"I am God" approach, version 1.0

Eyeron said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not the way it works. Cut off your arm and pray to me to restore it.
 
Limbo said:
Hostility and ridicule is a major tool of atheism and organized skepticism. If you take that from them, they will have nothing left!
Click to expand...

When you achieve a blank mind all you have left is a blanky. Please don't steal my blanky.
 
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...

I am whatever you define as god. Be afraid, be very afraid.
 
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...

Since I created Gravity your question is meaningless.
 
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...

I just like playing with my toys.
 
AvalonXQ said:
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.
Click to expand...

Funny how you read that. Do you have some magic transliterator that makes what you read agree with what you believe.
 
AvalonXQ said:
The Bible says that no one is as powerful as my God.
However, it doesn't say anything about having to convince anyone that this is true. God's power is manifest to anyone who recognizes it, and denying God's power is your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...

I am much more powerful.

I exist and can post here can your god say as much?
 
Kuko 4000 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Again. Again you hit on the amazing conclusion that you can't prove a negative.

Wow. Yeah, that's novel. The problem is, like Bigfoot, UFOs, and other things where people retreat to that line, it gets very unconvincing very quickly. In this case, anyone releigious would simply point out that humans have an innate moral sense, ergo it was given by God, ergo God is consistent. It's a tried and true argument, and you're on the receiving end of it.

If your goal is to preach to atheists about atheism, you might get somewhere. If you're discussing this with anyone religious who is smarter than a tuna, then... no.



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?
Click to expand...
We've been there. We did that. You didn't dispute anything I said. It's a tad hypocritical to start arguing it now.

Go back to the line of logic, follow the argument, then construct a scenario where your God is NOT tricking us.

ETA: Seriously Tsig? Was it necessary to post 8 1-liners in a row? Talk about spam...
 
Last edited:
AvalonXQ said:
And God has a record in world-creation, miraculous healing, and prophecy. I've yet to see yours.
God's not going to appear in your living room to move your tennis ball, and Arnold's not going to appear in mine to lift weights. I guess we both win, huh?
Click to expand...

OK your god is better than a washed-up power lifter.

Happy now.
 
dafydd said:
Can someone quote me so that Avalon can read this? Relaxed for you Avalon,you can avoid the awkward questions that you have no answers to.
Click to expand...

I am god and bring the ignored to awareness.
 
GreyICE said:
Again. Again you hit on the amazing conclusion that you can't prove a negative.
Click to expand...


Well, yes, because that's exactly what you seem to be doing, I'm just pointing it out :boggled:

Go back to the line of logic, follow the argument, then construct a scenario where your God is NOT tricking us.
Click to expand...


Again...all I can say is: so what? I can't think why that could not happen, even if my scenario was somehow that much different from the usual God stuff in the Bible. Don't know what else to say really...

Btw. can you point me to an article that you agree on about the "Trickster God"?
 
Last edited:
AvalonXQ said:
I certainly understand the difference. However, it doesn't negate the flaw on your method of proof. Your method of proof doesn't demonstrate the powerlessness of an entity, but only your inability to control an entity.
It's the very fact that neither of us actually BELIEVE Arnold to be powerless that allows the analogy to work. Although neither of us believe Arnold to be powerless, by the exact same technique by which you are accusing Yahweh of being powerless, Arnold (and Bill Gates, and Oprah) is also powerless.
I'm not claiming that Arnold and Yahweh are in all ways the same. I'm saying that the demonstration fails them equally -- showing that the demonstration is flawed.
Click to expand...


You're the one that brought Arnold in, and I pointed out reasons why it was problematic for your position.

Mainly, both of us have very good reasons to believe that Arnie can lift weights, ergo we don't honestly doubt it for a second, yet you thought this was an equal reason to not believe it, than I had for not believing that your God could do even the simplest of things. On the other hand, neither of us have no good reasons to believe that your God could blow a tennis ball from the table, yet you believe it to be true. Furthermore, Yahweh can be anywhere instantly and Arnold can't.

I understand that this was a fair summary?

Ok, we agree that there are ways in which we can easily test which one of you is more stronger, Arnold or you. But we can not think of a way to test which one of us is more capable of blowing a tennis ball from a table, me or Yahweh. We can say for sure that I can do it, but how could we find out if your God could do it? My answer to that is: only by blind faith.

The question is, what other things do you allow yourself to believe in strongly with the same amount and quality of evidence than what your God has provided to us so far in your life?
 
Last edited:
GreyICE said:
Right, you're not interested in replying to what I'm saying. I'm done.
Click to expand...


Wow, hold on, that's not correct at all, I'm more than interested.

I've understood that all you are saying is that a "Trickster God" is not possible. This is where I disagree and have not seen any good reasons from you to change my position.

You've offered the analogy to Bigfoot and UFO's. You've said that "The 'trickster God' hypothesis renders all logic, reason, and morality meaningless". That it's the worst case scenario for religions. That God must be interested in making someone believe in Him. That everything would become irrelevant. That it's not a sustainable postulation and that you'd rather observe a sane than insane universe. That it doesn't work with a rational universe. You've said it would beggar belief, etc.

I'm sure I'm missing something important and maybe this is not the point you are trying to make, I hope you have the stamina and interest to walk me through some day. I just don't see any convincing reasons to believe that a "Trickster God" is in any meaningful way more implausible than "normal" Gods.

EDIT: I'm honestly wondering what you are arguing here (and I'm sorry for that), since we both agree that "proving a negative" in this way is impossible.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom