God is supposedly omniscient, correct?

Well, if God knows everything, he must know of every number, correct? There are infinite numbers. Since there is limit to the amount numbers, I don't see how God could know them all. It's not possible to them all, because in this case, all doesnt even exist.

I'm also going to try to prove that I am God.

If God knows everything, he must be everything. This is because in order to completely know something, one must know what it's like to be that thing, and one must know [what's like to be that thing, exclusively, without being anything else]. In order for God to actually possess such knowledge, he'd have to be that thing, exclusively. In the case of myself, he would have to be me, exclusively, or else his claims of omniscience are moot.

Therefore, because God must be what he claims to know (everything), he must be everything (including myself).

In conclusion, I am God.



Naturally, point out any fallacies, etc.

[This message has been edited by Antiquarian (edited 04-23-2005).]

Everything you said is wrong.

If God is omnipotent(natural assumption since you brought up omniscient), then he posses the power to know everything without being you.

Also, human logic and supreme beings don't mix well. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

QUOTE Originally posted by Antiquarian:

God is supposedly omniscient, correct?

Well, if God knows everything, he must know of every number, correct? There are infinite numbers. Since there is limit to the amount numbers, I don't see how God could know them all. It's not possible to them all, because in this case, all doesnt even exist.

God is infinite. God is the eternal God.



I'm also going to try to prove that I am God.

If God knows everything, he must be everything. This is because in order to completely know something, one must know what it's like to be that thing, and one must know [what's like to be that thing, exclusively, without being anything else].

Why? Unless you are the omniscient God, how could you know that that is the way (or rather, the only way) to completely know something?



In order for God to actually possess such knowledge, he'd have to be that thing, exclusively. In the case of myself, he would have to be me, exclusively, or else his claims of omniscience are moot.

In a way, you are sorta right. God humbled Himself as The Christ. As the perfect atonement, He knows our temptations... but this knowledge is for our sake, not God's.

Therefore, because God must be what he claims to know (everything), he must be everything (including myself).

In conclusion, I am God.

God says that He knew us before He made us; before He Created the creation.

By your logic, that would mean that you would completely know God (since He was exclusively you).. would you (from your knowledge of being God) please tell us whether Jesus meant a camel or a rope or a small gate? Or if it was the Red Sea or the Sea of Reeds?

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Everything you said is wrong.

At least I fucking tried, you mormon.

quote:Originally posted by Antiquarian:

At least I fucking tried, you mormon.

Try harder next time.

quote:Originally posted by Antiquarian:

If God knows everything, he must be everything. This is because in order to completely know something, one must know what it's like to be that thing, and one must know [what's like to be that thing, exclusively, without being anything else]. In order for God to actually possess such knowledge, he'd have to be that thing, exclusively. In the case of myself, he would have to be me, exclusively, or else his claims of omniscience are moot.

In conclusion, I am God.



That also what I think, and many others have reached this conclusion.

I am God, you are God, we are God experiencing ourselves from an outside perspective.

quote:Originally posted by Antiquarian:

At least I fucking tried, you mormon.

Actually, i liked your attempt. And when i tell friends about this forum, i usually mention how intelligent most people in the forum are, even though most are young (not saying that smarts come with age, just trying to explain the site and the members).

One thing that i've noticed, the thoughts and arguements on this forum- have been tossed back and forth for antiquity. And i'm sure they will be until the end of time.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Actually, i liked your attempt. And when i tell friends about this forum, i usually mention how intelligent most people in the forum are, even though most are young (not saying that smarts come with age, just trying to explain the site and the members).

One thing that i've noticed, the thoughts and arguements on this forum- have been tossed back and forth for antiquity. And i'm sure they will be until the end of time.

Are you being sarcastic?

Would you consider 16 years of age young?

[This message has been edited by Antiquarian (edited 04-24-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Antiquarian:

Are you being sarcastic?

Would you consider 16 years of age young?



no, not sarcastic.

yes, young.