Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Prove that I am not God
If there is only one capital-G God, and if I am that God, then you can't be.
Prove that I am not God
That would be a logical conclusion. But no one claims there is only one God. There is Jesus, who is both human and God (the son of God, begotten by immaculate conception)If there is only one capital-G God, and if I am that God, then you can't be.
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Demons,-Evil-Work-OfMost Relevant Verses,
Revelation 16:13-14;
And I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs; for they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them together for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty.
Correct. Not "prove", just not "granted".
I dreamed of a fnord last night. It does not objectively exist (i.e. no one has any reason to grant it exists) until/unless I can demonstrate it.
No. Objective people (who are rational) won't generally accept the existence of something objective unless there's reason to.
They can't. There are an infinite number of things one could suppose exist (Santa, unicorns, fnords, greeblies, fizbins) but are not objective unless the supposer can make a case for them.
The alternative is that you must grant that fnords objectively exist simply because I say they do.
In my discussion about fnords, I'm about to assert that they are the cause of tooth decay and will expound upon their nature.
I can't expect you to discuss their nature, unless I first convince you they exist. And there's no reason you should.
Regardless of what reality you perceive, your innate limitations preclude your ability to discern the actual identity of any god.Well, you don't exist in my reality so you cannot be my god.
You don't need to tell me that.Regardless of what reality you perceive, your innate limitations preclude your ability to discern the actual identity of any god.
As your god, it’s my duty to inform you of such things.You don't need to tell me that.
And YOU have no way of proving that youre,,Moderator note: this thread was originally split from the following thread:
According to your standards, the possibility of those qualities are justifiably as likely in myself as they are in any example you can offer for them existing anywhere else.
I am your omnimax god, and you have no way of proving that I’m not.
Since you’re apparently not convinced of my divinity, what would it take for me or any other entity to justify the claim?And YOU have no way of proving that youre,,
which makes you irrelevant
Check m8
And, by logical extension, all believers in God are irrelevant - since they too cannot prove God exists.And YOU have no way of proving that youre,,
which makes you irrelevant
For the record, if you appeared as a 100 mile tall bearded man with a staff, and turned day into night with the snap of your fingers and turned the world inside out without uprooting me from my chair, I would probably concede that 'You are indeed God' would rise to near the top of my list of theories.Since you’re apparently not convinced of my divinity, what would it take for me or any other entity to justify the claim?
After experiencing such an exhibition of magic, I would have to remind myself of the human capacity to judge by citing Harry’s First Law.For the record, if you appeared as a 100 mile tall bearded man with a staff, and turned day into night with the snap of your fingers and turned the world inside out without uprooting me from my chair, I would probably concede that 'You are indeed God' would rise to near the top of my list of theories.
Right up there with Clarke's Third Law.
Bit dense arent you,kiddoSince you’re apparently not convinced of my divinity, what would it take for me or any other entity to justify the claim?
Of course I would, but I would also have the perogative of having you explain it to everyone else.Bit dense arent you,kiddo
Wouldnt an ALL Knowing mutha KNOW what would it take to convince me?
But you would also know wether he will be compliant or notOf course I would, but I would also have the perogative of having you explain it to everyone else.
You're kind of missing the point here.Bit dense arent you,kiddo
Wouldnt an ALL Knowing mutha KNOW what would it take to convince me?
Which he already knows if he will or will notto see if you will say what will convince you.
Yes. But as Capracus points out, it's not for His benefit; it's for everyone else's benefit.Which he already knows if he will or will not
Which he already knows they will or will not getYes. But as Capracus points out, it's not for His benefit; it's for everyone else's benefit.
The purpose is not for Capracus to see what he does; the purpose is for all the rest of his subjects to hear scorpius express his views so they hear one of their own talking about being convinced.Which he already knows they will or will not get