Prove that I am not God

[Musika]

Not true, like I mentioned earlier, if I can be represented by a shit throwing zoo monkey,

You just introduced three qualitative distinctions there : shit, a zoo and a monkey.
Is a shit zoo throwing a monkey the same as a zoo monkey throwing shit?

that standard would qualify you for representation as well.

You just introduced two more qualitative distinctions : yourself and myself.

In this case I could simply be having a conversation with myself, regardless if you recognize it otherwise. As an omni God I can co-opt any identity without the owner awareness.

And you are still sending the same ships out in the same harbor to get sunk at the same point. If I am not aware of it, the same distinction between God and me still persists. Is me being aware that God is co-opting my identity the same thing as me not being aware that God is co-opting my identity?

We wouldn’t be having this lame discussion if you would simply lay out your personal epistemological prescription for knowing me.

I've already laid it out. There is an inextricable connection between "things" and "qualities/values". If you want to point to a twelve pack of donuts and say "look at that cancer cure" you can, but until you start connecting your words to values in a commonly accepted manner, people will just think you are a prov performance artist or something, or maybe just a stock standard insane person.

 

[Musika]

You tell me.

Absolutely anything.
They are certainly marvels to behold, but its not their powers of culinary or thoughtful discrimination that are astounding.

First things first, Musika.
First things first.

The first things you said were not the problem. It was the last thing you said that brought everything to a screeching halt.

 

[Capracus]

You just introduced three qualitative distinctions there : shit, a zoo and a monkey.
Is a shit zoo throwing a monkey the same as a zoo monkey throwing shit?

I could put the statements directly into your brain, but were sticking with primitive convention today. Those textual items are called words. They represent things, like feces, animals and places with cages.

You just introduced two more qualitative distinctions : yourself and myself.

More words that represent things, like undeclared deity worshiper and an actual deity.

And you are still sending the same ships out in the same harbor to get sunk at the same point. If I am not aware of it, the same distinction between God and me still persists. Is me being aware that God is co-opting my identity the same thing as me not being aware that God is co-opting my identity?

It means that God has assumed your identity, which means I am conversing with myself. It doesn’t have to conform to any sense of logic, it just has to be my will.

I've already laid it out. There is an inextricable connection between "things" and "qualities/values". If you want to point to a twelve pack of donuts and say "look at that cancer cure" you can, but until you start connecting your words to values in a commonly accepted manner, people will just think you are a prov performance artist or something, or maybe just a stock standard insane person.

The luxury of being me is that I don’t have to conform to any sense of logic, because logic is whatever I will it to be. You on the other hand, as a lowly biological unit, are still bound by the natural law that governs your universe, so logic is required in your arguments. In my previous post I requested that you lay out your personal epistemological prescription for knowing me. Since I've already determined that it’s impossible for you to know me, the actual God, we should instead focus on your personal prescription for knowing the God you originally imagined to be real. If a convincing argument can be made for the exitance of that God, maybe I’ll agree to abdicate.

 

[Baldeee]

The first things you said were not the problem.

Then why have you spent the last 7 pages of responses to me in disagreement to it?

It was the last thing you said that brought everything to a screeching halt.

Ah, you think you spotted a means to exit via a back door and thus hopefully the actual issue in hand would be forgotten?
Or are you going to finally address the issue?
Before we move on.

 

[origin]

I am your omnimax god, and you have no way of proving that I’m not.

Really?
How about this - how many fingers am I holding behind my back?

 

[Michael 345]

Really?
How about this - how many fingers am I holding behind my back?

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 or
10

Feel free to pick my choice for yourself



PS

Who is this false god in this thread?

Is it someone wanting a Spartacus moment?

 

[Capracus]

Really?
How about this - how many fingers am I holding behind my back?

As your omnimax god, I choose the appropriate time and place to answer such questions. I had you ask that question just so I could give you that answer.

 

[Musika]

Then why have you spent the last 7 pages of responses to me in disagreement to it?

Yes.
Discussion is like that.
It can continue.
Until someone introduces something that destroys the very premise of discussion.
Then it stops.

Ah, you think you spotted a means to exit via a back door and thus hopefully the actual issue in hand would be forgotten?
Or are you going to finally address the issue?
Before we move on.

The issue at hand is that you have just introduced a bat-shit crazy notion and are still pretending it is part of a repertoire of seamless logic.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

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.

I always likened God to to humanity as a scientist peering into a microscope at multiplying bacteria, or was that aliens?

 

[Baldeee]

Yes.
Discussion is like that.
It can continue.
Until someone introduces something that destroys the very premise of discussion.
Then it stops.

This "discussion" stopped the moment you were dishonest enough to obfuscate and evade the fact that your dismissal of Capracus' claim was fallacious.
7 pages of zero subsequent discussion.

The issue at hand is that you have just introduced a bat-shit crazy notion and are still pretending it is part of a repertoire of seamless logic.

We can get on to what you think is a "bat-shit crazy notion" once we have resolved the original point.
But given your history I can't see that happening.
Hey ho.

 

[origin]

As your omnimax god, I choose the appropriate time and place to answer such questions. I had you ask that question just so I could give you that answer.

Whoa, you convinced me! Verily, I say thou are truly great.

 

[Musika]

This "discussion" stopped the moment you were dishonest enough to obfuscate and evade the fact that your dismissal of Capracus' claim was fallacious.
7 pages of zero subsequent discussion.
We can get on to what you think is a "bat-shit crazy notion" once we have resolved the original point.
But given your history I can't see that happening.
Hey ho.

Until you make a response to ...

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 iscomposed of less mendacious qualities wouldn't frame serious discussion of the topic within such silly house rules.

.... you can't be taken seriously in this discussion.

 

[sideshowbob]

Until you make a response to ...

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 iscomposed of less mendacious qualities wouldn't frame serious discussion of the topic within such silly house rules.

.... you can't be taken seriously in this discussion.

Maybe you'd get a response if you rephrased that in English.

 

[Musika]

Maybe you'd get a response if you rephrased that in English.

Tell it to baldee. He is the one trying to draw a magical opposing divide between "knowledge" and "a claim of knowledge."

 

[sideshowbob]

Tell it to baldee. He is the one trying to draw a magical opposing divide between "knowledge" and "a claim of knowledge."

Well, there is a difference between knowledge and claim of knowledge.

 

[Baldeee]

Until you make a response to ...

.... you can't be taken seriously in this discussion.

There appears to be no discussion with you, regardless.
You've made that patently obvious.
Needless to say, if one can't tell the difference between "knowing X" and knowing about merely an aspect of X so as to be able to judge a claim about X, and one wishes to focus on that rather than the actual issue at hand, then one is merely obfuscating.
And I don't need to "know you" to know that you're obfuscating.

But hey, if you want to use this as an excuse to avoid acknowledging the fallacy of your initial dismissal, feel free.

 

[billvon]

Maybe you'd get a response if you rephrased that in English.

Then it would be apparent how empty his argument is.

By clothing his specious argument in ten dollar words, he can claim his position is intelligent. It's a favorite approach of politicians, lawyers and con artists the world around. And if anyone does parse their word salad and takes them to task on what they said, they can start disputing the meanings of the words they used and completely derail the discussion.

 

[Musika]

Well, there is a difference between knowledge and claim of knowledge.

Sure.
Its just when you prop up house rules that examining knowledge is a prohibited field when examining a claim of knowledge that things start to look funny.

Once again, this is not coming from me. Its coming from Baldee.

 

[Musika]

There appears to be no discussion with you, regardless.
You've made that patently obvious.
Needless to say, if one can't tell the difference between "knowing X" and knowing about merely an aspect of X so as to be able to judge a claim about X, and one wishes to focus on that rather than the actual issue at hand, then one is merely obfuscating.
And I don't need to "know you" to know that you're obfuscating.

But hey, if you want to use this as an excuse to avoid acknowledging the fallacy of your initial dismissal, feel free.

Once again, its not the difference, its the prohibitions you place on them that is causing all the trouble. You insist that to discuss a claim of knowledge on X, you are not allowed to discuss the knowledge of X.
Try that on any subject and you will be granted with the champion bat shit crazy trophy every time as the discussion drops dead in its tracks.

 

[sideshowbob]

Its just when you prop up house rules that examining knowledge is a prohibited field when examining a claim of knowledge that things start to look funny.

Again I have to ask for an English translation. What the !@#$ are you trying to say?