... hence you go further into unfavourable territory by appearing less omni by the moment.
Prove that I am not God
- Thread starter Capracus
- Start date
And there are countless bacteria that regard you as less human. You must ignore your faulty programing and reanalyze.
Even if they did regard me otherwise, it wouldn't change anything.
Special pleading supported by special pleading doesn't change anything.
It would if their assessment happen to be correct. You seem to be implying that bacterial epistemology is incapable of accurately discerning your nature?
Most people would see it as a request to stop discussing it, while clarifying the actual point being addressed that was being obfuscated.
No, we're talking about whether or not you can dismiss Capracus as God simply because he does not, as you see it, handle his own on an online discussion forum.
Anything else you're bringing to the table is irrelevant to this, and mere obfuscation on your part.
Aka "listen to me again one final time while I explain how I am right and you are wrong"
.
I guess the prelimary requirement for such a discussion would involve looking at revelation/enlightenment/samadhi etc (you know, that field that philosophically looks at the question of knowing God), as opposed to decrying it as obfuscation for the sake of drawing a route to the closest identifiable strawman.
Neither of them are omni.
Either for or against, it doesn't assist your cause.
Well, when you want to start actually addressing the issue, let me know.
No, the preliminary requirement would be addressing the simple logic that I've mentioned beforehand and that you are choosing to ignore.
The question is not whether one can know God, but whether one can know that someone's claim to be God is false simply through that claim - as you did.
So again you're raising irrelevancies.
Hence obfuscation on your part.
Are you going to address the actual matter or simply raise further red herrings?
I assume that gaffe wasn't intentional.
Your error count continues to climb unit Musika. The ability of one party to know the other is dependent on relative capacity. A bacterium can’t know much of a human’s nature because it lacks the capacity to do so. A human can’t know the nature of God because it also lacks the capacity to do so. It has nothing to do with ultimate capacity, just a sufficient advantage in capacity to allow one party to outpace the capacity of the other. Any entity that is able to meet the human expectations of God, could successfully pose as God, and it wouldn’t need anything close to omni capacity to pull it off. I know this because I see it done all the time throughout my creation.
Ditto previous post.
No gaffe, intentional or otherwise.
This unit is obviously defective. I may have to send one of my angels down to make repairs.
Careful.
That would involve you moving in the direction of establishing potentially omni values/qualities beyond that of an online atheist bereft of even moderate familiarity with religious philosophy or history.
Trying to discern the validity of a claim of a certain knowledge that is strictly prohibited from touching on the before mentioned certain knowledge is the stuff that extended holidays in the nut house are made of.
To say the least, someone who is composed of less mendacious qualities wouldn't frame serious discussion of the topic within such silly house rules.
There is a difference between "knowing God" and knowing sufficient about God to be able to discern certain falsehoods.
Equivocation of the two is your gaffe.
Sure, but pretending the means to validate the latter requires zero involvement of the former is just the sort of silliness people resort to when they are desperate for anything but intelligent discussion.
The only thing you can learn from human history and human religious philosophy is how to not know God. If you want to know me, you need to know my history and philosophy, and neither of those are accessible to an organism of such limited ability. My intentions for humanity are essentially to act as a rung in an evolutionary ladder that leads to more advanced and interesting organisms. From an evolutionary standpoint, watching humanity develop up to this point is akin to watching grass grow. And since I’ve got far more interesting things going on elsewhere in my creation, I really don’t tend to give a lot of attention to such insignificant biological units. The reality is that you guys are pretty much on your own.
And your post is just the sort of continued irrelevancy people resort to when they are looking to obfuscate from the point in hand.
Go figure.
Your many claims of the existence of some evidence you have not provided are familiar, and hardly need repetition.
Meanwhile, you are denying and rejecting your God, Capracus.
By what evidence?
Sounds like a plan, once corrected for the misused terms and semi-literate syntax we have learned to expect from our expert in the subtle heights of Western philosophy and history.
Any time soon?
Last edited:
Just try divorcing an analysis of a "claim of knowledge" from "knowledge" in any other thread on any other subject and see how that goes for you.