That's fine, but until you start to qualify your omni status (or even qualify your status to influence philosophy or historiography) your influence will simply be that of a goofy online atheist trying to fulfill the ultimate wet dream of atheism.
We already know you are rejecting and denying the influence of your God, Capracus. The question of the thread was why - on what evidence, what argument?
On the contrary, if you want to introduce silly house rules that wouldn't float in any other discussion since it would spell the end of intelligent discussion, you are simply spelling out the end of your contribution to the discussion.
Goofiness is pretty much all it takes to counter a confused mind twisted by overindulgence in logically deficient philosophies. And it’s not logically consistent to refer to your God as an atheist, please try to do better.
If one is not adequately familiar with what one is attempting to satirize, which in this case is philosophy and history, one is just left with goofiness.
Considering the rational and evidential weakness of your argument that you can know me, I could’ve represented my self as a shit throwing zoo monkey and still held a superior position to yours. An omni god can potentially be represented by anything, and unless you have the capacity, which you don’t, you can’t distinguish God from Jackson Roykirk. This broad definition of God implies that such a god can only be conclusively known by itself.
Or, as I mentioned earlier to baldee, you could just as easiy be talking about how eating 12 iced donuts a day cures cancer. Such are the glories of special pleading.
Except that all of the elements mentioned in your statement posses definite properties, and thus can be identified and compared by those characteristic properties. Since an omni god has the capacity to at will determine any property, there is no possible way to conclusively qualify an omni involved scenario.
The problem is that, what to speak of investigating the relationship between the "things" and "qualities", your argument prohibits* even the slightest reference to such relationships. Once one has established that as the house rules (aka special pleading) you can say anything is anything. * And that's being generous. Its probably more accurate to say that, due to a lack of familiarity with the subject, you simply aren't aware what the "things" are, what to speak of the relationship such things have with specific qualities.
I've introduced nothing but rather simple logic that shows your dismissal of Capracus' claim (to be God), simply on his apparent choice, as you see it, not to be holding his own in an online discussion forum, is fallacious. As said, when you want to get back to that, rather than the obfuscation you're currently trying to utilise, let me know. I'm not holding my breath, though.
As said, if one wants to draw a magical binary divide between "knowledge" and "claims of knowledge" there is literally, absolutely, anything anyone can say about anything. (Come to think of it, this might actually be the sort of level playing field our local atheist contributors require in order to land a cogent argument.) Far be it to call it simple logic, it is so permissively stupid that even to call it a logical fallacy gives it more credibility than it deserves. And, as already said yet again, feel free to introduce this gem of wisdom of yours into any other topic under discussion and see how far you get.
I’ve already explained this to you unit Musika, your God does not make a distinction between qualities and things, there is only contextual things. Under natural conditions there is natural contextual order, where characteristics can be more or less rigid. Under an omni condition, context and order are at my discretion, and then anything becomes possible. You should see my collection of disordered universes, it would quickly vanquish your idealized vision of myself.
Well, at the very least, there is a distinction between God and me, otherwise we wouldn't be having this (lame) discussion. So I guess we can chalk that one up as another one of your arguments that didn't make it out of the harbor since it got sunk on your first line.
Garbled as always, but literate readers of English can sort of guess what you're trying to talk about without making yourself accountable for saying anything in particular; namely: you are noticing that your refusal to argue from evidence in any God-related matter means you have no basis in evidence or argument for your rejection and denial of your God (Capracus). That's one of the consequences of the oA theists's refusal to provide evidence for their claims of deity etc.
Indeed. People can generally say what they like. The issue, from the outset, and despite your wandering so into irrelevancies, has been about your dismissal of a claim based on not being something that would not actually negate the claim. You yourself have agreed that it is within the remit of God to be able to pose as an online poster, whether that poster outwardly seems to be able to hold their own in online discussion forums or not. You yourself have agreed this. Yet you dismissed Capracus' claim on the basis that God would at least be able to hold his own. The logic really is simple, yet you can not bring yourself to go "oh, yes, fair point" or some such, admitting the fallacy of your argument/dismissal. Everything else you've tried to throw up around this is obfuscation. You try to widen the issue in the hope of diverting it away from that point to a place where you think you can scramble out on another point, and avoid the initial. If you, or anyone, tries to dismiss a claim X on the basis that the claimant should at least be able to do Y, when not doing Y does not invalidate claim X, then expect me or others to call it out as similarly fallacious. As I have done here. Anything else you've since tried to introduce is obfuscation and summarily dismissed as irrelevant. I honestly can't believe it's taken however many posts to explain this to you, and your inability to grasp the illogic of your dismissal seems to border on ignorance or dishonesty, given that you clearly have no intention of doing anything but throwing up walls of wind about you. So I bid you good day.
Not true, like I mentioned earlier, if I can be represented by a shit throwing zoo monkey, that standard would qualify you for representation as well. In this case I could simply be having a conversation with myself, regardless if you recognize it otherwise. As an omni God I can co-opt any identity without the owner awareness. We wouldn’t be having this lame discussion if you would simply lay out your personal epistemological prescription for knowing me.
Sure. What will a goat not eat or a madman not speak? Until you redress the severe problems with your statement about "knowledge" and "claims of knowledge", further discussion is simply not on the table.
