"I am God" approach, version 1.0

devnull said:
But obviously God himself could change this, so his point stands.

ie

You: So God, can I wear mixed fibres?
God: of course! Why would I care?
You: aha! You're not God at all! The bible warns against mixed fibres!
God: oh, for heaven's sake - i wish those idiots hadnt put that in - they literally pulled that bit out of their collective asses!
You: .....
Click to expand...

In order for that to work, the Bible has to be in question, which means whatever god he is, the God of the Bible he is not.
 
UndercoverElephant said:
Why should I have to prove you wrong, given that the claim is prima facie absurd? If you are claiming to be God, then you'll need to explain what the word "God" means in that statement. What, exactly, is it about you that warrants you to call yourself "God"? You certainly do not appear to resemble the God of Abraham, since you are clearly human. Or are you claiming to be God incarnated as man i.e. a reincarnation of Jesus? If so, the same question still applies: what justifies you to make this claim? If you can't justify it then nobody is obliged to take you seriously, and if your definition of "God" is inadequate then the claim is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Of course. But the hypotethical context is that I am talking to a Christian, who by default believes in a supernatural being, and usually a being that interferes with people on earth.

I challenge him by saying that "I am God".

He doesn't believe me.

I reply "why should I believe in your God then?"

He says, my God is omnipotent and the creator of the universe.

I reply, "so am I".

He asks for evidence.

I will ask evidence of his God and suggest a fair deal: "I will replicate every single miracle or supernatural event that you can demonstrate that your God can do."

That's the idea anyway. Right now it seems a better idea that I'd jump straight to the main point and leave the "I am God" thing later when finishing the conversation and leaving him thinking about the concept of proving a negative and the lack of positive evidence for his God.
 
So you are a christian, and by default, believe in the God of the Bible.
Click to expand...

No I am not. I am an atheist. I was a Christian though and was a Christian at one time for a couple of years. My entire family considers themselves themselves to be Christian. So I do have a huge Christian influence on me, both in my own morality and in my hostility towards them.

That point I made about cutting someone's arm off is that it would take something on that order in order for me to believe that God exists.

And also, believing in the God of the Bible is very different than believing he exists. Whenever somebody asks "do you believe in God" it is a trick question because in order to believe in something it infers that that something exists. After all, how can somebody believe in something that doesn't exist?
 
GreyICE said:
We just went through them. The only way your hypothesis works is under the 'trickster God' scenario, which is a non-starter for the reasons outlined.
Click to expand...


The problem seems to be that you are giving restrictions to an omnipotent God and I am not, and that an omnipotent being must act in a certain way that you know rather than acting however he pleases.

Maybe you could try and explain to me in more detail why a "trickster God" is, in a meaningful way, somehow more implausible than a "normal God". The only thing I suggested in our conversation was a God who is talking to a Christian and says that he is a God. This just doesn't seem much different from stuff that happens in the Bible to me.

I am asking this because I want to understand the problem I'm clearly having with you. I'd appreciate an answer in your own words, but a good article that you agree on will do just fine too.
 
Eyeron said:
No I am not. I am an atheist. I was a Christian though and was a Christian at one time for a couple of years. My entire family considers themselves themselves to be Christian. So I do have a huge Christian influence on me, both in my own morality and in my hostility towards them.

That point I made about cutting someone's arm off is that it would take something on that order in order for me to believe that God exists.

And also, believing in the God of the Bible is very different than believing he exists. Whenever somebody asks "do you believe in God" it is a trick question because in order to believe in something it infers that that something exists. After all, how can somebody believe in something that doesn't exist?
Click to expand...


I understand that I'm being a bit unclear here with all the side discussions and the vague opening post, but I was asking people to play along with me and acting as a christian, or even better, actually being a christian and having this conversation with me.

What do you say, wanna play along and help me find problems in my approach now that I've explained myself better (I hope)?
 
AvalonXQ said:
In order for that to work, the Bible has to be in question, which means whatever god he is, the God of the Bible he is not.
Click to expand...


To me this just implies that your God cannot change his mind in the middle of the game. I can't seem to get over this point.
 
Okay, then, so how can we test that you are God? Well, with godhood comes omnipotence. Which essentially means that a god can do anything they want right? So this can be tested out. Regrowing an amputee's arm is one way. Here's another:

Can you create a rock that is so heavy that not even you can not lift it?
 
Last edited:
Thanks!

Eyeron said:
Okay, then, so how can we test that you are God? Well, with godhood comes omnipotence. Which essentially means that a god can do anything they want right? So this can be tested out. Regrowing an amputee's arm is one way. Here's another:

Can you create a rock that is so heavy that not even you can not lift it?
Click to expand...


Yes, I am omnipotent, but I think your God is fake, he is nothing but your imagination. Let's test it right away, my deal: I can do every single thing that your God can do. Show me first what he can do and I will replicate it, let's see him create a rock first, a small one will do just as well, let's say a rock of 1 kilogram. If he succeeds, I will create a rock so heavy that even I can not lift it, because I can easily break the laws of human logic, that's how omnipotent I am, it will truly be the greatest show on earth!
 
Last edited:
Kuko 4000 said:
The problem seems to be that you are giving restrictions to an omnipotent God and I am not, and that an omnipotent being must act in a certain way that you know rather than acting however he pleases.

Maybe you could try and explain to me in more detail why a "trickster God" is, in a meaningful way, somehow more implausible than a "normal God". The only thing I suggested in our conversation was a God who is talking to a Christian and says that he is a God. This just doesn't seem much different from stuff that happens in the Bible to me.

I am asking this because I want to understand the problem I'm clearly having with you. I'd appreciate an answer in your own words, but a good article that you agree on will do just fine too.
Click to expand...
Fine. The 'trickster God' hypothesis renders all logic, reason, and morality meaningless.

For instance, take a pretty simple moral scenario. Raping and beating a 12 year old to death. This one isn't actually anything that anyone does anything other than condemn. Easiest moral scenario in the books. Except that under a trickster God, maybe you only go to heaven if you die before the age of 13, and you get special benefits if you were raped. Thus, it was the moral thing to do, and everyone preventing it is immoral.

It does pretty much the same thing to logic and reason. Therefore, a trickster God is actually the WORST case scenario for religion (beyond even atheism) and any hypothesis that includes it will get rejected out of hand. Thus, anyone who took your dilemma to a priest would be confronted with the consequences of a trickster God, and most likely used to show that the 'evil atheists' have the same morality as the 'trickster God' (i.e. less than none), and thus need to more vigorously be opposed. Faith wins, the argument of the atheist is vanquished, and the religious is shown the rightness of their belief.

All you would have done is provide a nice object lesson for priests, and an introduction to religious logic 101. Trickster God can't happen. Answers in Genesis ran up against that one a lot (remember, when dealing with creationists, always pin them into the 'God can do anything' argument, then confront them with the consequences of 'trickster God.' It's very unacceptable to religion, and it WILL shake them, usually).
 
GreyICE said:
Fine. The 'trickster God' hypothesis renders all logic, reason, and morality meaningless.

For instance, take a pretty simple moral scenario. Raping and beating a 12 year old to death. This one isn't actually anything that anyone does anything other than condemn. Easiest moral scenario in the books. Except that under a trickster God, maybe you only go to heaven if you die before the age of 13, and you get special benefits if you were raped. Thus, it was the moral thing to do, and everyone preventing it is immoral.
Click to expand...


Yep, this sounds immoral to me, and if everyone obeyed it as a rule, it would pretty much mean the end of human civilization. It would be the moral thing to do for everyone who wanted to go to heaven. I think we agree so far. I don't believe in it, and I would not bet on it. But I could not say that it's impossible, or that things must not be like this.


It does pretty much the same thing to logic and reason. Therefore, a trickster God is actually the WORST case scenario for religion (beyond even atheism) and any hypothesis that includes it will get rejected out of hand. Thus, anyone who took your dilemma to a priest would be confronted with the consequences of a trickster God, and most likely used to show that the 'evil atheists' have the same morality as the 'trickster God' (i.e. less than none), and thus need to more vigorously be opposed. Faith wins, the argument of the atheist is vanquished, and the religious is shown the rightness of their belief.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it would be a bad scenario for the religion in a sense that the religion would probably die out totally in a few generations time, if not faster.

If it were true, it would mean a lot faster way to heaven than for people nowadays. Which would make it a better religion than, I guess, all current religions that I know of (if getting to heaven is considered to be the goal). And the default position for true believers is that what they believe is the truth.


All you would have done is provide a nice object lesson for priests, and an introduction to religious logic 101. Trickster God can't happen. Answers in Genesis ran up against that one a lot (remember, when dealing with creationists, always pin them into the 'God can do anything' argument, then confront them with the consequences of 'trickster God.' It's very unacceptable to religion, and it WILL shake them, usually).
Click to expand...


My bold.

I'm still not convinced at all that there are good reasons to state that a "Trickster God" can not happen. Only that his rules would sound strange to us. As if they don't sound strange to us already.

Furthermore, what part of my scenario requires a "Trickster God" of the kind that you have described? Like I said:

The only thing I suggested in our conversation was a God who is talking to a Christian and says that he is a God.
Click to expand...


I've seen much more impressive stuff in the Bible.
 
Kuko 4000 said:
So imagine if a God game down from the heavens and through your ceiling, splitted out to form Jesus, Holy Ghost and Himself in your living room, showed you everything in the past from the time before Big Bang through to first cell, dinosaurs, Jesus, Darwin and even tomorrow's Lottery numbers and would take you to heaven after you died, and would never do anything bad to anyone, only good things, he even saves saves every living creature in the world from dying and places them to heaven, you would still just think of him as some kind of evil supernatural creature and not believe Him to be who He says He is - the real God of the Bible who just changed his mind a bit?

Is this correct?
Click to expand...

Wow,talk about a hypothetical question! What is this thread for?
 
AvalonXQ said:
Beats me.
Click to expand...


Ok, currently it seems to me that I am at least as powerful as your God. That's fine by me.

Or we can take a step back and I will answer this differently:

AvalaonXQ said:
Done.
Your turn.
Click to expand...


Nope, your God hasn't shown me the creation of a 1 kg rock yet. I'm afraid it's still your turn.
 
Kuko 4000 said:
Ok, currently it seems to me that I am at least as powerful as your God. That's fine by me.
Click to expand...

Me, too.
Having proven that you cannot be Yahweh, comparing your abilities to His ceases to interest me, especially since neither you nor He is interested in performing on command.
 
Kuko 4000 said:
Trying to find a hole in the argument "I can do everything that your God can do".
Click to expand...

What you're actually saying is "I cannot be convinced that your God can do anything that I am not also convinced I can do".
Which I don't think is too bothersome to most people.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Me, too.
Having proven that you cannot be Yahweh, comparing your abilities to His ceases to interest me, especially since neither you nor He is interested in performing on command.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, what does the Bible say to this, that someone is at least as powerful than your God?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom