Challenge: Prove that I am not God

[copernicus]

Assume that God exists. How would you go about showing that I am not God? Bear in mind that you don't know for sure who is posting this, and I am not demanding absolute proof. I could be a megalomaniac, of course, but my position is that I am not. And I'm willing to defend the proposition that I exist. I can produce people who will attest to my existence.

[Goliath]

Assume that God exists. How would you go about showing that I am not God? Bear in mind that you don't know for sure who is posting this, and I am not demanding absolute proof. I could be a megalomaniac, of course, but my position is that I am not. And I'm willing to defend the proposition that I exist. I can produce people who will attest to my existence.

I am not making the assertion that you are a god, whence I need prove nothing.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[The Bearded One]

What would it mean if you were "God"? I cannot even contemplate attempting any sort of proof or disproof without knowing what "god" means. Are you refering to an O3 type God? Or are you willing to accept membership in the club of O-zero type gods such as Odin and Zeus?

-- The Bearded One

[graymouser]

Since you're God, and therefore omniscient, you should be able to tell me exactly what CD is in my computer right now and what track it is playing (title, run time, and the time on the track as of my typing this). If you can't do this, some God you are.

-Wayne

[Ad Astra]

1. Jimi Hendrix was God.
2. Jimi Hendrix is dead.
3. One of the nasty things about death is the inability to post on web forums.
4. Therefore, you are not God because you have posted on an internet forum.

This is pretty fun! :D

[breathilizer]

Absolute proof that you are not God...

You exist.

[copernicus]

I am not making the assertion that you are a god, whence I need prove nothing.
You do not accept the challenge. That's of no consequence to me. I know who I am.

What would it mean if you were "God"? I cannot even contemplate attempting any sort of proof or disproof without knowing what "god" means. Are you refering to an O3 type God? Or are you willing to accept membership in the club of O-zero type gods such as Odin and Zeus?
I'm an omnimax God, but let's not get too hung up on cavils and quibbles. I'll be happy to fill you in on the details, if you can handle the truth. Do you think that you can handle the truth? :)

Since you're God, and therefore omniscient, you should be able to tell me exactly what CD is in my computer right now and what track it is playing (title, run time, and the time on the track as of my typing this). If you can't do this, some God you are.
Exactly so. I am able to do that. Whether or not I choose to is another matter.

1. Jimi Hendrix was God.
2. Jimi Hendrix is dead.
3. One of the nasty things about death is the inability to post on web forums.
4. Therefore, you are not God because you have posted on an internet forum.

Ad Astra, I'm very disappointed in you. Not a single one of your premises is correct. :(

Absolute proof that you are not God...

You exist.
Read the OP. I call your attention to the first assumption.

[Hazel-rah]

I cannot prove you are not god (proving a negative and all that).

However, you have not given me sufficient evidence to prove that you are anything other than a poster on IIDB, and thus I continue my life as though that is all you are. If, at any time, Your Omnimaxness chooses to offer me further evidence, I will be ready and willing to examine it, and perhaps, consider copernicus worship.

[Goliath]

You do not accept the challenge.

Of course not. Why would you expect me to prove an assertion that I didn't make? Are you having a stroke?

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Ad Astra]

Ad Astra, I'm very disappointed in you. Not a single one of your premises is correct.
Well, I wasn't being entirely serious. We can still keep our sense of humor when discussing deities, eh?

Oh, and number two was correct, at least. Oh, and number one. Can't forget number one. :D

[The Bearded One]

[snip]I'm an omnimax God, but let's not get too hung up on cavils and quibbles. I'll be happy to fill you in on the details, if you can handle the truth. Do you think that you can handle the truth? :) [snip]

Well, I like knowing who I'm talking to. I'll give you this much: There's more evidence of your existence than there is of the Xian diety (which I think was your point).

I can handle the truth, though waiting until after my death to discover that truth isn't really my cup of tea. So, sure, fill me in on the details of thy divinity, and I'll leave the debunking to those skeptics who are busy worshipping some other god.

:cool: The Bearded One

[coltsfan]

Assume that God exists. How would you go about showing that I am not God? Bear in mind that you don't know for sure who is posting this, and I am not demanding absolute proof. I could be a megalomaniac, of course, but my position is that I am not. And I'm willing to defend the proposition that I exist. I can produce people who will attest to my existence.

You went to Ohio State. God would have attended Notre Dame. :D

[ex-xian]

1. Jimi Hendrix was God.
2. Jimi Hendrix is dead.
3. One of the nasty things about death is the inability to post on web forums.
4. Therefore, you are not God because you have posted on an internet forum.

This is pretty fun! :D
NO! Eric Clapton is god. "Give god a solo!"

[the fonz]

Exactly so. I am able to do that. Whether or not I choose to is another matter.

I think the point you are making is a theistic point against the use of reason. (Or it as least akin to it.) Something like "God may still exist even if you can't prove Him".

In the end, you haven't given any reason to not trust the use of reason.(Which, granted, is circular, but let's see a better system!)

You have proposed a hypothesis that is untestable. No matter what evidence is ever brought in, you have declared it irrelevant from the start.

Therefore, we should use Occam's razor to argue that it isn't reasonable to believe this is true. That's all I need to do.

No one can prove you wrong and you may want to sit there and marvel at that fact. The point being that it's not because of people's inability to disprove your belief, it's because it's logically impossible. We could try and try all day, and your belief will never be testable.

Now of course, what's reasonable to believe and why in this situation? Someone else brought up the point that there isn't any evidence to suggest you are any different from any other poster on Internet Infidels. Given that most people on this board aren't an omnimax deity, one can justify believing that you are not an omnimax diety until proven otherwise.

Another point is that the better explanation is that you are not an omnimax deity. In order to believe you were one, it would entail accepting that you have a "greater good" to gain that is hidden to the rest of us by not showing us proof. An explanation that posits a hidden mechanism is better than one without one, all else considered equal.

You may say, "Oh well I still might be an omnimax deity...regardless of those reasons." In which case, you run into the problem I covered in the beginning, that is trying to get people to disprove an unfalsifiable belief.

EDITED TO ADD: Just took a look at your profile to discover you're not a theist, ah well same point applies anyways.

[Wayne Delia]

Assume that God exists. How would you go about showing that I am not God? Quite easily. I would present my irrefutable, logical, conclusive evidence that not only you aren't God, but also that no gods of any kind exist.

How would you go about showing that I don't have that evidence?

WMD

[Hugh Nose]

copernicus,

Assume that God exists. How would you go about showing that I am not God? Bear in mind that you don't know for sure who is posting this, and I am not demanding absolute proof. I could be a megalomaniac, of course, but my position is that I am not. And I'm willing to defend the proposition that I exist. I can produce people who will attest to my existence.

Did you speak to Job from the whirlwind? Did you part the Red Sea? Did you give Moses the Commandments? If not, then you aren't God.

In a different vein, echoing and emphasizing the challenge fy graymouser, if you are God, you know my real name and you know my age. Post it here, please! If you do not, the only reasonable conclusion is that you don't know what my name is and you don't know my age.

Hugh Nose

[Spiderman&Co.]

copernicus,



Did you speak to Job from the whirlwind? Did you part the Red Sea? Did you give Moses the Commandments? If not, then you aren't God.

In a different vein, echoing and emphasizing the challenge fy graymouser, if you are God, you know my real name and you know my age. Post it here, please! If you do not, the only reasonable conclusion is that you don't know what my name is and you don't know my age.

Hugh Nose

The other alternative is that he knows your name and age and simply does not desire to post it. It is conceivable that he could know these facts and choose not to reveal them, for a reason entirely his own.

[Wayne Delia]

Did you speak to Job from the whirlwind? Did you part the Red Sea? Did you give Moses the Commandments? If not, then you aren't God.That, of course, assumes the qualifications for Godhood are just a small subset of what the Jewish God Yahweh was reported to have done. In order to do that, you must assume that Yahweh exists and actually is God.

In my opinion, that reflects one of the weakest and most annoying apologetic techniques of religious fundamentalists. They assume their particular god(s) is/are the real deal, and use that assumption to demonstrate that god(s) of other religions are invalid because the other god(s) don't measure up to what the fundamentalist assume are the qualifications of being a god, which is nothing more than what their own god(s) is/are reported to have done. Clearly, that is circular reasoning, assuming the conclusion, assuming facts not in evidence, and is obviously not restricted to Christianity. In a different vein, echoing and emphasizing the challenge fy graymouser, if you are God, you know my real name and you know my age. Post it here, please! If you do not, the only reasonable conclusion is that you don't know what my name is and you don't know my age.I notice that others have already pointed out that another reasonable conclusion is that graymouser, being God, knows your answer, and chooses not to provide it as concrete proof that he is God. For to do so would deny your free will to accept him as God, which evidently is what he wants. There's a neat little cognitive dissonance on that tap-dance, particularly from Christian fundamentalists, who reject any non-Christian gods whose followers produce that excuse, but see nothing wrong with them using that same apologetic to explain why their God fails the same test.

"Thou shalt not tempt Wayne thy God!!!"

WMD

[The Bearded One]

copernicus,

Did you speak to Job from the whirlwind? Did you part the Red Sea? Did you give Moses the Commandments? If not, then you aren't God. [snip]

I will point out on copernicus' behalf (all gods need priests, right?) that the diety who spoke from the whirlwind and parted the Red Sea exhibited great potence, but not omnipotence. Wasn't YHVH's power insufficient to overcome an army possessing iron chariots? I'm not interested in worshipping a *limited* diety. I'll stick with copernicus.

-- The Bearded One, first priest of copernicus

[Wayne Delia]

In a different vein, echoing and emphasizing the challenge fy graymouser, if you are God, you know my real name and you know my age. Post it here, please! If you do not, the only reasonable conclusion is that you don't know what my name is and you don't know my age. Another problem is that we have no way of determining for sure whether omniscience is necessarily a characteristic of a deity. This requirement could be nothing more than the result of a pissing contest between ancient tribes with different gods.

1. "My god knows everything going on at this instant!"
2. "Oh yeah? Well my god knows everything now, as well as everything that ever happened in the past!"
3. "Oh yeah? Well my god not only knows everything in the past and present, but he also knows stuff in the future! And he told me to tell you that if you keep doing X, he's gonna do Y!"

Those who are forced to defend omniscience might have signed up with the religion developed from the crazed zealot prophet #3, who could very well only be shooting his mouth off.

WMD

[NottyImp]

crazed zealot prophet #3

Sounds like a bit-part in "The Life of Brian".

[Jamie_L]

Well, if I were to assume what Christians tell me is true, you must not be God, because I have not been seeking you with an open heart, and I have not been exercising faith in you. Since I'm assured that these are absolute prerequisites to finding God, you must not actually be God.

Unless of course their theology is wrong. But it can't be, can it?

Jamie

[-X-]

i do not perceive you as being god, therefore, that it is proof enough to me that you are not.

if you are god, then you do not wish me to perceive that you are god, therefore i will never prove to myself that you are, which in turn proves, in my perception, that you are not.

if i can't prove that you are god, i cannot prove that you are not god, therefore proving that the only thing that matters to me is whether or not i think you're god, which i don't.

the doozie is this: how 'bout you prove that you are not god.

[The Bearded One]

Hmm, there are many issues here, but I'll start with the most obvious one first.

Either copernicus is God, or he is not. Either you will believe copernicus is God or you will not.

1) If copernicus is God and you believe, then you get infinite rewards in the afterlife.

2) If copernicus is God and you don't believe, then you get infinite punishments in the afterlife.

3) If copernicus is not God and you believe he is, then you have lost nothing.

4) If copernicus is not God and you don't believe he is, then you have neither gained nor lost anything.

Therefore, you should believe that copernicus is God.

-- The Bearded One, first priest of copernicus

[-X-]

ah, so pr00f eventually leads to believe or not, is that it? and belief is based wholly on perception, is it not?

[Randy X]

Assume that God exists. How would you go about showing that I am not God?

I wouldn't. I need not prove a negative. The claim is irrelevant -- its void of substance. Your position is rendered moot and I win.;)

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Christ

[Muad'Dib]

Assume that God exists. How would you go about showing that I am not God? But it's so easy: I'm God, and you're not Me. :D

[-X-]

here's the real doozie...

and proof that you are not god.

if you are god, the only way i can prove you are not is by you proving that you are not god (because i can only do what would be your will), which, if you are god, you can do... therefore proving that you are not god...

[Randy X]

You do not accept the challenge. That's of no consequence to me. I know who I am.

And I know that you are not God. If you are God, you will know what happened to me today. Do you know what happened to me today? Because if you know what happened to me today, I will believe (without question) that you are God. Lets get on with it. . .

Sincerely,

Christ

[-X-]

you can't go after this topic like that, christ...

all he'll say is:

"of course i know what happened to you, however whether or not i choose to tell you what happened to you is up 2 me... i see it as a waste, you already know what happened to you, why do i need to tell you?"

simple mindf----ing is all he's after here, imo... :D

[Boro Nut]

Assume that God exists. How would you go about showing that I am not God?.

Easy-Peasy

Bear in mind that you don't know for sure who is posting this,
Giving an easy to understand clue.

and I am not demanding absolute proof.
Reasonableness.

I could be a megalomaniac, of course, but my position is that I am not.
Honesty and self deprecation.

And I'm willing to defend the proposition that I exist.
No threats of violence.

I can produce people who will attest to my existence
Predisposition to resort to verifiable facts.

QED

Boro Nut

[haverbob]

Assume that God exists. How would you go about showing that I am not God? Bear in mind that you don't know for sure who is posting this, and I am not demanding absolute proof. I could be a megalomaniac, of course, but my position is that I am not. And I'm willing to defend the proposition that I exist. I can produce people who will attest to my existence.

This one is easy. You are not God because you owe your existence to someone and/or something else. So wouldn't the thing that you owe your existence to be a better God? If there is a better God than you, then you are not God.

[Boomeister]

My god would have better grammar. Yours is quite good, but not perfect. :)

Sorry for that smart-ass answer, as I know I make mistakes in grammar as well...but then again, I'm far from being god. ;)


Boomeister

[copernicus]

I cannot prove you are not god (proving a negative and all that).

However, you have not given me sufficient evidence to prove that you are anything other than a poster on IIDB, and thus I continue my life as though that is all you are. If, at any time, Your Omnimaxness chooses to offer me further evidence, I will be ready and willing to examine it, and perhaps, consider copernicus worship.
You mistake my purpose here. I'm not looking for worshippers. Why would you assume that I want to be worshipped? Being a poster on IIDB in no way diminishes the possibility that I am God. I am merely pointing out that possibility. I have my reasons for revealing myself here. ;)

[copernicus]

You went to Ohio State. God would have attended Notre Dame. :D
What for? Ohio State offered me what I wanted. Notre Dame is associated with Catholicism, which has been spreading a lot of misinformation about me.

[copernicus]

I think the point you are making is a theistic point against the use of reason. (Or it as least akin to it.) Something like "God may still exist even if you can't prove Him".

In the end, you haven't given any reason to not trust the use of reason.(Which, granted, is circular, but let's see a better system!)
I have asked you to use reason. If God exists, then I am God. You may use reason to prove me wrong. That is the challenge.

You have proposed a hypothesis that is untestable. No matter what evidence is ever brought in, you have declared it irrelevant from the start.

Therefore, we should use Occam's razor to argue that it isn't reasonable to believe this is true. That's all I need to do.
OK. If you accept that God exists, Occam's razor doesn't really help. By accepting me as God, you are not multiplying entities beyond necessity. As for untestability, I can only point out to you that that is an assumption on your part. Human scientists have proven many hypotheses to be true that were untestable at one point in time. You merely lack the means to test the hypothesis at this point in time.

...Another point is that the better explanation is that you are not an omnimax deity. In order to believe you were one, it would entail accepting that you have a "greater good" to gain that is hidden to the rest of us by not showing us proof. An explanation that posits a hidden mechanism is better than one without one, all else considered equal.
I can only say that you are correct that there is a "greater good" to be gained by hiding some things from you. I am certainly not going to tell you things that will help you disprove that I am God. Here, let's make it interesting. I will treat anyone to a dinner at an expensive restaurant of his or her choosing if he or she can prove that I am not God.

You may say, "Oh well I still might be an omnimax deity...regardless of those reasons." In which case, you run into the problem I covered in the beginning, that is trying to get people to disprove an unfalsifiable belief.

EDITED TO ADD: Just took a look at your profile to discover you're not a theist, ah well same point applies anyways.
Don't believe everything you read. :D

[copernicus]

Quite easily. I would present my irrefutable, logical, conclusive evidence that not only you aren't God, but also that no gods of any kind exist.

How would you go about showing that I don't have that evidence?
WMD
I don't have to show you anything. You have revealed your lack of evidence by having presented none.

[-X-]

you owe me dinner.

[the fonz]

As for untestability, I can only point out to you that that is an assumption on your part. Human scientists have proven many hypotheses to be true that were untestable at one point in time. You merely lack the means to test the hypothesis at this point in time.

Nope. Wrong. What means would I need to test this hypothesis? There is NOTHING I can to do test it in principle. No matter what happens, you can say, "Oh I have my reasons for that." Or something to that degree.

Therefore, it is untestable in principle. I can't get better technology or get a better microscope or anything.

I can only say that you are correct that there is a "greater good" to be gained by hiding some things from you. I am certainly not going to tell you things that will help you disprove that I am God. Here, let's make it interesting. I will treat anyone to a dinner at an expensive restaurant of his or her choosing if he or she can prove that I am not God.

Well that's great. There is a hidden mechanism in the possible explanation that you are an omnimax diety. Therefore, my point still stands. Where's my dinner? :p

And what happened to my argument from induction? Ah well, you answered someone else and miscontrued it.

Being a poster on IIDB in no way diminishes the possibility that I am God.

You are correct. It doesn't diminish the possibility. But that's not the point. Given that most posters on IIDB are not omnimax dieties, one can use induction to argue that you are not one until proven otherwise. One is justified in believing that you are not an omnimax diety then.

It's not about "diminishing the possibility". Sure, God may have an unknown reason for posting on IIDB and thereby does so. It's still possible, but not reasonable to believe.

Don't believe everything you read. :D

So we have a theist pretending to be an atheist...maybe. How fun. :rolleyes:

[-X-]

Don't believe everything you read.

yup, learned that one the first time i picked up the bible...

[copernicus]

copernicus,
Did you speak to Job from the whirlwind? Did you part the Red Sea? Did you give Moses the Commandments? If not, then you aren't God.
Nonsense. Those stories were all made up by humans. Don't blame the Bible on me. :)

In a different vein, echoing and emphasizing the challenge fy graymouser, if you are God, you know my real name and you know my age. Post it here, please! If you do not, the only reasonable conclusion is that you don't know what my name is and you don't know my age.

You are correct that I know your real name, age, and a lot more about you than you would like revealed. However, you're conclusion does not reasonably follow from the premises. Think about it.

Or, you could just read Spiderman's reply. He thinks that he thought the answer up himself, but I think that he was divinely inspired. ;)

[copernicus]

I will point out on copernicus' behalf (all gods need priests, right?) that the diety who spoke from the whirlwind and parted the Red Sea exhibited great potence, but not omnipotence. Wasn't YHVH's power insufficient to overcome an army possessing iron chariots? I'm not interested in worshipping a *limited* diety. I'll stick with copernicus.

-- The Bearded One, first priest of copernicus
Yes, Bearded One. Keep up the good work. I keep score, you know. :)

[copernicus]

Well, if I were to assume what Christians tell me is true, you must not be God, because I have not been seeking you with an open heart, and I have not been exercising faith in you. Since I'm assured that these are absolute prerequisites to finding God, you must not actually be God.

Unless of course their theology is wrong. But it can't be, can it?

Jamie
Yes, Jamie. I can speak with authority on this subject, and the Christians have got quite a few things wrong. Not everything, mind you, but lots. For example, I didn't give the Ten Commandments to Moses. He got them from other humans, and they didn't get them from me. That's not to say that some of them aren't accidentally good ideas.

Let me give you an example. Take the commandment "Thou shalt not kill". That commandment makes perfect sense from the point of view that you humans would live pretty miserable lives if you went around killing each other at the drop of a hat. But think about it. Why should I make a big deal out of such a commandment? You don't die, from my perspective. Human pain and suffering is but the blink of an eye, compared to eternity, and what fun would your world be if there were no peril? Trust me. It would be boring. Here, let me give you a little revelation. Why do you think people like to go to horror movies?

So I don't really interfere in such matters. Anyway, I plan to explain everything to you at the Great Post-Mortem Party. Everyone will be there, and we'll all have a good laugh over all the petty fears and concerns that you had while you were alive.

[copernicus]

i do not perceive you as being god, therefore, that it is proof enough to me that you are not.
I am not asking you to prove anything to yourself. What would be the point of that?

if you are god, then you do not wish me to perceive that you are god, therefore i will never prove to myself that you are, which in turn proves, in my perception, that you are not.
How can you conclude that I do not wish you to perceive me as God? You will certainly come to know the facts at the Great Post-Mortem. I have lots of patience, especially since I know the outcome. ;)

if i can't prove that you are god, i cannot prove that you are not god, therefore proving that the only thing that matters to me is whether or not i think you're god, which i don't.

the doozie is this: how 'bout you prove that you are not god.
What hubris. You humans always seek to command gods. It is as if you thought that it was all about YOU. Well, I can't say that I'm surprised. If I were surprised, I wouldn't be me. But do try to think about what matters to others, including gods. If you can achieve that state of mind, you may actually find yourself enjoying life better.

[Boomeister]

My god would have better grammar. Yours is quite good, but not perfect. :)

Sorry for that smart-ass answer, as I know I make mistakes in grammar as well...but then again, I'm far from being god. ;)


Boomeister


I know I was being a smart-ass, but I think my point got lost. I proved you are not perfect and not omni-scient (at least in grammar). I think that's a start in debunking your assertion that you are omni-everything.
So, if you are not all-knowing in the "world of grammar," then it's possible you are not all-knowing in anything else.

And to respond to someone who asked if I was a teacher, no I'm not. In fact, I also make mistakes in grammar. However, I never claimed to be a god, nor a grammar teacher for that matter. :D


Boomeister

P.S. Hey, guys, this is my 100th post. Woo hoo!

[copernicus]

Hmm, there are many issues here, but I'll start with the most obvious one first.

Either copernicus is God, or he is not. Either you will believe copernicus is God or you will not.

1) If copernicus is God and you believe, then you get infinite rewards in the afterlife.

2) If copernicus is God and you don't believe, then you get infinite punishments in the afterlife.

3) If copernicus is not God and you believe he is, then you have lost nothing.

4) If copernicus is not God and you don't believe he is, then you have neither gained nor lost anything.

Therefore, you should believe that copernicus is God.

-- The Bearded One, first priest of copernicus
Well, Bearded One, I hate to contradict one of my favored ones, but you got a couple of things wrong here. Premise 2, for example, is wrong. Hell is a figment of human imagination. Everybody goes to heaven, including serial murderers, child rapists, cannibals, and christian fundamentalists. Pascal's Wager only works with a certain demented concept of me. What kind of pleasure would I get out of sending people to eternal torment? That's a sick idea, IMO, but I still forgive those who hold it.

This whole false concept of hell stems from this false idea that I need people to believe in me. If anyone gave the idea more than a minute's thought, they would immediately see the flaw. After you die (which you don't, really--and that's part of the point), you'll know the truth. So why should I get mad because you don't believe I exist before we even have a chance to get acquainted? Isn't that the silliest idea you've ever heard? Oh, we'll have a good laugh at the Great Post-Mortem. There are so many mistaken ideas that need to be corrected. But I knew that. I planned it all to be fun in the end.

[rainbow walking]

Assume that God exists. How would you go about showing that I am not God? Bear in mind that you don't know for sure who is posting this, and I am not demanding absolute proof. I could be a megalomaniac, of course, but my position is that I am not. And I'm willing to defend the proposition that I exist. I can produce people who will attest to my existence.

rw: Hmmm...I don't have to assume the existence of God because I am He. You are an imposter, the imposter I have been warning everyone about for centuries. So I will send strong delusions to anyone who does not believe in my Godhead and allow you to pontificate your own importance as part of my greater plan...but don't get comfy.

[copernicus]

Assume that God exists. How would you go about showing that I am not God?

I wouldn't. I need not prove a negative. The claim is irrelevant -- its void of substance. Your position is rendered moot and I win.;)

Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Christ
Well, here's the point, Christ. (And I love your name. Great sense of humor.) In order to win, you have to prove the negative. Please read the OP, and pay more attention.

[-X-]

I am not asking you to prove anything to yourself. What would be the point of that?


hm... a god asking a question... of course, if you are god, i most definitely do not need to prove it to you... are you asking me to prove to someone else besides myself that you are not god? i cannot "prove" anything to anyone, as they perceive things in a different way than i do... what i can do is attempt to express how i perceive something, describe its truth value to me and they will either assert a truth value for themselves or not. this is what we call "proving", and normally we base "proof" on evidence, but if the evidence is perceived in a different light by someone else it will not necessarily "proove" anything.

How can you conclude that I do not wish you to perceive me as God? You will certainly come to know the facts at the Great Post-Mortem. I have lots of patience, especially since I know the outcome

if you are god, then my life would be merely an extension of your will... therefore, as it is in my (your will's) current state, i (your will) do not perceive you as god, therefore i arrive at the following conclusion:

you are not god because if you were, your will (I, me, myself, not apart from god) would perceive the fact that you are.

What hubris. You humans always seek to command gods. It is as if you thought that it was all about YOU. Well, I can't say that I'm surprised. If I were surprised, I wouldn't be me. But do try to think about what matters to others, including gods. If you can achieve that state of mind, you may actually find yourself enjoying life better.

i do not seek to command god(s)... of course, it would be all about god... and all would be god... how then, could part of god not perceive itself?

you still owe me dinner.

[copernicus]

But it's so easy: I'm God, and you're not Me. :D
You haven't actually shown any proof that I'm not you, Muad'Dib. After all, you never really know who it is that you're talking to on the Internet. But I'm willing to concede that you aren't me, for the sake of argument. In that case, I would disagree with you that you are God, because your argument would quickly become a contradiction. Nice try, though. :)

[-X-]

I am not asking you to prove anything to yourself. What would be the point of that?


on an aside, what a silly question for god to ask... if you were an all knowing god, you would know that any of my perceptions and indeed my life, including the fact that my life would be an extension of your will, would be completely pointless because of that fact (if you are confused, i am speaking about omniscience and determinism/fatalism)

this is just an aside, an somewhat o/t, but an example of you being someone who has simply outsmarted yourself...

[copernicus]

here's the real doozie...

and proof that you are not god.

if you are god, the only way i can prove you are not is by you proving that you are not god (because i can only do what would be your will), which, if you are god, you can do... therefore proving that you are not god...
-X-, I admire your spunk, but I'm not as gullible as you think. I gave you free will, so you are quite free to try to mount a proof. So far, all you have done is asked for my help to win the bet. Have you noticed lately that prayer does a lot of good? How often does it work? You don't really seem to get the point here. But keep trying. That's what makes life interesting. :)

[copernicus]

You do not accept the challenge. That's of no consequence to me. I know who I am.

And I know that you are not God. If you are God, you will know what happened to me today. Do you know what happened to me today? Because if you know what happened to me today, I will believe (without question) that you are God. Lets get on with it. . .

Sincerely,

Christ
Yes, I know what happened to you on every day of your life, including those days that are yet to come. I didn't really expect you to concede defeat so easily. The others are giving me a harder time of it. -X-, for example, seems to have anticipated my answer. He is beginning to appreciate the fact that this is a very serious challenge.

[-X-]

-X-, I admire your spunk, but I'm not as gullible as you think. I gave you free will, so you are quite free to try to mount a proof. So far, all you have done is asked for my help to win the bet. Have you noticed lately that prayer does a lot of good? How often does it work? You don't really seem to get the point here. But keep trying. That's what makes life interesting.

odear... if you created me, and you know my "fate", as it were, then i have no more free will than a wind-up monkey toy, because you would have created me to do everything i have done/am doing/will do. for you to say that i do (and if you existed, as such a god, that is)have free will is for you to:

1. lie. not beyond the scope of an omnipotent god, after all you would have created the lie in the first place, but not a characteristic of an "omnibenevolent" god, therefore proving you are not god.

2. for you to "think" that i myself am gullible enough to believe such an illusion as free will, given the existence of an omniscient entity which was/is also my creator.

[-X-]

now, i will prove that you are not god with your own words, so thanks for the help, after all!

originally posted by copernicus:
I'm an omnimax God

definition of omnimax:

1. omnipotent
2. omniscient
3. omnibenevolent

originally posted by copernicus
-X-, ... I gave you free will...

it has been proven that human free will cannot exist in the presence of an omnimax deity, therefore:

if i, as a human, have free will, then an omnimax deity cannot "exist"

therefore you, copernicus, are not an omnimax deity, or "god", because i have free will.

now you owe me not only dinner, but dessert, too.

[The Bearded One]

Well, Bearded One, I hate to contradict one of my favored ones, but you got a couple of things wrong here. Premise 2, for example, is wrong. Hell is a figment of human imagination. Everybody goes to heaven, including serial murderers, child rapists, cannibals, and christian fundamentalists. Pascal's Wager only works with a certain demented concept of me. What kind of pleasure would I get out of sending people to eternal torment? That's a sick idea, IMO, but I still forgive those who hold it.[snip]

Well, for copernicus' sake! You've given away my scam. My next step was to convince people that they could avoid hellfire by giving me a tithe. How am I supposed to survive if I can't collect certain sacrifices given in Your honor. I mean, it's not like a lot of people are burning animals upon alters so I can have free food either. What do You want me to do, work for a living??

-- The Bearded One, first priest of copernicus

[DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR]

Sorry, but I never assume anything especially in _____'s existence!

I'll try any how:

You claim not to be a suffering from megalomania. ;)

[copernicus]

Easy-Peasy
Bear in mind that you don't know for sure who is posting this,
Giving an easy to understand clue.

and I am not demanding absolute proof.
Reasonableness.

I could be a megalomaniac, of course, but my position is that I am not.
Honesty and self deprecation.

And I'm willing to defend the proposition that I exist.
No threats of violence.

I can produce people who will attest to my existence
Predisposition to resort to verifiable facts.

QED
Boro Nut
QED, what? Boro Nut, I never claimed to be the God that you were taught to believe in. In fact, I can tell you that most humans who try to describe me and my motivations have got it all wrong, except for those things that they got right by accident.

[copernicus]

This one is easy. You are not God because you owe your existence to someone and/or something else. So wouldn't the thing that you owe your existence to be a better God? If there is a better God than you, then you are not God.
I am nothing if not self-reliant. I owe my existence to myself. But, if I had owed my existence to someone or something else, why would that thing have had to have been better than me? This strikes me as a leap to a rather unwarranted conclusion.

[copernicus]

My god would have better grammar. Yours is quite good, but not perfect. :)

Sorry for that smart-ass answer, as I know I make mistakes in grammar as well...but then again, I'm far from being god. ;)

Boomeister
Boomeister, my grammar is as impeccable as your sense of grammaticality is not. None of my errors are actual errors, although they might appear as such to you.

[copernicus]

you owe me dinner.
If so, it is not for having satisfied the conditions of the bet. Nevertheless, you'll have a wonderful feast after you die. Trust me on that. :)

[copernicus]

Nope. Wrong. What means would I need to test this hypothesis? There is NOTHING I can to do test it in principle. No matter what happens, you can say, "Oh I have my reasons for that." Or something to that degree.

Therefore, it is untestable in principle. I can't get better technology or get a better microscope or anything.
As I explained, you will have the means to test the hypothesis. Once you are dead, of course, it will be completely self-evident to you. So the question of my existence is purely empirical. You must try to understand science better. No fact proven by science is ever absolute.

Well that's great. There is a hidden mechanism in the possible explanation that you are an omnimax diety. Therefore, my point still stands. Where's my dinner? :p
Your dinner has been served to you many times, and it will be served many times in the future. It is not really my place to point it out to you, is it?

And what happened to my argument from induction? Ah well, you answered someone else and miscontrued it.
Indeed. What did happen to it? I encourage you to work on it some more.

You are correct. It doesn't diminish the possibility. But that's not the point. Given that most posters on IIDB are not omnimax dieties, one can use induction to argue that you are not one until proven otherwise. One is justified in believing that you are not an omnimax diety then.
Most posters on IIDB are not you, but you are, nevertheless, you. The same is true of me. God. ;)

It's not about "diminishing the possibility". Sure, God may have an unknown reason for posting on IIDB and thereby does so. It's still possible, but not reasonable to believe.[quote]
As a matter of fact, I like atheists, and that is why I have chosen to post here. Not that I owe you an explanation. However, atheists have come to understand some essential facts about reality as I constructed it. So you can all be very, very proud of yourselves. The truth of the matter is that I don't really crave the company of sycophants. But, then, I'm not human.

[quote]So we have a theist pretending to be an atheist...maybe. How fun. :rolleyes:
I'm not really what you would call a conventional theist. I know who I am, so I can say that I lack true faith in God. I don't need it. And, quite frankly, neither do you. :)

[-X-]

If so, it is not for having satisfied the conditions of the bet. Nevertheless, you'll have a wonderful feast after you die. Trust me on that.

how nice of you to just say "you're wrong" without any support whatsoever to prove that i am wrong.

so, in light of that, i would ask, not command, that you prove that i have not proven that you are not god.

[breathilizer]

copernicus,

I can prove that you are not God. I am God. You are not me, and I am God. Therefore, you are not God.

[Natasha]

Given the silliness of some of the responses by copernicus, it is time to ask for an explanation what he/she will means by a proof. So far, given what copernicus seems to think are adequate responses to some of the above efforts, what he/she is asking for is something that will render him/her unable to key in the words "that isn't so!"-- As has been noted, either implicitly or explicitly, uttering "that isn't so!" is all his/her responses amount to. Nothing anyone can say will render him unable to key in those words.

Natasha

[graymouser]

Proof by copernicus' user profile:

P1. God is perfect.
P2. Lying is a sign of imperfection.
C1. God does not lie. (P1 and P2.)
P3. copernicus' profile lists "Atheism" under "Basic Beliefs."
P4. If copernicus is God, then this is either a lie or it is placed in his profile by Satan.
P5. If "Atheism" is placed in copernicus' profile by Satan, then God is unable or unwilling to communicate with humans without interference by Satan.
P6. If God is unable to communicate with humans without interference by Satan, then he is not perfect.
P7. If God is unwilling to communicate with humans without interference by Satan, then he is not perfect.
C2. "Atheism" is not placed in copernicus' profile by Satan. (P6 and P7 in P5.)
C3. If copernicus is God, then "Atheism" in his profile is a lie. (C2 in P5.)
C4. Copernicus is not God. (C1 and C3.)

-Wayne

[sparknote_s]

This is what amazes me:

Nobody here so far has believed you are God. And at least SOME people here believe there is a different god, that has provided even less evidence than you. I have 100% more reason to believe you are god, than anyone else. If I had to choose between a god which has never shown himself in any way, or a god that has shown himself in at least some way, I would have to choose the latter. I don't know how anyone else could NOT. Therefore, you MUST be God!

Can anyone prove me wrong? Can anybody prove me right? No...

[copernicus]

I know I was being a smart-ass, but I think my point got lost. I proved you are not perfect and not omni-scient (at least in grammar). I think that's a start in debunking your assertion that you are omni-everything.
So, if you are not all-knowing in the "world of grammar," then it's possible you are not all-knowing in anything else.

And to respond to someone who asked if I was a teacher, no I'm not. In fact, I also make mistakes in grammar. However, I never claimed to be a god, nor a grammar teacher for that matter. :D

Boomeister, besides being God, I have a PhD in linguistics. So I am quite well-read on the subject of grammar. As I said before, I have committed no grammatical errors.

[copernicus]

rw: Hmmm...I don't have to assume the existence of God because I am He. You are an imposter, the imposter I have been warning everyone about for centuries. So I will send strong delusions to anyone who does not believe in my Godhead and allow you to pontificate your own importance as part of my greater plan...but don't get comfy.
Rainbow, someone else already tried that ploy, and it won't work. Anyone can claim to be God, but not everyone can carry it off properly. It would be a miracle if you could. ;)

[copernicus]

hm... a god asking a question... of course, if you are god, i most definitely do not need to prove it to you... are you asking me to prove to someone else besides myself that you are not god? i cannot "prove" anything to anyone, as they perceive things in a different way than i do... what i can do is attempt to express how i perceive something, describe its truth value to me and they will either assert a truth value for themselves or not. this is what we call "proving", and normally we base "proof" on evidence, but if the evidence is perceived in a different light by someone else it will not necessarily "proove" anything.
-X-, you are losing sight of the goal. Reread the OP. The challenge is to provide reasonable proof that I am not God. It is true that I ask questions, but that should not for my own edification. I like teaching, and I especially enjoy using the Socratic method.

if you are god, then my life would be merely an extension of your will... therefore, as it is in my (your will's) current state, i (your will) do not perceive you as god, therefore i arrive at the following conclusion:

you are not god because if you were, your will (I, me, myself, not apart from god) would perceive the fact that you are.
Bad premise. You have absolute free will, and that is guaranteed by the fact that I always leave a little doubt in people's minds. (Lots of doubt, in the case of atheists.) Once you are dead, you'll know for certain that I exist, and no more free will. Enjoy my gift of free will while you can, because that wonderful gift has no place in heaven. Almost any christian can explain free will to you, although they mistakenly believe that I gave you free will in order to allow you to choose between good and evil. That is silly nonsense. I just thought that it would make your lives more interesting.

i do not seek to command god(s)... of course, it would be all about god... and all would be god... how then, could part of god not perceive itself?
That's an interesting question, and I may explain it to you. I am not just and omnipotent God, but an "omnipotential" God. That means that I can be all that I can be without even joining the US army. I have the potential to will myself (or parts of myself) to forget things. What kind of a God would I be if I couldn't deceive myself?

you still owe me dinner.
You have to earn your dinner, and you haven't even come close. You can be a contestant, but not a judge.

[copernicus]

on an aside, what a silly question for god to ask... if you were an all knowing god, you would know that any of my perceptions and indeed my life, including the fact that my life would be an extension of your will, would be completely pointless because of that fact (if you are confused, i am speaking about omniscience and determinism/fatalism)

this is just an aside, an somewhat o/t, but an example of you being someone who has simply outsmarted yourself...
Actually, I can outsmart myself. As an omnipotential God, I have the ability to do that. However, my use of questions is not a sign of ignorance. All of my questions are rhetorical.

[copernicus]

Well, for copernicus' sake! You've given away my scam. My next step was to convince people that they could avoid hellfire by giving me a tithe. How am I supposed to survive if I can't collect certain sacrifices given in Your honor. I mean, it's not like a lot of people are burning animals upon alters so I can have free food either. What do You want me to do, work for a living??
-- The Bearded One, first priest of copernicus
Alas, Bearded One, I cannot help you there. My non-interference policy prevents me from floating you a loan, but you do have the freedom to try to scam people all you like. I will even publicly endorse you as worthy of collecting tithes in my honor. Since nobody can prove that I'm not God, there are probably a few folks out there who will pay you just to hedge their bets. I would recommend that you try proselytizing at meetings of Republicans, since they appear most susceptible to faith-based funding initiatives. I don't really threaten people with hell, but it wouldn't be lying if you left out that little detail. Most people seem to think that I have a nasty streak in me when it comes to nonbelievers. I'm actually quite fond of nonbelievers. You can even lie, if you like, since you won't be punished for it. On the other hand, you might want to think about the consequences of living a lie.

[DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR]

You claim not to be a suffering from megalomania. :D

[RTS]

Proof by copernicus' user profile:

P1. God is perfect.
P2. Lying is a sign of imperfection.
C1. God does not lie. (P1 and P2.)
P3. copernicus' profile lists "Atheism" under "Basic Beliefs."
P4. If copernicus is God, then this is either a lie or it is placed in his profile by Satan.
P5. If "Atheism" is placed in copernicus' profile by Satan, then God is unable or unwilling to communicate with humans without interference by Satan.
P6. If God is unable to communicate with humans without interference by Satan, then he is not perfect.
P7. If God is unwilling to communicate with humans without interference by Satan, then he is not perfect.
C2. "Atheism" is not placed in copernicus' profile by Satan. (P6 and P7 in P5.)
C3. If copernicus is God, then "Atheism" in his profile is a lie. (C2 in P5.)
C4. Copernicus is not God. (C1 and C3.)

-Wayne

Hi Wayne,

Your logic appears to be flawed! Your argument rests on the assumption that copernicus is not God because his profile states "Atheism" as his basic belief. Atheists do not believe in God, correct? Well, copernicus does NOT believe in God, he KNOWS in God because he IS God. This is why he stated "Know Thyself" in his holy scripture. This is obvious to all who have faith and believe in copernicus.

I wish you piece my brother ;) ,

RTS (a.k.a.the FIRST DISCIPLE of copernicus)
From this day forward I promise to hate my father and mother, my wife and children, my brothers and sisters--yes, even my own life, and pick up my cross and follow copernicus into eternity.

Blessed be copernicus and I beseech thee judges me worthy of thine eternal salvation (or at least a six-pack). Amen.

[copernicus]

copernicus,
I can prove that you are not God. I am God. You are not me, and I am God. Therefore, you are not God.
Breathilizer, that one is getting pretty stale. You are not The One. If I were the mean God that so many Christians make me out to be, I would create a special hell for my impersonators. :cool:

[copernicus]

Given the silliness of some of the responses by copernicus, it is time to ask for an explanation what he/she will means by a proof. So far, given what copernicus seems to think are adequate responses to some of the above efforts, what he/she is asking for is something that will render him/her unable to key in the words "that isn't so!"-- As has been noted, either implicitly or explicitly, uttering "that isn't so!" is all his/her responses amount to. Nothing anyone can say will render him unable to key in those words.
Natasha
Not so, Natasha. I certainly don't intend to bore you, and I have been varying my responses as much as they need to be. But some of the attempted proofs have been repetitive. I've had this discussion with theists, and they never get quite so peevish as my dear atheist friends. It strikes me that they have more respect for God and perhaps more tolerance for silliness. Some have even tried to prove I am not God with the same arguments that atheists use to disprove the existence of their gods. Go figure. :)

[copernicus]

Proof by copernicus' user profile:

P1. God is perfect.
P2. Lying is a sign of imperfection.
C1. God does not lie. (P1 and P2.)
P3. copernicus' profile lists "Atheism" under "Basic Beliefs."
P4. If copernicus is God, then this is either a lie or it is placed in his profile by Satan.
P5. If "Atheism" is placed in copernicus' profile by Satan, then God is unable or unwilling to communicate with humans without interference by Satan.
P6. If God is unable to communicate with humans without interference by Satan, then he is not perfect.
P7. If God is unwilling to communicate with humans without interference by Satan, then he is not perfect.
C2. "Atheism" is not placed in copernicus' profile by Satan. (P6 and P7 in P5.)
C3. If copernicus is God, then "Atheism" in his profile is a lie. (C2 in P5.)
C4. Copernicus is not God. (C1 and C3.)
-Wayne
Dear, Wayne. God is omnipotent. He is certainly capable of deception. After all, the traditional omnimax God has done a lot to hide his existence, so why couldn't I lie, if it served a purpose? I may not be perfect by your standards, but your standards may certainly be flawed.

[breathilizer]

Breathilizer, that one is getting pretty stale. You are not The One. If I were the mean God that so many Christians make me out to be, I would create a special hell for my impersonators. :cool:
I've already created it. And when you die (since you are a mortal), you will go there and watch me be praised on Fox News all day.

[-X-]

X-, you are losing sight of the goal. Reread the OP. The challenge is to provide reasonable proof that I am not God. It is true that I ask questions, but that should not for my own edification. I like teaching, and I especially enjoy using the Socratic method.

if you are god, then my life would be merely an extension of your will... therefore, as it is in my (your will's) current state, i (your will) do not perceive you as god, therefore i arrive at the following conclusion:

you are not god because if you were, your will (I, me, myself, not apart from god) would perceive the fact that you are.

Bad premise. You have absolute free will, and that is guaranteed by the fact that I always leave a little doubt in people's minds. (Lots of doubt, in the case of atheists.) Once you are dead, you'll know for certain that I exist, and no more free will. Enjoy my gift of free will while you can, because that wonderful gift has no place in heaven. Almost any christian can explain free will to you, although they mistakenly believe that I gave you free will in order to allow you to choose between good and evil. That is silly nonsense. I just thought that it would make your lives more interesting.


ok, the premise was "if you are god", was it not?

here's the thing:

an omnipotent entity would have created all, therefore, would be part of all, therefore my life would be what said entity willed it to be, therefore right now i do not perceive copernicus to be god, therefore it is not the will of the omnipotent that i perceive copernicus to be god, therefore the will of the omnipotent does not perceive copernicus to be god, therefore copernicus is not god.


That's an interesting question, and I may explain it to you. I am not just and omnipotent God, but an "omnipotential" God. That means that I can be all that I can be without even joining the US army. I have the potential to will myself (or parts of myself) to forget things. What kind of a God would I be if I couldn't deceive myself?


so basically you just said that an omnipotent/omniscient entity "has forgotten" a few things? that is a completely contradictory statement (i won't get into that) but one that just adds to my argument because you have, in essence agreed with the statement that i would be merely an extension of your will (a part of you).

this means that you would have ultimate control over me (ergo, i would have no free will) because you have ultimate control over all parts of yourself, regardless of the fact that you perhaps have made me "forget" that i have no free will. the fact that i do not have free will would still mean you lied when you said i did, and that you gave it to me... what you actually said was "i made you forget you don't have free will" in a roundabout sort of way.

again, you lied, which proves you are not god... which, btw, was a point you conveniently sidestepped in my previous replies ...

an omnibenevolent entity does not lie, it has created the lie to show the value of truth and instill it within said entity's creation(s), but it would have no need to lie, especially when you'd be just lying to yourself.

You have to earn your dinner, and you haven't even come close. You can be a contestant, but not a judge.

lol, i had dinner in the bag a while ago... now let's work on lunch, shall we?

[copernicus]

ok, the premise was "if you are god", was it not?
here's the thing:

an omnipotent entity would have created all, therefore, would be part of all, therefore my life would be what said entity willed it to be, therefore right now i do not perceive copernicus to be god, therefore it is not the will of the omnipotent that i perceive copernicus to be god, therefore the will of the omnipotent does not perceive copernicus to be god, therefore copernicus is not god.
I'm sorry, -X-, but very few of your assumptions make sense. An omnipotent being does not actually have to have created everything, nor does God. Omnipotence only refers to an ability, not necessarily an ability that has been exercised to its fullest extent. The Greeks and Romans believed that God did not actually create the universe out of nothing, but only manipulated and shaped the existing universe. I'm not an ex nihilo kind of God, to tell you the truth. Moreover, as an omnipotent being, I could perfectly well will you not to perceive that copernicus is God. What would stop me from doing that? (I'm not, BTW, but I'm just making a point here.)

so basically you just said that an omnipotent/omniscient entity "has forgotten" a few things? that is a completely contradictory statement (i won't get into that) but one that just adds to my argument because you have, in essence agreed with the statement that i would be merely an extension of your will (a part of you).
Why should I not be able to make myself forget things? Some people drink themselves in a stupor to forget. God should just be able to do it without the aid of drugs, no? It is even true that you could be a part of me--a bud off the old godhead, so to speak. Why not? Hindu gods have their avatars.

this means that you would have ultimate control over me (ergo, i would have no free will) because you have ultimate control over all parts of yourself, regardless of the fact that you perhaps have made me "forget" that i have no free will. the fact that i do not have free will would still mean you lied when you said i did, and that you gave it to me... what you actually said was "i made you forget you don't have free will" in a roundabout sort of way.
By Jove, I think you're beginning to get it. Yes. All of that convoluted, confusing mess could be true. :)

again, you lied, which proves you are not god... which, btw, was a point you conveniently sidestepped in my previous replies ...
Oh, you really disappoint me on this one. Where is it written, even in traditional religions, that God is unable to tell lies? Christian fundamentalists believe that God has left all sorts of false evidence around (or permitted Satan to leave it around) in order to derail weak-minded humans from true faith in God. Many religions have trickster gods. Where did you get this idea that God, who is supposed to define morality for humans, is compelled (or even willing) to tell the truth all the time? It is an absurd idea.

an omnibenevolent entity does not lie, it has created the lie to show the value of truth and instill it within said entity's creation(s), but it would have no need to lie, especially when you'd be just lying to yourself.
Well, it is after April Fool's Day, so I choose now to come clean. You have spent so much time trying to debunk my absurd claim, that you deserve to be the first to know. I admit...reluctantly...that I am not God. In reality, I am just an atheist who is playing around. That's the honest truth as I know it. Ha. Ha. April Fools! :D God does not exist, and I do not believe that I am he/she/it or them.

lol, i had dinner in the bag a while ago... now let's work on lunch, shall we?
Ah, you are so persistent, -X-. I almost feel as if I owe you that dinner just because you have been such a good sport. Well, I said "almost". Unfortunately, you still can't prove that I'm not God, under the terms of the contest. First of all, God can lie and deceive. He (she, etc.) has to in order for most religions to work. For example, a parable is something of a lie. Christians can't agree amongst themselves which biblical stories are true and which are lies. If people believe that God endorses every word in the Bible, then they have to allow for a certain amount of coyness, if not downright deception, in their deity. Secondly, I could just be mistaken about my belief that I am not God. That is, I could have willed myself to exist for a time without memory of having been God. There are so many possibilities, and you would need to eliminate all of them. That's what "burden of proof" is all about. :)

[-X-]

I'm sorry, -X-, but very few of your assumptions make sense. An omnipotent being does not actually have to have created everything, nor does God. Omnipotence only refers to an ability, not necessarily an ability that has been exercised to its fullest extent. The Greeks and Romans believed that God did not actually create the universe out of nothing, but only manipulated and shaped the existing universe. I'm not an ex nihilo kind of God, to tell you the truth. Moreover, as an omnipotent being, I could perfectly well will you not to perceive that copernicus is God. What would stop me from doing that? (I'm not, BTW, but I'm just making a point here.)


there is no point in reference to my debunking your godhood to be made with your above comments... even though you think there might be.


Why should I not be able to make myself forget things? Some people drink themselves in a stupor to forget. God should just be able to do it without the aid of drugs, no? It is even true that you could be a part of me--a bud off the old godhead, so to speak. Why not? Hindu gods have their avatars.


didn't say you couldn't, did i? but if there was "part of you" that forgot and "part of you" that knows, it makes the point kinda moot... like the way people drink themselves into a stupor... they know they're losers, they just don't want to admit it to themselves :D


Oh, you really disappoint me on this one. Where is it written, even in traditional religions, that God is unable to tell lies? Christian fundamentalists believe that God has left all sorts of false evidence around (or permitted Satan to leave it around) in order to derail weak-minded humans from true faith in God. Many religions have trickster gods. Where did you get this idea that God, who is supposed to define morality for humans, is compelled (or even willing) to tell the truth all the time? It is an absurd idea.

sigh... talk about being disappointed... god would have created those weak minded humans with the intent to derail them then... again, both the truth and the lie would have been created by god... but both are based wholly on human perception of them.


Well, it is after April Fool's Day, so I choose now to come clean. You have spent so much time trying to debunk my absurd claim, that you deserve to be the first to know. I admit...reluctantly...that I am not God. In reality, I am just an atheist who is playing around. That's the honest truth as I know it. Ha. Ha. April Fools! God does not exist, and I do not believe that I am he/she/it or them.


so much time? nah... it was easy, actually... i think you've given yourself too much credit, honestly... i am honestly disappointed that you gave up so soon and used such a worthless excuse as April Fool's Day to shrug off the fact that you owe me dinner.


Ah, you are so persistent, -X-. I almost feel as if I owe you that dinner just because you have been such a good sport. Well, I said "almost". Unfortunately, you still can't prove that I'm not God, under the terms of the contest. First of all, God can lie and deceive. He (she, etc.) has to in order for most religions to work. For example, a parable is something of a lie. Christians can't agree amongst themselves which biblical stories are true and which are lies. If people believe that God endorses every word in the Bible, then they have to allow for a certain amount of coyness, if not downright deception, in their deity. Secondly, I could just be mistaken about my belief that I am not God. That is, I could have willed myself to exist for a time without memory of having been God. There are so many possibilities, and you would need to eliminate all of them. That's what "burden of proof" is all about.

ah, now we are discussing the christian god, and man's interpretations of what that is... the whole part of lying has nothing to do with it... that's all man's doing... but of course, if you weren't so disappointed with the whole god idea, then maybe you'd realize that some of what you said in a few of your posts may actually be true...

or not.

as far as the "willed myself to exist having forgotten my godhood" tangent...

think about what that could mean... what if god decided one morning: "hey, i'm gonna go all mortal for a day..." and then got hit by a bus.

damn.

that would explain a lot.

and i can't say i really expected you to pay up on the bet... after all, you're not god. :D

[Boomeister]

The only reason why I bring up grammar is that is the only "contact" I have with you. I believe every other point being made on this forum is the same points atheists and theists have made before. What makes this thread unique is that you are saying that you are God. I have almost no evidence provided that you are God, except what you have given me through your typed words. In fact, we can say this forum is your "bible" given to us, a revelation, if you will.
I do not know you, but the only "contact" I have with you is what you have written on this forum.
I am choosing the route of criticizing that you are not all powerful and all knowing. If you are all-loving, well only your significant other can attest to that. ;)
Again, your grammar is good, but it isn't perfect. As mine isn't, as well. However, an all-knowing, all-powerful God should at least be able to master the English language through grammar (as well as spelling, etc.) if we are to believe that God is whom he says he is (or she says).
Any other arguments about whether or not you are God are the same arguments used to try to prove or disprove other gods. But you have provided us with a little bit about yourself (through your grammar, through any other instances in which you've shared your personal experiences on any of these forums)...and THAT we can use to judge YOU on (and not some debatable deity).


Boomeister

[Boomeister]

Again, your grammar is good, but it isn't perfect. As mine isn't, as well. However, an all-knowing, all-powerful God should at least be able to master the English language through grammar (as well as spelling, etc.) if we are to believe that God is whom he says he is (or she says).


I'm assuming God has to be omni-max.
What is your definition of "God"? I cannot prove someone is or isn't anything if I don't even know what it is they are asserting.


Boomeister

[Boomeister]

OOps, just read where you said you are not God.
Of course, I am.
Just not the omni-max kind. I'm the kind that looks like a human, doesn't always follow the commandments but I am the fulfillment of the commandments. Oh yeah, that's Jesus. My bad.

Boomeister

[copernicus]

there is no point in reference to my debunking your godhood to be made with your above comments... even though you think there might be.

I thought that you were interested in that free dinner. Oh, well. :D

didn't say you couldn't, did i? but if there was "part of you" that forgot and "part of you" that knows, it makes the point kinda moot... like the way people drink themselves into a stupor... they know they're losers, they just don't want to admit it to themselves :D
You speak as one who has been there. Myself, I wouldn't know. ;)


Well, it is after April Fool's Day, so I choose now to come clean. You have spent so much time trying to debunk my absurd claim, that you deserve to be the first to know. I admit...reluctantly...that I am not God. In reality, I am just an atheist who is playing around. That's the honest truth as I know it. Ha. Ha. April Fools! God does not exist, and I do not believe that I am he/she/it or them.
so much time? nah... it was easy, actually... i think you've given yourself too much credit, honestly... i am honestly disappointed that you gave up so soon and used such a worthless excuse as April Fool's Day to shrug off the fact that you owe me dinner.
I think that you misunderstood me. I didn't say I was giving up. I merely admitted that I do not believe that I am God or that God exists. Both the challenge and the prize are still on the table. Since God is not required to always speak the truth, I could just be lying about not being God. On the other hand, I could be honestly mistaken that I am not God. I could be an avatar that has been temorarily deprived of the memory of its origin. Once again, I feel compelled to remind you that you have earned no dinner. You have failed to show that I am not God. Geez, -X-, you are persistent. Are you a compulsive gambler?

ah, now we are discussing the christian god, and man's interpretations of what that is... the whole part of lying has nothing to do with it... that's all man's doing... but of course, if you weren't so disappointed with the whole god idea, then maybe you'd realize that some of what you said in a few of your posts may actually be true...

or not.

as far as the "willed myself to exist having forgotten my godhood" tangent...

think about what that could mean... what if god decided one morning: "hey, i'm gonna go all mortal for a day..." and then got hit by a bus.

damn.

that would explain a lot.

and i can't say i really expected you to pay up on the bet... after all, you're not god. :D
-X-, I would never pretend to be the Christian god. I would find that kind of god too difficult to defend. So I gave myself a little more leeway to be believable. I honestly think that atheists are much better at coming up with believable gods than theists. :) Well, I might still treat you to a dinner some day, if the opportunity arises. Who knows? Miracles can happen, right?

The only reason why I bring up grammar is that is the only "contact" I have with you. I believe every other point being made on this forum is the same points atheists and theists have made before. What makes this thread unique is that you are saying that you are God. I have almost no evidence provided that you are God, except what you have given me through your typed words. In fact, we can say this forum is your "bible" given to us, a revelation, if you will.

Quite so. I am puzzled by your criticism of my grammar, though. What grammatical mistake did I make? Although I'm not really God (to the best of my knowledge), I still have a Ph.D. in linguistics. Maybe I'm missing something in one of your posts, but I can't find any specific references to grammatical errors.

I'm assuming God has to be omni-max.
What is your definition of "God"? I cannot prove someone is or isn't anything if I don't even know what it is they are asserting.
OK, I admit that that is a problem. In order to say anything about a god, one has to define what kind of god one is talking about. There are so many different concepts, although all have the common theme of being supernatural rather than natural beings. In trying to communicate with theists, we have all run into this problem. God is always underspecified in any conversation that references him/her/it. Theists use that underspecification skillfully to deflect hard questions.

For me, this thread has been an experiment in how one might go about teaching skepticism to theists. When challenged to show that God does not exist--a common challenge posed to atheists--one can always reply by assuming God's existence and challenging the theist to prove that one is not God. Having tried this ploy with a few theists already, I have discovered that they tend to argue like atheists--demanding evidence for my positive claim. Most people are never going to be convinced to give up their religious faith in the course of a debate, but the megalomania ploy does lead to interesting exchanges as they try to prove the negative.

OOps, just read where you said you are not God.
Of course, I am.
Just not the omni-max kind. I'm the kind that looks like a human, doesn't always follow the commandments but I am the fulfillment of the commandments. Oh yeah, that's Jesus. My bad.
Boomeister, I encourage you to explore megalomania as a thought experiment. It can be fun. There are so many possibilities. Get in touch with the god side of your personality.

[BlessNot]

Assume that God exists. How would you go about showing that I am not God? Bear in mind that you don't know for sure who is posting this, and I am not demanding absolute proof. I could be a megalomaniac, of course, but my position is that I am not. And I'm willing to defend the proposition that I exist. I can produce people who will attest to my existence.

Since you are the one claiming that you exist, then the burden of proof rests on your shoulders to prove it not on the people who doubt your existence.

BTW, I don't have many doubts that you are a real person. :)

[copernicus]

Since you are the one claiming that you exist, then the burden of proof rests on your shoulders to prove it not on the people who doubt your existence.

BTW, I don't have many doubts that you are a real person. :)
BlessNot, we are past the OP already. Read the last couple of pages. :)