Prove that I am not God

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Capracus, Oct 12, 2018.

  1. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    This is a really easy lesson unit Musika. By your rules my existence is arbitrary. The same rationale you employ to justify your imagined god can be used by others to justify a completely different version. It’s essentially and endless game of Whack a God, where the only one who wins is me.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    This would make an awesome quote.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    The difference between your approach and my approach is that you insist there is no intrinsic relationship between "things" (eg. God) and "values/qualities that designate a thing". The way forth for you would be to not to continue to employ bluster/special pleading but to problematize the very categories of "things" and "values". You could pick up a few hints by studying the works of those in the line of Buddha (aka "there are no things/wholes, only parts") and/or Shankaracarya (aka "there are no parts, only wholes"). This would not necessarily make your "I am God/we're all God/anything is God" arguments valid, but it would add an element of sophistication that your current arguments desperately lack.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Pot ... kettle.
     
  8. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Convenient editing out of introductory passages that spell out the differences in approaches duly noted.
     
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    proof you ain't god

    if'n you wuz born
    you ain't god
    ?
     
  10. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    There's no impasse, Musika.
    An Ominmax God could, if it chose to, remove suffering directly without the need for human free will to play a part.
    I.e. it has that capability.
    Do you agree with this?

    The existence of suffering is thus evidence that, if such a God exists, it has chosen not to do so.
    It is not evidence that an omnimax God does not exist - only that if it does then it has chosen particular course.

    If Capracus is God, as per his claim, then he could simply have chosen not to do as you would suggest an omnimax God should be capable of.
    Thus his not doing it is not evidence that he is not, as per his claim, God, but rather similarly that, if he is God, he has chosen a particular course.

    Any disagreement that you have on this, any impasse you might see, seems to be simply your inability to parse the logic of it.
    If you still don't understand, or if you still disagree, which part do you disagree with?

    You believe God has removed suffering directly, perhaps?
    Without human free-will having a say in it?
     
  11. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Scrub "directly", (because its not an issue of contention ..... I never suggested there was anything indirect about it), and, no. I do not agree.
    Do you agree an omni God can create square circles?
    Or maybe, to ask the same sort of q a different way, do you agree that there are certain qualities/values by which we identify free will (much like there are certain values by which we identify a square), and, that if you radically transform/disregard/eliminate those values, you are left with something other than the before mentioned "thing" (whether it is free will or a square) that was indicated?
     
  12. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    Your initial response was an indirect process of removal, requiring the person to choose to go through the process you believe would lead to removal of suffering.
    That is indirect.
    So the "direectly" remains.
    You don't agree that an omnimax God could remove suffering directly, if that was it's desire/whim/wish?
    So you think God removing suffering directly (rather than giving us the ability to resolve it ourselves) is somehow a logical impossibility?
    On what basis?
    You're asking that if one eliminates the qualities/values of X then are we left with something that doesn't have the qualities/values of X?
    If so then the answer is yes.
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    So you are adopting a new approach, and will now begin providing evidence of some "value/quality that designates" your God.
    In the appropriate thread, of course. Here, your task would be to provide evidence that Capracus is not in fact your God.
    The request was that you provide an example or two of evidence you have repeatedly declared exists - in vast arrays, etc.
    That's just a passing billboard, not a cul de sac - unless, of course, there is no such evidence.
    In that case you are kind of stuck. By all the evidence you have provided to date, Capracus is your God.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Doesn't work, even in theory, for some Gods. Christmas is coming.

    For any God In practice, of course, it would require evidence of the "if" part, sufficient to exclude the Deity's powers of intervention in perception, memory, etc.
     
  15. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    I have always been clear about that.
    You get such descriptions of values from scripture. It's apparent from many previous discussions here, by and large, our resident atheists aren't ready to make that grade.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2018
  16. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    That is incorrect.
    You are talking about an impersonal process, not an indirect one.


    Ok.
    So if it is relevant to talk of God (and a host of other things, aside from merely circles and squares, like the living entity, the material world, free will, illusion, being free from illusion, etc etc) as "things", then one can also talk about them having distinct values/qualities (and thereby being distinct from each other).
    So in light of all this, do you think omni status empowers the ability to disregard this fundamental aspect of logic at the core of discrimination (specifically, amongst rwo or more categories that exhibit mutually exclussive qualities). Can an omni personality create a square circle?
     
  17. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    god never had to prove she was god until men tried to tell her what she could and could not do with her own ...
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No, you don't.
    To prove me wrong: provide a couple.
    You have never been clear about anything, except by default your agenda of disparagement - the only consistent residue of attempts to make sense of your randomized word deployments.
    Wordfoggery is your standard post.
    How are we supposed to know? It's your God, your term, your shitass scene - you tell us what "omni status empowers the ability" of your deity to do,

    with some evidence that it does such things,

    and while at it, tell us how that means Capracus is not your God - he does sound like your God, after all, at least the way you describe things so far.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    I take it that you think it couldn't. Which makes it not quite so omni, I guess.

    On the topic of suffering, though, are you saying that ending human suffering would be a logical contradiction analogous to creating a square circle? If so, you probably need to unpack the contradiction for us.
     
  20. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Baldee is on a different page to you.
    He is offering an opinion on how God should or should not exhibit qualities based on theodicy (which is inevitably connected to scripture) .... hence the ensuing discussion.
    Its poor form for you to suddenly pop in like this, since your ideas don't amalgamate with themes under review.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The "theme under review" is the discovery that Capracus appears to be your God.
    So far your response been to ask people what you meant by "omni status".
    We don't know.
    Does it have anything to do with Capracus being your God?
     
  22. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Another way to try understanding the word omni is to conceive of possessing unlimited intelligence, strength, wealth, beauty ..... whatever we deem valuable and desirable.
    So in regards to square circles and such, it boils down to whether one regards the absence of square circles arising from our current shortage of strength, wealth, intelligence etc, or does the problem lie on the fundamental principle of relationship between "things and values"? So the reason you can't have square circles is because such a thing, if it would exist, would destroy the values by which we identify it in the first place (thus square circles illustrate the limitations of meaning, and not power, omni or otherwise).

    Its quite a big topic to unpack, because there is an inextricable link between knowledge and action (or desire). The short version is that to have free will means that we must always follow our sense of benefit (desire), thus, being robbed of the possibility to pursue benefit (regardless whether that benefit is rightly or wrongly anticipated), or even robbing one of the consequences of benefit, effectively robs one of free will.

    The longer version:
    If you remove a fish from water, there is no means to relieve its suffering on account of it being outside it's natural position. If a fish, by its free will, flops out of the water on the river bank, it is the one engineering its own suffering. If our free will is inextricably connected to our sense of benefit (for better or worse), we require the equivalent of river banks or sea shores to flop about pitifully on (since sailing around in water in pursuit of a river bank would just be another type of suffering). IOW to have free will aligned to God requires the existence of an environment to manifest the opposite tendency. Technically that is impossible (where could one go to pursue the desire to be independent or outside of God?), so an element of (divine) ignorance is required to facillitate the desire of the living entity. So rather than real river banks, the (fish like) living entity experiences virtual ones (ie, the suffering is experienced through an illusory sense of self in a specially designed world). Of course its not all 100% grief (since that would be just as equally useless as trying to bring free will to its proper application as desperately swimming around in a shoreless ocean). But, whatever happiness this existence affords, it is always beseiged by a sort of suffering, since, at its core, this existence is built on the premise of being separate from God.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2018
  23. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    As I said, others, like Baldee, have ventured into that.
    Others, like yourself, have not.
    Hence not all discussions are occurring on the same page.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2018

Share This Page