Prove that I’m not a god


I am an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god. Don’t believe me? Prove it. In this post I will be using some of the arguments and rationalizations that the religious use to ‘prove’ their god to prove my divinity!

Combating ‘unbelievers’:

Prove that you are a God.

I don’t really want to, why not take my word for it? I wrote a book, after all.

Why is that book of yours true?

Because it says it is. End of story.

If you’re a god, how come you don’t look or act like one?

I work in mysterious ways.

But if you’re all-powerful, why won’t you solve the world’s problems?

Ahem, mysterious ways.

And now, arguments to prove my divinity:

Without me you would be incapable of being moral.

Without me nothing would exist, so there!

The cosmological argument proves that the universe had a creator, that creator is me!

Don’t believe in me? Prove that I’m not a god then.

The sun came up today. That was my miracle.

Everything is so perfectly designed. It was me that did that.

You had better believe in me just in case I’m right.

Do you believe that I am a supernatural god yet? If not, do you think that atheists have any inclination to believe in your deity when you use these exact same arguments for your god?

Image courtesy of Waiting For The World at – image edited by mclasper


10 thoughts on “Prove that I’m not a god

  1. Actually there is no definitive proof of anything we believe. We only know that things as existing. God exists. As to his nature, we can only perceive based on: experience and reliance on other experience. Both science and theology owe it to experience, nothing else. The belief of God (YHWH) is based on the experience of Israel as recorded in the OT and based on the experience of the “new” Israel, the Church when Christ (God-Man) fully revealed God and the name of God: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit (we term as “Trinity”).
    There are tangential answers to the “mysterious” ways in here, if one is just serious to see the whole scientific data available relating to the sensitivity of the Universe to the initial condition (both local and global, chaos) as well as the obvious nonlinearity of dependence of anything on everything. Even the scientific “mystery” of light (as a physical substance) is elusive of our current experimentation given the technological advancement. The discovery of neutrino having mass was then a “mystery” to be solved. Indeed, “nothing is hidden, except to be revealed; nor has anything been secret, but that it would come to light.” It will be an exciting time for Christians to, one day, know Everything and compare our current guesses as to how the Universe really work.


  2. It is a well known fact that people who claim to be God are as mentally and emotionally healthy as people who claim to be Napoleon or Alexander the Great.

    May I recommend that we stay with the facts and not use crazy as the basis for a supposedly rational argument.


    • I trust that you know that this post is a joke, yes? I am demonstrating that certain arguments that the religious use to ‘prove’ god are ineffective, and demonstrating that by claiming something that is obviously false.


        • Demonstrating why some ‘arguments’ for God are completely pointless by showing you that it does not hold when I make a bold and illogical claim is not propaganda. Furthermore, the notion that belief in god is a rational claim is debatable.
          Christians are the ones claiming that without God you can’t be moral. Why not make the argument that without Allah you can’t be moral, or maybe the same argument but with Mithra, Horus, Zeus, or anything really.


          • mclasper,
            The Cosmological Argument is 2500 years old and comes from pre-Christian, pagan ancient Greeks.
            It was put forth by the likes of Aristotle who is the father of systematic thinking and formal logic.
            Consequently, the atheist must understand that when he argues against the Cosmological Argument, he is arguing against systematic thinking and formal logic.
            An argument from absurdity, like the one posed in this post is an example of the complete rejection of systematic thinking and formal logic (reason).
            An effective argument against a claim based on reason must also be based on reason.
            Such a field of study used to be known as rhetoric.
            However, today, “rhetoric” is synonymous with sophistry or partisan propaganda.


            • And the cosmological argument, like Pascal’s wager, is ineffective. Just because it is said to be ‘formal logic’ does not make it an effective argument. There are several ways to counter this argument out there on the internet, and if it is a flawed argument it cannot be given much credibility. The cosmological argument does not represent systematic thinking and formal logic, rather, it is simply a way for the religious to try and ‘prove’ their god.

              Now, how is me claiming to be a god any more absurd than saying that one exists? In the eyes of atheists, me claiming that I caused the sun to come up today is JUST as absurd as claiming that a god did.

              “An effective argument against a claim based on reason must also be based on reason.” – As I said before, the notion that belief in God is based on reason is debatable.


  3. This is a very shallow dip into the ocean of proving whether someone’s God is The God. Most religions have quite significant proof that a God exists, and no one is saying that we have different Gods anyway, we all have the same God who we call different names. In the books of these religions is significant proof that a God does in fact exist, with scientifically proven facts that they could not have known back when the books had been revealed. Heck,even science proves that a God exists, This book explains it in the best way I’ve read so far. It’s just a matter of how you interpret God, in Islam, Christianity, Judaism,etc.


    • The problem with thinking that every religion is actually worshiping the same deity without knowing it, is that there are many, many inconsistencies and contradictions. You can perhaps argue that the Jewish, Muslim and Christian God are the same, but to expand that to other religions brings up countless problems. Many religions have multiple gods, many religions have goddesses. In order for all religions to revolve around the same god many religious ideas would have to be false.
      Please give some examples of science ‘proving’ God. I already wrote a post about science ‘proving’ God on this blog, and it can be found here:


  4. I know this about many other religions, the fact that there are many Gods in religions like Hinduism are well known, but they all worship some form of one almighty God (with the exception of a few obscure religions, I am sure). Even so, this is not the point I was trying to make. I just wanted to say that, yes, a God or some form of a divine being(s) exist(s).

    The Blog post you wrote was not actually about science proving God, it was in fact about God proving science in a book he revealed to us on Earth.There is a huge difference between those two discussions.

    For science to prove God, it would mean that certain signs in nature show the existence of a divine being or higher power that created them. Some examples of that would be that:
    Cosmologists have calculated the odds of a life-friendly universe appearing by chance are less than one part in 1010^123. That’s ten raised to a power of 10 with 123 zeros after it! The laws of the universe are specified in that they match the narrow band of parameters required for the existence of advanced life.
    Studies of the cell reveal vast quantities of biochemical information stored in our DNA in the sequence of nucleotides. No physical or chemical law dictates the order of the nucleotide bases in our DNA, and the sequences are highly improbable and complex. Moreover, the coding regions of DNA exhibit sequential arrangements of bases that are necessary to produce functional proteins. In other words, they are highly specified with respect to the independent requirements of protein function and protein synthesis. Thus, as nearly all molecular biologists now recognize, the coding regions of DNA possess a high “information content”—where “information content” in a biological context means precisely “complexity and specificity.”
    In a nutshell, the universe is too complex to have just been formed ‘by chance’ without a divine being stepping in.

    For God to prove science, you would need examples from a holy scripture of science that they could not have known in that time period that we now know to be correct. (which you assessed in your article)
    Some examples would be:
    Explaining how they can calculate the speed of light using verses from the Quran.
    Explaining a fetus using verses from the Quran.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s