Na they are the easy ones to spotThat's what worries me the most....
It's not the ones who claim to be god, it's the ones who claim to represent god
Stay away from those
Prove that I am not God
- Thread starter Capracus
- Start date
It's not the ones who claim to be god, it's the ones who claim to represent god
Stay away from those
Garcon! Extra tissues! Extra tissues!!I have been waiting for you to address the issue since the first post. But since that seems to be asking too much, I am keeping the thread open with tangently related observations.
I have made my position very clear and have yet to hear a coherent counter argument, other than ad hominem after ad hominem. It really does nothing to support transparently weak arguments wishing for a strong Father figure. Like; "my daddy told me, spare the rod spoil the child", when he used to beat me, and I aim to be just like my daddy".
You see, there are people who believe they are the earthly representative of God.
Most of them inhabit mental institutions....
Who would have guessed that asides from theism, you are also equally illiterate in criminology, political science and mental health.
Imagine that, one of God’s delusional creations telling it how it’s allowed to behave. What else is on your list of restrictions for God?
No need to google what I essentially just posted, that the go to strategy for theists to excuse God’s behavior is to claim that it’s necessary to further its goals for humanity. Exactly what I did in my portrayal of God.
If you had adequately explained it earlier, then you should have confidence in its adequacy again. Your reluctance to repeat it indicates what you really think of it, or what other would think of it.
Didn’t ask it before my last post, so I’ll repeat it again. Show how an adequate defense of God’s identity should be employed. As I did, play the role of God and show how it’s done.
You continue to disregard the logic tied to your presumption of an omnimax God. If God can’t play the monster or the goof, then you have to set that standard up front. You don’t get to change the rules after the fact and castrate God to fit your needs.
What a conversational waste of time you are. Request after request form myself an others for some meaningful description of this ambiguous framework yours, and all we get is misdirection and double talk. Your antics are no better than the “Just Beliebers” you look down on.
If God is choosing the seamless charade of a goof, as envisioned by the regular goofs of this world, then God gets treated like a regular goof.
Much like a president, somewhere down the line, has to distinguish themself from regular online cranks if they want to "move and shake" as a president. In the same way, somewhere down the line, God has to present something other than seamless goof if there are to be any reasonable grounds to not being treated as goof.
As things stand, you have not provided anyone with anything to challenge what has been a seamless performance of goof charading as God.
On the contrary, you presented nothing but goof, and, as such, were treated as goof by all concerned parties.
If you understood something of the already exististing historical and philosophical issues surrounding the problem of theodicy, you might be able to muster something more substantial than the goof that is readily available on illiterate atheist hate sites. But alas, another opportunity goes begging and you merely goof all over yourself again.
You are too goof to go to the start to read it. Such is the nature of your goof. My constant dialogue with you has been, "BTW, before you get started, you might want to avoid being the goof by falling into the predictable pitfalls of defining an object with incongruent subjects and .... whoops. Looks like you just fell in it (again)."
Such is the nature of your goof.
I never said God can't. I said that if He does, then he would be dumbing down appearances, and, if He does it seamlessly (much as your seamless performance of goof) then ...
1. He would base it on the performance of regular goofs (such as yourself)
2. He would be treated as a regular goof (such as your self)
3. He would have zero capacity to engineer any change or influence on society, beyond what is available to regular goofs (such as yourself).
4. If He did it well, the goof would be suffient so as to not even attract the ire of atheists, illiterate or otherwise (such as was the result of your performance).
As such, by the agency of special pleading (and what is off limits to special pleading? Or more precisely, what logical fallacy is off limits to an illiterate atheist?), you may or may not be God, but no matter which way you look at it, absolutely 100% without a doubt, you are goof.
IOW what you provided, at the end of the day, was a seamless performance of goof. So, unlike God, you couldn't substantislly arouse the ire of a single atheist, what to speak of inspire devotion in anyone theistically inclined.
You are just repeating yourself.
Already brought up the point of atheism's requirement to maintain the antithetical position. As an atheist, if you take yourself to task to challenge the weakest form of theism, you just end up with the weskest form of atheism as a final product. Stupid in -> Stupid out. Illiterate atheism is as illiterate atheism does.
No doubt this will drive you to say something snazzy like "Well all theism is dumb and stupid, so there is nothing superior to respond to", as an excuse to justify your lethargic sloth in philosophy and history.
IOW it just becomes yet another compounding behaviour in your seamless presentation of goof, as per the standards of illiterate atheism in pursuit of goof.
Goof + Goof = oustanding Goof.
Baby sloths falling out of trees due to mistaking their arms for branches, and all that ...
Last edited:
Then God also gets treated as an uncaring monster who destroys lives, worlds and galaxies. And if other universes exist, it probably destroys those as well.
A president is saddled with the limitations of being a human being, which means that their actions are knowable, and thus can be held accountable for them. We have a goof for a president in the US right now, but many of his followers, much like God’s, are willing to rationalize his goofiness into something positive. But unlike God, who’s actions can only be a matter of speculation, our current president will eventually have to answer for his documented behavior.
Presumably a God that is capable of all things should be able to play a goof and take care of its other universal responsibilities simultaneously. Torment some ignorant theists here, extinguish life on a planet there. See how easy that is?
Unlike you, I expect an omnimax God to own all of its behavior, so I have no problem with God the goof and destroyer of worlds.
If you think theodicy is a useful tool to rationalize the behavior of God, then employ it yourself rather than point to others who have used it for their own purposes. Stop just talking about philosophy and actually engage in some.
Finally you pinch out a semblance of logic. I have been recognized by Musika to be a potential omnimax God capable of unspeakable goofiness, mass slaughter and horrific destruction.
Who cares what a bunch of Godless atheists think. We know God is real, and it’s going to paint the universe red. Praise the Lord!
There is no connection between your goof and God's omni status. We are saying that you are a goof because you cannot even establish a single characteristic that goes beyond mediocrity, as per the standard of a human. Even if you want to suggest theodicy has issues with God being malignant, and even if, for the sake of argument, we accept that they are right, we are still left with your seamless goof rhat does not qualify you for Godhood, malignant or otherwise.
Makes zero difference. The president could be a complete bastard and be hung and quartered tomorrow, but it would still take more than a seamless performance of an online crank to start "moving and shaking" (ie, bringing others in to sync with the president's desire, activities, etc). So regardless whether we are talking about people who love, hate or are indifferent to the president, and regardless whether the president is good, bad or ugly, everyone has a clear idea who they are talking about.
In regards to your performance, everyone also had a clear idea who they were dealing with : an atheist goof charading as God. You can't blame others for what was lacking (or, as per the goof, inescapable) within yourself.
Given JamesR's hypervigilance on the thread topic issue, if you really want to pursue the ins and outs of theodicy, you should take it to a different thread.
Even if you are right, the exhibited limits of your capacity to torment others os limited by the repertoire of online crankery and general goof, and not an omni God.
Your pissweak performance on the "destroyer of worlds" thing is the main contributing factor to your seamless performance on the goof gig.
Take it to another thread because its a red herring here. The only point I was making in pointing out theodicy is that your ignorance of it illustrates your level of illiteracy, and its part of what grants your illiterate atheist status (which is the status that everyone reciprocated with you on, and not the airs that you were raking to painstakingly (IYHO) charade.
Do you want a badge for making a successful argument on the strength of special pleading or is the hard work that you had to put in to it to pull it off its own reward?
BTW, did I mention that I am not only the president of the USA, but have the cure for cancer?
Are you impressed yet?
Its not just the atheists. Its every one. No one cares what you think ... which is kind of a pathetic state of affairs for a purportedly omni personality, when they can't even compete with anything that has a brain stem and over 50 followers on twitter.
So what characteristics could a human display in this thread to make it appear Godlike? And what human characteristics are off limits to God?
Who are you to know what can be expected of an omnimax God? An expert on God are you?
Well duh. That distinction has already been acknowledged. You can know the identity of a human being because they have identifiable characteristics, an omnimax God doesn’t. No one knows what it looks like, acts like, or where it hangs out, so it could conceivably manifest as anything.
What would I blame others for? I set out to portray an omnimax God consistent with the standard you assumed for such a god, and I succeeded. Mission accomplished.
The beauty of portraying an omnimax God is that I get to take credit for not only what you perceive, but also the vast majority that you can’t. While I’m her goofing on you in this thread, I’m shredding the fabric of reality everywhere else. I’m surprised that you 'd be so ignorant of God’s multitasking abilities.
I'm sure James would have no objection to you taking on the role of omnimax God to illustrate your divine chops.
You have no idea of the universal carnage I wrought as God while engaged in this thread. I get to take credit for everything without proof, just like the God you idealize.
Ignorance of it? I educated you on the term, so I accept your thanks.
You forgot to include your knowledge of God’s existence in that statement of falsehoods.
Gee, I don't know.
Something God-like, as opposed to goof-like, might be a good place to start.
As said already, don't just take it to me, take it to the crowd. We are all unanimous in identifying you as goof. If you feel that being goof is not a fatal category error in the attempt to be God, it is you who needs to do the explaining.
So far all you have mustered are some red herrings.
Don't be daft.
You have already gone at lengths about painting the universe red, and so on. If you cannot even convince anyone you can paint the side of a barn red, it seems you have quite a bit of "omni" before you if you want to approach your goal.
Except you failed on the "consistent with the standard" thing (red universes and red barns, and having less than 50 twitter followers and all that).
The only standards you were consistent in presenting were the standard of goof. It is even a fail by the standard of a malignant God that you delivered to yourself via illiterate atheism.
IOW you deliver goof so seamlessly, that by anyone's standard (even your own), you are merely goof. Its time for you to start owning the responsibility for this catastrophic failure instead of trying to make others responsible for your shortcomings.
That's the beauty (?) of special pleading, not the beauty of depicting an omni anything.
By same token I can also cure cancer, be the US president, etc etc.
In the meantime, until you present us with an idea (which will certainly be a tall order for an illiterate atheist), you are treated as a goof by all parties.
Come now!
Is that any way to speak to the very person who knows how to cure cancer and who also happens to be the US president?
Last edited:
Ok.
I don’t have that inability.
You’re right.
You don’t know what I mean by that.
From my perspective, it would be Capricus, claiming to be God. So if Capracus claimed that he was God, then God would have allow anyone to know that it was God.
Already did in previous threads. I don’t see the point of jumping through your hoop again.
I’ve no idea what your baseless accusation refers to.
Because there would be no point in God appearing as Capracus, claiming to be God, but not reveal that He is God.
Are you sure about that?
Are you suggesting that it is impossible for me to know? If yes. Why?
Because you subconsciously deny God.
.
What do you mean by prior belief?
What do you mean by “proof of the conclusion- invisible”.
Already did in previous threads. I don’t see the point of jumping through your hoop again.
Already presented it in
Previous threads.
Well you’ve failed so far?
What makes you think of you remain an atheist, you become able to?
Already done, in previous threads.
Already explained in previous threads.
Don’t know what you mean by magical ability.
How do you know?
How do you work that out?
Keep in mind it is evidence, not proof.
Is that what you got from that?.
I agree that You’re so desperate to come out on top, you will blatantly put words into my mouth, then use that lie to try and gain the upper hand.
So you’ll be able to quote me saying it?
Let’s see.
It’s not just Craig that makes that distinction.
It seems to be the habitual norm.
Maybe you as an atheist can explain it?
Jan.[/quote]
Last edited by a moderator:
You were unable to do it in the other thread. You could not post a single bit of proof of God's existence, other than "ask someone else."
A demonstrated inability trumps you claiming you have the ability.
How do you know what God's point is?
The point is so obvious that it forms the maimstay of atheism.
If not even atheists are not getting riled up by an an apparent God, it is evident that the God is missing a crucial point.
What is the point of having a discussion if you have to change what I say to prove your point?
jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Why would I need to have faith in God's existence, when I don't have faith in any type of existence, including my own.
Life is, as we came by it. I exist, other things exist. No faith required.
Obviously you think that because we can't observe ''God'' in the way we can observe other things, we have to have faith that God exists.
But belief in God isn't like that.
Theist and atheist, although only a terminology that describes out position in relation to God, actually means something. One just doesn't pick a title out of the hat, and decide to run with it.
jan.
It doesn't describe any such thing.
The terms will have to get their meaning from somewhere else.
Of course it does.
It's reactionary to theism.
Your, and many others, contributions to the religion subforum clearly establishes it as such.
Your question is akin to asking "How does knowledge of God appear in human society?", or, to frame it to atheist-think, "How does the make-believe knowledge of God appear in human society?"
It doesn't matter whether one is atheist or theist. At least in this regard, there is mutual agreement on the source material.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No, atheism is not reactionary. It is status quo. Theism is reactionary, to the idea that there is no God. But without any evidence theism remains reactionary, based only on speculation.
The question is why they are here, posting like that.
It's not to discuss anything.
One possible answer is that the contents of their posts are not side effects, not mistakes, and not hidden from themselves, but instead what they are here to post.