Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Omniscience is required to prove the ABSENCE of something.

It does not take omniscience to experience something; for one to say, for instance, "I have a plan for tomorrow." does not require omniscience.

You may not believe that I have a plan, or you may want to scoff and call my plan something else if you don't like it. But it does not require omniscience.

You could shout "Prove you have a plan for tomorrow." and whatever I answered you could scoff, "well you're just making it up." However omniscience would be required for you to prove that it did not exist.

Nice try, Timber.

If you would like to take a swipe at proving the non-existence of God, go ahead. We will be attentive.

There is neither proof nor disproof for the paranormal - by definition the paranormal is unproveable. Agnostiscism is the only logical option.

timberlandko wrote:

There is neither proof nor disproof for the paranormal - by definition the paranormal is unproveable. Agnostiscism is the only logical option.

Interesting. Consider that what is considered unprovable today, may not be considered so tomorrow.

That is why I used the example of thought . "I have a plan" is thought, nothing more.

Five hundred years ago there was no way to prove the existence of thought. Everyone knew they had thoughts but there was no tangible measuring of them. They might have been labeled "paranormal" by your definition, since they were not provable, only experienced.

Agnosticism might seem the only option if you lack the experience of faith. But Faith, when experienced, is like thought. It may not be "provable" by today's standards but it is experienced. Being "unprovable" does not make it unreal, just unmeasurable.

Since something can be real, though not measured, it cannot be considered illogical simply on the grounds of it's immeasurability. Hence , Faith is a logical position. Agnosticism is not the only logical option.

In short, just because you do not understand something (cannot measure it), does not make it illogical. Something doesn't become true when you understand it. It was true before you understood it. Hence , truth is objective, not subjective.

Agnosticism might seem the only option if you lack the experience of faith. But Faith, when experienced, is like thought. It may not be "provable" by today's standards but it is experienced. Being "unprovable" does not make it unreal, just unmeasurable.

Since something can be real, though not measured, it cannot be considered illogical simply on the grounds of it's immeasurability. Hence , Faith is a logical position. Agnosticism is not the only logical option.

In short, just because you do not understand something (cannot measure it), does not make it illogical. Something doesn't become true when you understand it. It was true before you understood it. Hence , truth is objective, not subjective.

There is no big deal about faith.

To have it...all you need to do is be stubborn and illogical and afraid of the unknown. All you have to do is to guess about the true nature of REALITY....and then INSIST that your blind guess is correct.

Some of the dumbest people on the planet can come up with "faith"....and in fact, some of the dumbest people on the planet often do.

Frank Apisa wrote:

There is no big deal about faith.

To have it...all you need to do is be stubborn and illogical and afraid of the unknown. All you have to do is to guess about the true nature of REALITY....and then INSIST that your blind guess is correct.

Some of the dumbest people on the planet can come up with "faith"....and in fact, some of the dumbest people on the planet often do.

Well folks, there you have it once again demonstrated. It doesn't take long, does it?

They run out of things to say and start in with "You're dumb....You're illogical.... You're blah blah blah...."

How sad that your argument has sunk to this level so quickly.

Does faith necessarily mean, uninformed and illogical?

If the guess is made based on what we have and know, then is it more than just blind faith?