21
That CAN'T be true! / I am God
« on: 21/12/2006 00:34:11 »
i can prove to you that i must be god.
It is based on an idea presented by the philosopher Thomas Reid.
He said that all reason and logic and our ideas abut reality are based on certain unprovable but assumed to be true doctrines.
For example, the doctrine that 1 + 1 = 2 is not necessarily true, but we accept it as true, the only reason we say it is an un arguable true fact is that all the world accepts it as true.
The only being which knows what is true exactly is, according to reid, "God".
All of what God says and believes therefore is undeniably true and correct, where as our beliefs are possibly true, possibly false.
If god were to say that 1 + 1 = 3, then , as hard as it is to imagine,the world's populous would have to believe that if you had one apple and got another, you would have 3 apples.
Of course this would conflict with other assumed-to-be-true doctrines, like the idea of what 2 is, what 3 is, and how valid their senses are (they might be incorrectly perceiving the number of apples with their eyes, for example) .
The fact that 1 + 1 = 3 was from god (and therefore true by definition) would force them to reevaluate and discredit other assumed to be true doctrines in order to accept that fact.
Now, what if i choose as one of my assumed-to-be-true doctrines the fact that I am god.
If i assumed that as true, all my other perceptions would have to be true as well, because god is correct in all things.
Your perceptions might be incorrect, and ARE incorrect if they disagree with mine, because i am god.
No matter what point you try to bring up to prove that i am not god, i can discredit it by the fact that your perception is flawed. If you tell me "Ok, if your god make this rock into gold" i will, however you wont necessarily perceive it as such. I could make you perceive it as such, but then you might be flawed in your idea of what gold is.
See my point? You cannot prove that i am not God, any logic saying so is flawed.
It is based on an idea presented by the philosopher Thomas Reid.
He said that all reason and logic and our ideas abut reality are based on certain unprovable but assumed to be true doctrines.
For example, the doctrine that 1 + 1 = 2 is not necessarily true, but we accept it as true, the only reason we say it is an un arguable true fact is that all the world accepts it as true.
The only being which knows what is true exactly is, according to reid, "God".
All of what God says and believes therefore is undeniably true and correct, where as our beliefs are possibly true, possibly false.
If god were to say that 1 + 1 = 3, then , as hard as it is to imagine,the world's populous would have to believe that if you had one apple and got another, you would have 3 apples.
Of course this would conflict with other assumed-to-be-true doctrines, like the idea of what 2 is, what 3 is, and how valid their senses are (they might be incorrectly perceiving the number of apples with their eyes, for example) .
The fact that 1 + 1 = 3 was from god (and therefore true by definition) would force them to reevaluate and discredit other assumed to be true doctrines in order to accept that fact.
Now, what if i choose as one of my assumed-to-be-true doctrines the fact that I am god.
If i assumed that as true, all my other perceptions would have to be true as well, because god is correct in all things.
Your perceptions might be incorrect, and ARE incorrect if they disagree with mine, because i am god.
No matter what point you try to bring up to prove that i am not god, i can discredit it by the fact that your perception is flawed. If you tell me "Ok, if your god make this rock into gold" i will, however you wont necessarily perceive it as such. I could make you perceive it as such, but then you might be flawed in your idea of what gold is.
See my point? You cannot prove that i am not God, any logic saying so is flawed.