The purpose of this blog is to open a discussion forum for ideas, ramblings, debates, and random thoughts that pass through the heads of the students presently in Poudre High School's Theory of Knowledge Program.
From how I see the problem, the justification of this belief with rest with the person attempting to prove that they are GOD, not the other way around. Under the Roman Catholic definition of GOD, you are not GOD. This definition is an omnipotant, omnipresent, genderless entity. As I have seen you in a given location you do not fit the definition of being everywhere at once. You appear to have a gender which fails to meet the criteria of being genderless.
If we follow the Roman Catholic idea of Jesus being god, and waiting for the second coming of Jesus, who's to say I am not the second coming.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Liberia Editrice Vaticana. 1997. Paragraph 681-"On Judgment Day at the end of the world, Christ will come in glory to achieve the definitive triumph of good over evil which, like the wheat and the tares, have grown up together in the course of history.Paragraph 692-"When he comes at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, the glorious Christ will reveal the secret dispositiong of hearts and wil render to each man according to his works and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace."That says that you are not Jesus Christ, because the End of Times has not happened yet, and Jesus will "Come in Glory." I can always find more if you need more justification by authority.
I don't believe you're God. And therefore, since the existence of God requires belief, you're not God.
Two things: A. God is Dead. Thus, neither you nor anyone is God. (If a statement as blunt as 'I am god' constitutes an argument, so should 'God is dead.')B. I am a sollipsist. The only truth is that which I can perceive. Since existence is contingent on my own perception, I am god. You are so smote, man. See Oklahoma!-Sean
Okay then, you believe you're God, so in order for that to be "Proved" true, YOU need to justify it, otherwise all you possesss is aquaitance knowledge rather than a justified true belief which everyone can see as True (that's right, capital T-truth). I don't want to prove you wrong, I want you to prove yourself right!
Yeah I'm with Sean. See Okla, Okla, Okla OKLAHOMA!OK!And Wolf. I'm all for you being god, but i already believe in Gaoism and Mon Mon.Other than that, I see no other logical reason to dispute you. So yes. You are god. I will not prove you wrong.
How can you claim that you are god you have not yet properly justified it --> the belief that you are god is not knowledge. The only way i can prove that you are not god is when you prove that you are god. p.s. god is not white and doesn't wear glasses therefore you are not god.
Deep, I would like you to defend that God is not white. You claim that as knowledge, but have not justified it.
well, i haven't claimed it as knowledge yet. it's just a statement. it's a belief that's not justified. How is Wolf's claim that he is god any more valid than my claim that god is not white? I'm just using an unproperly justified belief to refute another unproperly justified belief. so which one has more validity? neither one of them.
God is the color of water. We all know that.Wolf, properly justify your argument or we shall be forced to taunt you a second time.
Okay, so if you were God, would you not be posting this in the first place? Isn't God supposed to be superior to all beings and therefore there is no reason for the revealing of the true identity?I can't necessarily prove you wrong, actually I can't, but in order to truly accept and believe that you are God you would have to prove to us that you are, we don't have to prove that you aren't. At least in my mind.
Post a Comment