Potter to the clay

[Ryft]

Human beings are not property.

He wanted to explore the question supposing this God exists. Since your answer supposes this God does not exist, it is outside the context of the question. (That is to say, given the existence of this God, which his question posits, human beings are indeed property—not of other human beings but of God.)

I don't acknowledge anybody's right over my life.

Refusing to acknowledge X has no bearing on whether or not you are X. The latter is the question, not the former. And, again, it is a question that supposes the existence of the God in Francis Chan's reference to the Potter.

---

---

I would say he doesn't have the right to treat us in whatever way he likes.

It is not enough to claim that God does not have the right if the claim is without an explanation of why not. Given the existence of this God, as the question posits, WHY does he not have this right? The parent analogy fails because parents do not have the Potter relationship to their children that this God has to us.

---

---

Ryft asking people to leave books aside... lol?

I am only accommodating the OP, who does not have the book with him to cite the relevant pages. Since this makes it difficult to interact with Francis Chan's argument, which the OP indicated, we have to set it aside and instead deal with the question as the OP posited it.

We have this idea that human beings aren't to be treated as property—

—by fellow human beings, and for a myriad of good reasons. But extending this idea to include God is an extrapolation in dire need of legitimate justification.

If we were to assume a god exists...

But we were not asked to assume a god exists. We were asked to assume that the God behind the Potter analogy exists.