CHALLENGE: Prove That You Are NOT God

reply to post by MamaJ


You were doing pretty good as comprehending my post until you started putting words in my mouth halfway through. Congratulations, you've demonstrated your capacity for misinterpreting posts. Let me know when you want to start asking questions instead of extrapolating.

Prove That You Are NOT God

People will not kill others nor give their life for me because my followers tell them to.

BardingTheBard

AfterInfinity
If you don't like it, keep scrolling.

You chose to not participate in the thread on its own terms (because you don't understand/accept them) and instead are trying to force your own vision of what you think it should be on it... trying to "divert it" to something you *do* understand.

All while talking about how awful it is that people keep deceiving themselves by only "seeing what they want to see".

It was you that needed to keep scrolling if you didn't like it.

Keep posting these strange concepts of disapproval. It makes me tingle.

AfterInfinity
Keep posting these strange concepts of disapproval. It makes me tingle.

That tingle is honesty calling out to you.

/hug

BardingTheBard

AfterInfinity
Keep posting these strange concepts of disapproval. It makes me tingle.

That tingle is honesty calling out to you.

/hug

I am always honest, albeit prioritized. Some truths are more inherently relevant than others, as context indicates. But this thread is not about me, so if you feel compelled to draw further attention to my flaws, please do it via private messaging.

Be warned, I will promptly ignore any such messages. Over and out.

AfterInfinity
I am always honest, albeit prioritized. Some truths are more inherently relevant than others, as context indicates. But this thread is not about me, so if you feel compelled to draw further attention to my flaws, please do it via private messaging.

Be warned, I will promptly ignore any such messages. Over and out.

Your wish is understood.

/namasalute and /hug

reply to post by BardingTheBard


fast learners eh?

and they say truth can't be taught! buwhahahaha

SisyphusRide
reply to post by BardingTheBard

 

fast learners eh?

and they say truth can't be taught! buwhahahaha

And how is that response relevant to the topic?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I am amazing. You're just jealous. And now that you've tried to puncture my bubble with a five-finger death punch

luckily I don't proclaim myself amazing, so I allow myself to learn something.. resorting to this random come-back, rather than referencing anything actually being discussed is exactly what Bard was talking about..
anything you don't understand, you label as "wrong" and reject it entirely instead of at least trying to scavenge aspects that make sense to You, and this is why you end up kinda.. puttering around in little circles.

what's funny to me, is that for someone with a Troll-Face avatar, you sure do take yourself a whole lot more seriously than many others in this thread..

I'll state that the 7 points the OP made are, in my opinion, inadequate quantifications of the term "god".

...and?

..
...
.....

WHAT is inadequate..?

remember.. i didn't exactly invent the very ambiguous character of "God" and i was essentially circling around the aspects of God that point to a common denominator between the popular religions and spiritualties..

They are all unimaginative and short-sighted and make little effort to render justice to the modern understanding of the term

So were you expecting really imaginative, pretentious metaphors? Similes? Haiku? Imagination itself was indeed covered in my posts, but an imaginative take on God, wouldn't exactly communicate much to people would it? My intent was to lure fundamentalists and those who think there is a universal concept of "right" and "wrong" into thinking about how all of the aspects of God can be found inside each individual and after that, begs us to follow the slippery slope into seeing God inside EveryTHING..

Where does my sight fall short..?

reply to post by Aphorism

People will not kill others nor give their life for me because my followers tell them to.

ahhh.. until you decide that they ought to..

what do you think Charles Manson would say on the matter?

HyphenSt1
reply to post by Aphorism

 

People will not kill others nor give their life for me because my followers tell them to.

ahhh.. until you decide that they ought to..

what do you think Charles Manson would say on the matter?

What does Charles Mansion have to do with anything other than clinical studies for classical psychiatric disorders? Oh wait, I answered my own question.

Aphorism
People will not kill others nor give their life for me because my followers tell them to.

They will if one of your followers leading a sub-group gets into a disagreement with another branch of your sub-followers and misunderstands something you say to indicate permission to kill the other followers or their superiority in *any* way that they can take to believe they are superior in all ways.

They will say YOU said it was ok when the people they are killing ask them why.

The records will show you were the leader, you did indicate displeasure, and people died.

The following generations will blame you, and not try to understand what you were really like.

You Monster.



People are quite capable of giving their lives (or other forms of self sacrifice) for other people when the other person doesn't agree while claiming they are "doing it for them". If nobody gets both sides of the story...

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Some truths are more inherently relevant than others, as context indicates

this is untrue because truth at all levels is equally useful and applicable, WHEN one disregards Scale as a "boundary" on what we can experience...

But this thread is not about me, so if you feel compelled to draw further attention to my flaws, please do it via private messaging

Note: out of context, doesn't this statement sound more like pouting that it ISN'T about you, than anything? If anything, this thread is EXACTLY about You and it is the most entertaining and useful to ME, to address Your concerns because you seem just SO certain of your position but..

hey, wait a second.. what IS your position??

If I accomplish anything with this thread, I'd like it to be that of someone questioning why they have SUCH a strong opinion against something, but then... have no real opinion of their own to back it up. This just results in an apathetic, defeatist mindset which relies on "the professionals" (a.k.a. the pro-scientists) to tell you what to believe.. HOW is this any different than what you are supposedly "against"..?

Be warned, I will promptly ignore any such messages. Over and out

entirely in spite of your intent, i could just keep on reading and reading into your words, and demonstrating my point.. You came here to argue and disagree with something, perhaps to blow some steam, perhaps for other reasons.. (mad at your past much?)

but ultimately, what you accomplished, was letting everyone know that there indeed IS yet another person on the internet willing to solicit their doubts upon others but have no interest in taking information in, and consciously CHANGING.. and I'm not even going to say "that is the wrong way to do it" because.. YOU'RE GOD.. You are exactly what you WANT to be..
..right..?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

What does Charles Mansion have to do with anything other than clinical studies for classical psychiatric disorders?

Please, keep demonstrating my points in the most blatantly obvious way possible hahaha. But if you need helping following the conversation, i'll gladly oblige!

Despite having the least credible background possible haha (hobo, uneducated, in-and-out of prison..) Charles Manson was an example of someone who (whether or not this was his intent) was considered God by people who had been willing to die for him, and indeed killed allegedly "for" him..

and, as you might have been just skimming everyone else's words, I was responding to another person's post.

If you happen to just be trolling at this point, I don't really even mind.. Trolls are kinda like the bullies on the playground that keep picking on you because they're intrigued and they just have no sense of intellectual etiquette..
I mean you ARE essentially trolling MY mind with your crazy circular, irrational, red-herring type responses, but.. hey a brain needs exercise don't it? hahaha.

ever ponder about how your username AfterInfinity was perhaps MORE than fitting for your mindset..? You seem like you're chasing your tail in limbo pal

reply to post by HyphenSt1


Oh, you wanted me to answer your points DIRECTLY. Well why didn't you just say so? Troll!

I must first ask that you read my entire response before constructing your reply. There's a synergistic element to this post, and I politely request that you observe it.

1.) The conscious awareness behind your eyes, behind your brain, is the mind of God..

Lazy and impractical. That's like saying love is the feeling in your heart. It's a cheap definition that lacks any substance beyond the most basic and assumptive.

2.) Your body is the oldest, most advanced biological technology available, designed exactly for your purposes and modified to fit your needs as life progresses.

I don't see how this has any direct bearing on the definition of "God" and our relation to it. Perhaps you could have been more specific with your correlations here.

3.) the entire Universe is simply God (You), turned inside-out..

See my response to your first point. You're really doing a great job at the minimalist gig here.

4.) The only reason that your are not omniscient and all-powerful is because You have decided not to.. or at least until you DO, in which case we have these supposed "holy men" and shamans who learn to tap into their true potential and perform amazing feats.. but also notice that many people who do reach this level hardly dabble with these abilities, because to do so is to attempt to "rise above" their fellow incarnations of God, and impede upon Your Will (upsetting the balance.. which is ultimately impossible to do)

Remind me where the science is in this?

5.) You are not invincible because, again, you don't have Faith that you are.. or until you do..

See my response to 4.

6.) Death is only as real as Birth, both of which are not actual memories or events to the individual dying/being born, and hence are illusions and a source of misplaced fear.. again, because the moment of Now is infinitely divisible, we CAN say that a moment of TRUE joyful happiness IS "eternal salvation" and "living with God in heaven", just as a moment of REAL misery and sorrow and no direction IS "eternal Hellfire"..

Archaic rubbish. You need new tricks.

7.) The words of Jesus outline these points exactly and was perhaps too ambitious in trying to find a middle-ground between Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, and ultimately failed in doing so because the result has been that of creating a religious movement (Christianity) which denies other modes of thought BECAUSE they have been told that "all of the core philosophical ideas you need to know, are in THIS book" and this has led to a rejection of a million other sources which present many of the same ideas as in the bible, but in a different context that might be easier to comprehend.

I'll agree with this point...to a point.

There. You happy now? I've addressed each of your points individually. My basic and synergistic point here is, you're slapping an empty box on the table and asking us what we think of its contents. There's no set definition for the word "god", and therefore no common point by which to establish any sort of intellectual grounds. We can't even agree on what a god is, let alone whether such parameters apply to us in any sense.

So how are we supposed to answer your question by the information we've been given? We all have different data sets used to describe the same point, many of which contradict each other. The best I can tell you is to go back to the drawing board and establish an actual basis for identifying a deity before asking us whether we are capable of qualifying as one. Because right now, I don't agree with ANY of your definitions. Not one.

AfterInfinity
God is exactly what we want him to be. Which is why I don't subscribe to it...

Since you've continued in the thread, I wanted to make sure that your stance was expressed clearly before continuing.

This response is about the core subject of the thread even if you wind up not seeing why and feel it is an attack.

AfterInfinity
Oh wait, I answered my own question.

...this thread is not about me...

I'm amazed that no one finds this post worthy of answering.

I thought I gave a reasonably rational and insightful response...particularly given that it's one of my more coherent and polished pieces.

If you don't want a thread to become about you... don't whine when nobody replies or repeat how amazingly brilliant you think you were therefore everyone else must not understand or are too intimidated by your point to address.

What gives? At least question it, if nothing else.

Some were biting their tongues and leaving well enough alone. You pushed for it. You've now gotten most of the reactions that were being held back. You didn't like them.

I have a list of contentions with theism...

I have a natural affinity for spotting patterns, so once I have observed a pattern, you can't hide it from me, no matter how much BS you slather on top of it.

I am amazing. You're just jealous.

I am attempting to divert...

If you don't like it, keep scrolling.

Congratulations, you've demonstrated your capacity for misinterpreting posts.

Let me know when you want to start asking questions instead of extrapolating.

Keep posting these strange concepts of disapproval. It makes me tingle.

I am always honest, albeit prioritized. (BtB: I wasn't talking about your honesty)

Not about you at all. Nope.

...if you feel compelled to draw further attention to my flaws...

You can disregard my explanation, but anyone willing... will easily discern the correlations. It might make you uncomfortable, and it might shake your faith, but if all you're interested in is a comfortable fantasy, then I gotta say...you need to raise your standards. Not even kidding.

Be warned, I will promptly ignore any such messages. Over and out.

I respect your decision to disregard and not raise your standards.

This is me asking for people to take a moment and really reflect on my words in the post I'm responding to. Let it bounce around your head a few times before you just ignore it or dismiss it.

reply to post by BardingTheBard


Have you forgotten what the topic is? Let me remind you:

CHALLENGE: Prove That You Are NOT God

Let's keep it there. Any further OFF-topic posts such as the one I am responding to will be alerted, in the interest of preserving what remains of this haphazardly-founded discussion. Over and out.

AfterInfinity
Have you forgotten what the topic is? Let me remind you:

CHALLENGE: Prove That You Are NOT God

Let's keep it there. Any further OFF-topic posts such as the one I am responding to will be alerted, in the interest of preserving what remains of this haphazardly-founded discussion. Over and out.

AfterInfinity
This is me asking for people to take a moment and really reflect on my words... Let it bounce around your head a few times before you just ignore it or dismiss it.

/insert huge mirror picture again and again and again...

EDIT: I *like* you.

I wouldn't put in the time and distraction while at work into a post that requires as much effort as that one if I didn't give a pretty big damn about it being meaningful and relevant.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Ha! I quoted what you said and went on to try and explain it to myself via text. Get with the post already and stop being so crude and fuddy duddy.

Here is what I posted below so you can refresh your intellect.

"Well, that doesn't make sense.

God is what we WANT him to be. Ok.

Meaning it's a desire (want) to be fulfilled.

A desire to perhaps not feel like we have no prupose and therefor just randomly roaming around Earth waiting to die without a purpose to be had.

Meaning our loved ones who have died, including our children are just buried and are no more. Cease to exist even still... with no purpose....even though science and nature prove energy transforms. Even though in a mere spider we find it's purpose within the nature of things. Hmmmm???

Nope... not making sense. I tried to make sense of it though. "

reply to post by AfterInfinity

There's a synergistic element to this post, and I politely request that you observe it

I would have to say the same thing about my "points" that i was outlining.. all of the points are meant to circle a common concept (you and i both know that MOST people have a concept of "God", despite variations in their definition and rigidity in changing that definition..) and running in circles trying to define God in the religion forum seems kinda silly..

if you look up the word "synergism" you'll find:

definition of Synergism related to Theology: the doctrine that the human Will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

your Will is doing this just fine in fueling the conversation, and i hafta thank you for that! i mean that in all sincerity
conflict (especially in discussion) is not destructive but regenerative and this can be especially valuable in abstract debates such as the one we find ourselves in..

but let me present the way i read your responses:

1.) The conscious awareness behind your eyes, behind your brain, is the mind of God.. :

Lazy and impractical. That's like saying love is the feeling in your heart. It's a cheap definition that lacks any substance beyond the most basic and assumptive

So.. are you implying that one should have to *work* to understand "God" because it demands a more complex definition just.. because..? or are you defining God as that which you cannot understand..?
Seems to me that it is just a matter of the game rules you make for yourself and what you allow yourself to focus upon. Bard's calculus example demonstrates this.

2.) Your body is the oldest, most advanced biological technology available, designed exactly for your purposes and modified to fit your needs as life progresses.:

I don't see how this has any direct bearing on the definition of "God" and our relation to it. Perhaps you could have been more specific with your correlations here

My point being that were God to be "in a body", it would stand to reason that this body would be the product of everything that came before it; and of course this would demand that it would be perfectly adapted to the environment it is seeking to explore.. I tend to see the phenomenon of "evolution" to be exactly this ability.

3.) the entire Universe is simply God (You), turned inside-out..

See my response to your first point. You're really doing a great job at the minimalist gig here.

See my response to your first point

BTW i take that as a compliment, because minimalism is certainly not an innate quality of mine haha. To describe and discuss what i am attempting to discuss however, i think it is only reasonable to say that one must be as all-encompassing as possible (and minimal) in order to convey and observe the complexities that are contained therein..

4.) The only reason that your are not omniscient and all-powerful is because You have decided not to.. or at least until you DO, in which case we have these supposed "holy men" and shamans who learn to tap into their true potential and perform amazing feats.. but also notice that many people who do reach this level hardly dabble with these abilities, because to do so is to attempt to "rise above" their fellow incarnations of God, and impede upon Your Will (upsetting the balance.. which is ultimately impossible to do)



Remind me where the science is in this?

Well.. if you mean "where is the evidence of this" then please reference the entire history of the human race for some examples.. I'm not going to reiterate the entire history of "miraculous deeds" but.. you ARE on ATS at the moment and it is full of 'em

what i have to ask you, is why you must limit your definition of "real" only to what you can Touch..?

what you feel, hear, smell, taste and THINK are all a part of the human experience, and to neglect a part of the equation, is to be determined to never apprehend the whole..

I am not saying i "believe" that people can walk on water. I am only saying that I am open to the possibility because i have seen evidence (in my own experience) that reality is flexible and open to suggestion.

one era's magick, is another era's Science..

5.) You are not invincible because, again, you don't have Faith that you are.. or until you do..


See my response to 4.

Simple: the placebo effect. people living without water or food for years which have been tested and studied by scientists.. I'm not condoning or condemning any one phenomenon, but i am saying that the ability to accomplish what you desire and heal yourself would be a quality of a self-made God..

6.) Death is only as real as Birth, both of which are not actual memories or events to the individual dying/being born, and hence are illusions and a source of misplaced fear.. again, because the moment of Now is infinitely divisible, we CAN say that a moment of TRUE joyful happiness IS "eternal salvation" and "living with God in heaven", just as a moment of REAL misery and sorrow and no direction IS "eternal Hellfire"..


Archaic rubbish. You need new tricks.

very archaic indeed, but it's only rubbish if you say so..

but i would be curious as to exactly why this appears to be such rubbish when even YOU have to admit that you don't remember your own birth, nor can you precisely identify the nature and "quantity" of the eternal Now..

or can you? I'm open to new ideas..

My basic and synergistic point here is, you're slapping an empty box on the table and asking us what we think of its contents. There's no set definition for the word "god", and therefore no common point by which to establish any sort of intellectual grounds. We can't even agree on what a god is, let alone whether such parameters apply to us in any sense.

So how are we supposed to answer your question by the information we've been given? We all have different data sets used to describe the same point, many of which contradict each other

This IS exactly what i am doing, and i think your disagreement has come from looking for something inside of the box.. MY synergistic point is exactly THAT! people are looking for "a God that can fit into a box" instead of accepting themselves (and every-thing/body around them) as the object of their pursuit..

each person does have a different data-set to work with, so the very fact that a word like "God" exists at all, is pretty remarkable.. but here we are, aren't we? over 100 different religions on the same planet, dancing around trying to define the same concept..

what i am suggesting: they are searching for themselves and attempting to find some way to justify taking their rightful place as God of their own personal Universe, rather than a leaf swept in the wind by some external daddy-God..

At any rate, an "all-powerful, all-wise, all-benevolent" God is the most common definition, (and i don't think this is widely disputed), and would obviously be able to play both roles at opposite sides of the spectrum (positive and negative), and learn plenty doing so.. not to mention having a great ride