Being omni and dropping the ball in philosophy and history (and mind reading) is also a poor marriage.
Here's what you declared, without evidence: "You are starting to sound less and less omni by the moment." That claim of yours was quoted, so there would be no possibility of honest confusion. You didn't answer that either. So pick one: By what evidence?
When you and the other qualified epistemologists have petitioned what you thought was God in the past, did you receive answers to your questions on philosophy and history? Did you receive answers on any other subject for that matter? Was there also any indication that the imagined God had read your mind? Interested parties in my creation would enjoy reading examples of your previous tests of God.
That's fine. I'm just providing you with an opportunity to exhibit what you are talking about as opposed to consistently dropping the ball by merely talking about what you are talking about.
That's not evidence. You can pick either claim, or invent yet another. Here's the question, again: By what evidence?
It’s my role as God to provide you with opportunities. It’s your role as a misguided human being to try to recognize your limitations. I brought you to this forum, and specifically to this thread in order for you to expose your shortcomings in logic, and receive correction from those who know better. I advise you to take advantage of this opportunity that I have granted you.
A means by which you believe humanity can achieve it is neither here nor there. The rather simple fact is that God has chosen not to do so directly. Similarly, Capracus might simply have chosen not to, as you see it, hold his own in an online discussion forum. Thus, to repeat, your dismissal of Capracus' claim is fallacious. Care to try again?
Then, for all intents and purposes, he is nondifferent from an individual ignorant of history and philosophy (amongst many other things), and thus the level of awe and reverence warranted to him follows accordingly.
Ditto previous post. You are not adding anything more to the discussion except more credence to my previous reply.
There’s no call for you to accuse your God of deficiencies in knowledge. You seem to have forgotten that I'm omniscient. It’s interesting how you can revere an imaginary God that gives no answers, but ridicule the real thing that answers vaguely. If I were to give more specific answers you’d become even more irrational and brand me as some kind of demonic entity. For your own sanity you’ll just have to be satisfied with my less unsettling vagueness. Your comments thus far have been meaningless, there’s nothing you can say that diminishes my glory. I already know your logic regarding my nature is flawed, it’s up to you to explain those flaws to the other forum members so that they can assist you in correcting your errors. You must repent if you desire salvation.
Yes, it comes as no surprise that an atheist cannot offer an argument for being God outside of imagination. Everything else, ditto.
And for all intents and purposes an "omnimax" God who doesn't choose to remove suffering is as non-different from any entity that chooses not to, and no more worthy of awe and reverence. Capracus might claim that he has also chosen not to. Thus, logically, he (Capracus) remains equivalent to God on this matter. I.e. as previously explained, your dismissal of Capracus' claim to be a God simply because of a choice he has made remains fallacious. If you want to dismiss his claim you're really going to have to come up with something that actually shows Capracus not to be God. It's simple logic, and until you can get past that logic you're really just obfuscating.
You mess up on your first premise, so everything else that follows is moot. I already explained how God removes suffering.
Until I came out of the closet, your only relation to God was through your imagination, or the imagination of others. You need to lighten up on the blasphemy. Until you can prove that I’m not God, you have no cause to call me an atheist, because I most assuredly believe in myself.
No, you explained how some believe God offers us the ability to remove our own suffering, through the free will they believe he has chosen to grant us. He chooses not to do so directly. The premise is thus not flawed, although your misunderstanding is noted.
That was an invitation to highlight the point you introduced new problems. Repeating the same statement just sends you down the same cul de sac.
