Prove that I am not God

Write4U said:
No, atheism is not reactionary. It is status quo. Theism is reactionary, to the idea that there is no God. But without any evidence theism remains reactionary, based only on speculation.
Click to expand...
Whatever the case, you certainly are not representative of such non-reactionary atheism. You are stacked to the hilt with "(critical) ideas" about "ideas of God".
 
Musika said:
Whatever the case, you certainly are not representative of such non-reactionary atheism. You are stacked to the hilt with "(critical) ideas" about "ideas of God".
Click to expand...
Only in response to your assertion that God IS and that those who do not believe are either unable intellectually or are bad people who are trying to kill god. Apostate is the term?

You will never find me starting a thread on god and how much I hate him and all theists who believe in him. But if you start a thread on god and spout what I consider religious nonsense, I will speak up. I do so without malice. Sometimes a little fear, but that's warranted from prior experience with religious zealots.

Hey, I get the same treatment in the science section. I don't consider those people my enemy. I can learn from them. I have given you the same opportunity, but you have nothing to teach me.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
Only in response to your assertion that God IS and that those who do not believe are either unable intellectually or are bad people who are trying to kill god. Apostate is the term?
Click to expand...
IOW your stance is reactionary.

You will never find me starting a thread on god and how much I hate him and all theists who believe in him. But if you start a thread on god and spout what I consider religious nonsense, I will speak up. I do so without malice. Sometimes a little fear, but that's warranted from prior experience with religious zealots.
Click to expand...
Usually you wait for such a thread to come along before you begin such antics, hence reactionary.

Hey, I get the same treatment in the science section. I don't consider those people my enemy. I can learn from them.
Click to expand...
"Reactionary" seems to be inescapable flavour of the month.
 
Musika said:
IOW your stance is reactionary.
Click to expand...
All "stances" are reactionary, either "for" or "against".
Usually you wait for such a thread to come along before you begin such antics, hence reactionary.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'll never start (take action) a debate about god.

But if I said god can be found in the concept of the flying spaghetti monster, and you said "that's nonsense", would you see yourself as being "reactionary"?
"Reactionary" seems to be inescapable flavour of the month.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are taking the "action" of posting nonsense and the "reaction" is telling you that you are posting nonsense.
 
Write4U said:
All "stances" are reactionary, either "for" or "against".
Click to expand...
Yes

Yes, I'll never start (take action) a debate about god.
Click to expand...
Yet here you are.

But if I said god can be found in the concept of the flying spaghetti monster, and you said "that's nonsense", would you see yourself as being "reactionary"?
Click to expand...
I'm not the one with the strange notion I am bringing nothing to the discussion (except my obviously correct opinion).
 
Musika said:
Yet here you are.
Click to expand...
You were here first.
I'm not the one with the strange notion I am bringing nothing to the discussion (except my obviously correct opinion).
Click to expand...
Well, I am here to correct your world view, because your opinion is skewed. However we do agree that pink unicorns are not god. That's a start.

If you agree with that then you must also agree that god has about the same evidence to support it's existence than pink unicorns.

Therefore, by your own logic, you should realize that god is personal mindset and completely different than anyone else's concept and form of god. This diversity of religious dogma can be proven by history itself. That we can do.
First there were hundreds of gods, now there is only one, last god standing, high in the mountains, where no one is around.

And as Anil Seth observed, it is only by consensus agreement that reality exists. Thus, if you cannot agree among yourselves what god is, then god does not exist or is invisible (unknowable) to all and might as well not exist.

Taken in context of all religions on earth, will there ever be a consensus god? I doubt it.
Christians and Muslims don't even agree on the same god. Is Allah God, is God Allah?
The last time I asked a theist, the answer was negative, which did not surprise me.

If believers in the same god cannot even agree what god is, then why do you pick on atheists? Go argue with theists on a concensus viewpoint.

Atheist are all in agreement that in view of the lack of evidence the concept of god is a self-generated delusion. Scripture itself points to a "confounding of language".

Thus, if you do not agree with atheists, you are odd man out. You are "confounded" and need saving from your own delusion.....:confused:
I'm here only to help......:)
 
Last edited:
Musika said:
Of course it does.
It's reactionary to theism.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. That would be anti-theism. Atheism is no more reactionary to theism than baldness is reactionary to hair.
Your, and many others, contributions to the religion subforum clearly establishes it as such.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? You theists are the ones coming in here trying to push theism. We're just telling you why we're not interested.
Your question is akin to asking "How does knowledge of God appear in human society?", or, to frame it to atheist-think, "How does the make-believe knowledge of God appear in human society?"
It doesn't matter whether one is atheist or theist. At least in this regard, there is mutual agreement on the source material.
Click to expand...
My question is akin to, "How do you know what God's point is?" The operative word is YOU. Why can't YOU just answer that question without evading?
 
Capracus said:
Moderator note: this thread was originally split from the following thread:

www.sciforums.com/threads/evidence-that-god-is-real.161157
-----


According to your standards, the possibility of those qualities are justifiably as likely in myself as they are in any example you can offer for them existing anywhere else.

I am your omnimax god, and you have no way of proving that I’m not.
Click to expand...
Well, you don't exist in my reality so you cannot be my god.
 
davewhite04 said:
Not as god.
Click to expand...
The point of this thread is that there is no way to prove that the claimant is not God.

The larger context of this thread is to show how beliefs are subjective, not objective.

Not believing in him is insufficient to prove - to anyone other than yourself - that the claimant is not God.
 
DaveC426913 said:
I revised post 592, after you responded, so your quote of me in 593 doesn't match.


I have an answer to that, but what's critical to point out that - since it is a belief - I do not attempt to assert it.
Click to expand...

I suppose it's all down to belief. God doesn't exist to you if you don't believe. If you believe in God and don't study, you will never see this thread so what is the point of the claim? As for me, I cannot see any value in this thread. What have you learnt? What is interesting about this question? What is the point? Maybe if the OP had some gravity to his claim instead of a scribbled down question with no point. Why would God say he is God on this forum?
 
DaveC426913 said:
He doesn't exist in any way outside of people's heads
Click to expand...

Maybe you wrote this wrong, but you cannot prove something wrong with no evidence. Just like Santa, Fairies etc.

- in any way that can be shown to be true for some random sample of objective people - as opposed to those who take it as a matter of faith.
Click to expand...

So you're saying a group of objective people can prove God does not exist? Objective people with brains would not claim to there being no God, because they don't believe in the first place. What you do to learn is discuss religion in a philosophical manner and not a scientific manner. Is that allowed here?
 
davewhite04 said:
Maybe you wrote this wrong, but you cannot prove something wrong with no evidence. Just like Santa, Fairies etc.
Click to expand...
Correct. Not "prove", just not "granted".

I dreamed of a fnord last night. It does not objectively exist (i.e. no one has any reason to grant it exists) until/unless I can demonstrate it.


davewhite04 said:
So you're saying a group of objective people can prove God does not exist?
Click to expand...
No. Objective people (who are rational) won't generally accept the existence of something objective unless there's reason to.

They can't. There are an infinite number of things one could suppose exist (Santa, unicorns, fnords, greeblies, fizbins) but are not objective unless the supposer can make a case for them.

The alternative is that you must grant that fnords objectively exist simply because I say they do.


In my discussion about fnords, I'm about to assert that they are the cause of tooth decay and will expound upon their nature.
I can't expect you to discuss their nature, unless I first convince you they exist. And there's no reason you should.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top