"I am God" approach, version 1.0

[GreyICE]

Yeah I don't understand how we are supposed to believe without question that those people who wrote the holy books were divinely inspired, prophets etc.

There are so many people today claiming they are prophets...why do millions of people not take them seriously? Anyone who talks to God and carries messages today is a false prophet...the ones in the past who have are the real deal.

Well that makes sense, and I'd tend to agree, but that's not what Kuko is doing. He is, in my opinion, advancing a bad argument for a good cause. It's a tad like saying 'because everything has an equal weight of the original sin, all objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum.'

While the end concept is correct, the means are a tad... questionable.

 

[AvalonXQ]

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?

That being, acting the way you've described, might manage to successfully shake my faith in my understanding of the Bible.
Of course, unless you're willing to pony up such a display, you have not.
And, as long as my faith in the Bible remains intact, your claim to be the God it describes is patently false.

 

[Eyeron]

Okay, if you're God let me cut off your arm. If you're God, you can regrow your arm back without the use of any sort of technology without any problem. Then I'd be convinced you were A god, but not necessarily the right God, whatever that means.

 

[Malerin]

"I am God."

So am I.

 

[Darth Rotor]

So am I.

I hope you realize that you fell into his trap. His entire point in starting this thread was to get you to reveal your secret identity.

Oops.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Well that makes sense, and I'd tend to agree, but that's not what Kuko is doing. He is, in my opinion, advancing a bad argument for a good cause. It's a tad like saying 'because everything has an equal weight of the original sin, all objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum.'

While the end concept is correct, the means are a tad... questionable.

Oh, but I haven't even had the chance to develop the approach yet, you and I talked off topic stuff (which is fine by me and interesting in its own right) and so did me and Avalon. I see Eyron is now starting to play the game from the direction I had in mind, let's see what happens.

 

[Kuko 4000]

That being, acting the way you've described, might manage to successfully shake my faith in my understanding of the Bible.
Of course, unless you're willing to pony up such a display, you have not.
And, as long as my faith in the Bible remains intact, your claim to be the God it describes is patently false.

Ok, I'm going to try to find my way out of this. Can you quote me the passage where it says that God cannot interfere with the world in this way = coming on earth and saying that "I am God." I'd like to see if this really is the end you're making it to be.

On the other hand, if you are open to the possibility that your understanding of the Bible might be mistaken (like you seem to be after all), I think it follows that my scenario would not break anything. And we are back in the beginning, which is, how would you try and prove that I am not "your" God?

Btw. is your interpretation of the Bible purely personal or does it follow some common set of rules?

 

[Eyeron]

Ok, I'm going to try to find my way out of this. Can you quote me the passage where it says that God cannot interfere with the world in this way = coming on earth and saying that "I am God." I'd like to see if this really is the end you're making it to be.

Have you ever read Noah's flood?

"I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which [is] between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that [is] upon the earth. " (Genesis 9:13-16, KJV)

This is the passage that people interpret to mean that God will not interfere with people.

Which by my way of thinking renders prayer moot. because prayer is asking God to interfere with people. But that's another point entirely.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Okay, if you're God let me cut off your arm. If you're God, you can regrow your arm back without the use of any sort of technology without any problem. Then I'd be convinced you were A god, but not necessarily the right God, whatever that means.

So you are a christian, and by default, believe in the God of the Bible.

My challenge to you is that I can do at least everything that your God can do. There is one rule, your God must first show me how it's done, or I have no good reason to believe that He can really do it, and have no interest to prove my skills, after all, otherwise it's only my word against your, or someone elses word.

You ask me to grow my arm back, ok, I can do it, but first you need to show me how your God does it, let's go to the hospital and try it out on someone who has lost his arm.

How would you reply to this?

 

[Kuko 4000]

Have you ever read Noah's flood?

"I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which [is] between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that [is] upon the earth. " (Genesis 9:13-16, KJV)

This is the passage that people interpret to mean that God will not interfere with people.

Which by my way of thinking renders prayer moot. because prayer is asking God to interfere with people. But that's another point entirely.

It's been a looong time but yes I have, I don't think that was the part that Avalon was referring to though. And the believers who are talking about a God who does not interfere with people ie. answer prayers, heal the sick, etc. then I have less and less to object. I don't really have too many objections towards the kick-starter God that hasn't interferred in anything since the BB, I just don't hold that belief myself.

 

[Hux]

I have just been watching a program on the Seven deadly Sins. This one is Pride - considered the worst of them all. All others can be translated into Pride.

The ancient Greeks called it Hubris. Believing you are God or above God.

So you might mention to these idiots that they are breaking all the rules by the mortal sin of Pride and they will go straight to hell for it. (it used to be Purgatory first but Roman Catholic Plc. closed it down as unprophetable.

It all sounds a bit New age anyway. This nebulous crap about being at one with the Universe; its energy, being Godlike. But I expect these new agers have a concept of sin and they are breaking the worst of them.

 

[Kuko 4000]

So, as you point out, the question of 'proof,' especially of negatives, is impossible (a new and clever observation, to be sure), but any Christian sufficiently advanced passed the most basic stage of logic will simply point out that the logical inconsistencies that you have allowed pass for your postulate to be true render all of the Universe an insane whim.

My bold.

Not quite sure what you mean by this, can you point these logical inconsistencies to me again?

Then they can point out that your 'faith' hasn't even been strong enough to inspire a second believer.

I can also point to them that I don't want or need anyone to believe me but that I could easily reproduce every single miracle their God can do if they think that I'm someone less powerful. Having people believe in someone is not miraculous, or otherwise you would have to accept the reality of more Gods than your God and countless of miracle men throughout the history.

 

[mist]

This is probably not the answer you were looking for, but I don't think claiming you're god is the way to go. It seems hostile (even if you don't intend it), and could lead to a situation where it seems you're ridiculing them ('you can't prove I'm not your god, so worship me!').

Ultimately, I think most believers have some need they are getting fullfilled by their belief. Perhaps you could find out what those needs are show them how to fullfill them themselves, so they won't need their god as crutch anymore.

Anyway, I'm still interested in the response you'll get.

 

[Xulld]

This is probably not the answer you were looking for, but I don't think claiming you're god is the way to go. It seems hostile (even if you don't intend it), and could lead to a situation where it seems you're ridiculing them ('you can't prove I'm not your god, so worship me!').

Ultimately, I think most believers have some need they are getting fullfilled by their belief. Perhaps you could find out what those needs are show them how to fullfill them themselves, so they won't need their god as crutch anymore.

Anyway, I'm still interested in the response you'll get.

If they take the approach of being offended tell them they are actually god, but have amnesia and must prove to themselves that they are not god. Its still a claim by you that something is god, that requires a refutation on par with the original claim that a god exists at all.

A lack of evidence for both claims makes them equally baseless.

That is the point after all? Isnt it?

 

[Limbo]

It seems hostile (even if you don't intend it), and could lead to a situation where it seems you're ridiculing them ...

Hostility and ridicule is a major tool of atheism and organized skepticism. If you take that from them, they will have nothing left!

 

[yy2bggggs]

Hostility and ridicule is a major tool of atheism and organized skepticism. If you take that from them, they will have nothing left!

So... uhm... why exactly did you post this?

 

[Kuko 4000]

This is probably not the answer you were looking for, but I don't think claiming you're god is the way to go. It seems hostile (even if you don't intend it), and could lead to a situation where it seems you're ridiculing them ('you can't prove I'm not your god, so worship me!').

Ultimately, I think most believers have some need they are getting fullfilled by their belief. Perhaps you could find out what those needs are show them how to fullfill them themselves, so they won't need their god as crutch anymore.

Anyway, I'm still interested in the response you'll get.

I agree, it's only the beginning though, just another way to hit home the point that it's impossible to prove a negative in this way. I would direct it quickly to the main point which is my reply to Eyeron, which is just another approach to the "show me the evidence" line. I still think it's a good one (the main point), but haven't had the opportunity to test it in real life too often yet.

There are probably good reasons to why I should not bother with the "I am God" part at all and simply point out that "I can do everything that your God can do, what could that mean?" and build the conversation from that. It might distract too much from the main point at the beginning. But anyways, I think it has a lot to do with how you present your point, the main part of this argument can be seen as very hostile as well...

 

[devnull]

This is exactly what I'm going to do, and it works just fine -- because the Bible itself warns us that supernatural creatures may be liars, and that we can use our existing knowledge of the truth of the Bible against them.

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: .....

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't think so, that's why I'm calling this a variation. I have a lot of experience talking with the religious, just wanted to test this one here to see if there's any obvious holes or problems I'm missing, this is supposed to illustrate the point in a different way. It has to open the religious eyes in a different way to get through, simple tell-it-like-it-is logic hasn't proven that successful, at least to me. It has to touch them on a personal level.

You can do anything to prove me wrong.

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.

 

[GreyICE]

My bold.

Not quite sure what you mean by this, can you point these logical inconsistencies to me again?

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.

I can also point to them that I don't want or need anyone to believe me but that I could easily reproduce every single miracle their God can do if they think that I'm someone less powerful. Having people believe in someone is not miraculous, or otherwise you would have to accept the reality of more Gods than your God and countless of miracle men throughout the history.

Obviously refuted, because you just declared yourself God, and thus you obviously want someone else to think you're God (or we're again back to the 'trickster God')

P.S. A better logical inconsistency to do against Christianity is to pin them on the various inconsistencies in their religion, and force them into the 'trickster God' hypothesis. Since that effectively destroys all religion, and all sanity of the universe, it's completely incompatible with both basic reason and basic Christianity.