an illiterate one on account the lack of familiarity he seems to have on the subject).

Do you reject Capracus's claim based on the evidence, like I do?

More or less ... but not just based on you (but on everyone), and not just based on the lack of evidence for him being God, but also based on the overwhelming evidence of unabashed spuriousness engaged in the service of a type of shrewd atheism that is strangely popular.

Or do you reject it because it is inconsistent with some argument from authority, like Jan says he does? Or do you reject it for some other reason?

If he upped the level of sophistication in his arguments (which I offered clues on how to do, when he first started), further resources may have been required. As things stand, however, there was no real need to go beyond the standard rumination utilized by atheists in their assessment of his position. In fact you could even say there was no need to go beyond the resources that even Capracus had at hand in order to attempt to satirize God (you have to know something of the relationships between subject and object, otherwise the opportunity to satirize the object is not available to you ).

How would one recognise the walk of God, and rule out the walk of Capracus as a farcical imitation by an illiterate atheist? You talk about "perceiving". Are you referring to a magical God sense, like the one Jan claims to have? Or just plain old evidence, like I tend to rely on?

You are trying to introduce a level of complexity that is not required.

Maybe it's because God has never done us the same courtesy of appearing and telling us all about himself directly.

All the more reason to get that gallbladder pumping if one is of the impression that this status quo is in stock for a genuine revamp.

I mean, for example, there's a whole thread asking for evidence for God - any evidence that satisfies a theist - and after 1000 posts or so there the theists have mostly come up blank. At least with Capracus we can say "He told us he is God". That's one more piece of evidence for the Godliness of Capracus than the real theists have presented for the Gods they actually believe in, so far. [Admittedly, a couple of people have suggested evidence for their Gods, but the most prolific theist posters in the Evidence that God is Real thread have come up with exactly nothing, so far.]

All the more reason to find it puzzling that atheists didn't jump in with combat boots blazing.

We might as well ask: why does the amazing appearance of Capracus on sciforums fail to arouse the excitement of theists, who have an established history of being spruiked to the frontline by the merest suggestion that possibly their Gods are unevidenced? Here, finally, is an opportunity to collect the missing evidence.

I've already explained that. There is a connection between God and the qualities that identify God that is so fundamental, that not even an atheist can be ignorant of it.
IOW Capracus's charade was so tepid, that not even the atheists bought it for a second (aside for the brief 2 post crackpot beat-up).

 

[Musika]

You seem to be missing, or ignoring the main point of the thread. It wasn’t my challenge to pose as a an omnimax God and be judged according to the fitness of some imagined ideal, but to assume a part that would be consistent with the actual evidence that can be demonstrated for a postulated omnimax God. And since no one is even qualified to validate such evidence if it existed, the premise is unfalsifiable from the start.

.

Given you total inability to arouse the ire of even our local upper echelons of the atheist community, I guess we can chalk that up as a fail.
You were never successful in escaping the persona of an (illiterate) atheist, so that is the persona that determined the manner others engaged with you.

 

[Capracus]

I've already explained that. There is a connection between God and the qualities that identify God that is so fundamental, that not even an atheist can be ignorant of it.

How can you possibly assign qualities to something you have no demonstrated familiarity with?
How many time does it have to be pointed out to you that an omnimax God can arbitrarily decide the qualities of reality at any moment in time. Trying to impose fundamentals on such an entity only demonstrates your ignorance of the original premise. Apparently you took my advice and decided to navel gave a more attractive God into existence.

IOW Capracus's charade was so tepid, that not even the atheists bought it for a second (aside for the brief 2 post crackpot beat-up).

The charade was not intended to convince anyone that I was God, but to demonstrate my portrayal as god was as justifiable as any portrayal that you or any other theist could offer given the standard you yourself set.

Given you total inability to arouse the ire of even our local upper echelons of the atheist community, I guess we can chalk that up as a fail.
You were never successful in escaping the persona of an (illiterate) atheist, so that is the persona that determined the manner others engaged with you.

You failed before you started. You already admitted that an omnimax God could pose as anything it wanted, regardless of the walk it walked, and now you disqualify your God based on its runway performance. Way to stick to your philosophical guns.

 

[Musika]

How can you possibly assign qualities to something you have no demonstrated familiarity with?

You seem to have already figured that out. If you didn't, it wouldn't possible to even attempt a charade.

How many time does it have to be pointed out to you that an omnimax God can arbitrarily decide the qualities of reality at any moment in time. Trying to impose fundamentals on such an entity only demonstrates your ignorance of the original premise. Apparently you took my advice and decided to navel gave a more attractive God into existence.

As already pointed out, for as long as such an omnimax entity decides to charade as an illiterate atheist (IOW He calles upon his divine power to dumb down appearances), there is no reason to expect to be treated as anything grander than an illiterate atheist.

The charade was not intended to convince anyone that I was God, but to demonstrate my portrayal as god was as justifiable as any portrayal that you or any other theist could offer given the standard you yourself set.

If you couldn't manage to convince anyone you were God, or even arouse the gallbladders of any of the atheists, it seems you failed at the point of being "justifiably " equal. You did however manage to provide, to one and all, the seamless experience of interacting with an (illiterate) atheist.

You failed before you started. You already admitted that an omnimax God could pose as anything it wanted, regardless of the walk it walked, and now you disqualify your God based on its runway performance. Way to stick to your philosophical guns.

Gets back to your piece of philosophical brilliance, "God could be X, therefore any X could be God."
Granted, an omnimax God providing the charade of an illiterate atheist could very well spout such things in order to provide a seamless representation of a fool ... I mean if God chose to charade as an illiterate atheist, surely there must exist some first-class examples that provide a standard on which to base mimicry, hmmmm?

 

[Jan Ardena]

...I mean if God chose to charade as an illiterate atheist, surely there must exist some first-class examples that provide a standard on which to base mimicry, hmmmm?

What?...

...You mean!..

...Nah!


Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Doubt?

Abraham didn't have any doubt. He was ready to kill his own son at God's command.

So you see the difference?

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

So you see the difference?

Jan.

Yes I do, if you are not willing to martyr yourself for God, you're not a true believer in other believer's eyes. Might as well be atheist......

 

[Write4U]

Musika said:
...I mean if God chose to charade as an illiterate atheist, surely there must exist some first-class examples that provide a standard on which to base mimicry, hmmmm?

What?...
...You mean!..
...Nah!
Jan.

Here we go, believer v believer! Have at it......

 

[Write4U]

Again you should consult experts.

If you're not an expert then how can you accuse others of not being knowledgeable, illiterate even?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes I do, if you are not willing to martyr yourself for God, you're not a true believer in other believer's eyes. Might as well be atheist......

Spoken like a true atheist.

Jan

 

[Jan Ardena]

Here we go, believer v believer! Have at it......

You wish!

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

You wish!
Jan.

Read the newspapers, plenty of inter-religious violence going on, as we speak.
I don't wish for that, I'm a man of peace.