No it isn't, since you haven't claimed the president is omnipresent.
obviously you didn't understand the analogy. Just as the president can be defined in a manner that incorporates your existence (ie he is american), your also partaking of that existence in no way undermines his position.
Don't you believe that God, according to the "standard definition", is omnipresent? If so, do you think there's a problem?
There is no problem. If god is present in everything and you are not present in everything, there is no problem in the suggestion that you are not god or that god is not omnipresent.
Infact you could say that the inability of persons to exhibit any comprehension/powers/behaviours above and beyond their own frail, limited and conditioned existence is something that is painfully absent in persons who foolishly claim they are god. Usually they attempt to surmount this obvious shortcoming by word jugglery. You are a fine example.
:shrug:
I think the problem is this: if I am not God then God is not omnipresent; on the other hand, if I am not omnipresent then I am not God (since God is omnipresent). You seem unable to see this.
Your existence is expressed through the limitations of your body (and even then, in a very temporary, incomplete manner ... since there are many things going on in our body that we cannot control).
God is attributed as having a scope of existence that permeates not only your own body but everything else too. The fact that you have no scope to witness such an existence, despite god partaking of yours and everyone and everything elses, is one of the many features that distinguishes the living entity from god.
maybe you're too deluded.
On the contrary, just like you "play" with the word "god", you also appear to do the same with "omnipresent"
You haven't managed to attribute anything either, although you seem to think you have.
nonsense
At the very onset I addressed attributes that you obviously don't display.
You, however, have simply said you don't need to address those attributes without ever elucidating what one is required to address in order to be god (aside from a circular argument that has no bearing outside of one's imagination).
I point out that you can't even float such bullshit if one wants to the president., what to speak of god.
Being god is not such a cheap thing
I don't cling to an idea, an idea of experience isn't an experience.
Lol
more word jugglery
If you are saying "I am god", then obviously you are tagging an idea to an experience ... and its one you are also obviously very attached to.
IOW you didn't feel satisfied to leave it as "I have this experience and now I am more knowledgeable" (even though you have hinted you know more now but can't say what it is) or "I have this experience and now I am more equipoised" (even though you have hinted you are more balanced now but can't exemplify an example of the successful behaviour).
Instead you said "I have had this experience and I am god"
When pressed to explain why you choose to explain your experience in a such a manner (Ie why do you now think you are god when previously you didn't) you try to play it off as a question about the existential question of experience ....."how can one use words to explain what one sees and hears? ie "How would you define the smell of a rose?" and all the other standard philosophical equivocations on the subject) .
I am not asking that.
I am asking why you choose to now call yourself "god".
IOW what *new* experiences did you have that granted you the inspiration to label yourself with the word "god" since you clearly stand outside any close approximation of the term
You aren't addressing any of the logical issues either, and I don't think you can.
You are putting the horse before the cart.
You haven't actually established any logical outline for your statement aside from "I can call myself whatever I want to call myself" .... the hallmark of solipsism
This is why I say you can just as easily call yourself the tooth fairy or the president
:shrug:
I haven't said any such thing, this is your imagination, in fact.
Incorrect
If you reply that you have no requirement to explain how your usage of the term "god" comes anywhere near the standard usage of the term, you most certainly have.
I'm not offended, I don't care if you or anyone else doesn't take me seriously. I don't care if you think I haven't "explained what it is";
The consequence of such an attitude is that you have no philosophical framework for the ideas you repeatedly advocate
you haven't explained it either, although you obviouly think you can. So why haven't you?
On the contrary, at the onset I explained qualities of god ... all of which culminate in the obviously conclusion that you are not god ... outside of dumbing down the term of course
With you however, a dozen posts later and you still have nothing to offer
But that's your interpretation of what I actually said. What I said was that humans have been using drugs for a long time, and for that reason.
for the reason of what?
Becoming god?
So what parallel does taking psychotropic drugs have with your experience of being god?
You've interpreted this as meaning I've taken drugs to "generate the experience", but I didn't say that.
And I responded that they actually don't do it for that reason, since shamanistic practices usually revolve around gaining power/vision/favours from higher or at least more powerful entities
Maybe God doesn't require a non-vacuum intellect? Or does that not fit with your definition?
What you require is to explain how all and any written material by all and any authors through out history on the subject of god is beneath your experience ... Its ironic that you accuse me of arrogance when you reduce all philosophical discussion to solipsism, a discipline that struggles to establish itself above psychopathy
:shrug: