Real And Lasting Answers Refuted

+Theistic-Supreme is good, but it is still only one truth among an infinite sea of infinite other truths.
>Unknowability! 
-RALA fails to take into consideration how much we don't know. We don't know all of Gods motivations and what He has or has not actualized.
-Just because you arrive at a truth through NT or introspection or whatever... does not mean that is the whole of the situation. Given how much else is out there, is it not likely there are still other truths related to the subject?
-Does God want us to hold fast to a single truth, or given how much we don't know, keep an open mind? It seems more likely that God wants us to always have an open-mind, considering how much there is still left to learn and what could be actualized out there!
-Given how much we don't know, God seems to want us to be open-minded (Creator TTB).
-PK gauranees the truth we arrive at is protected, not that it is the whole of the answer. We are expected to keep an open mind for more truth to add to our understanding.
-
-But isn't it obvious to the mind that we should be specifically about The Supreme!?
>Is it not also obvious the nature of A-Infinity and how anything is possible? (OESDE).
-
-Problems with Welding Ourselves to the Truth of Theistic-Supreme specifically:
>We don't know what the Supreme actually exists as. As Perfection incarnate? What does that mean? God clearly has not guided us to full knowledge of the A-Ideal, and so there's still room for the unknown and doubt here. Perhaps further truth will reveal that the Supreme wants a different TTB apart from Theist, perhaps Creator TTB which keeps us acting more in line with God's apparant primary nature?
>
-Steelman:
>PK protects the knowledge that comes to us, ensuring it is true, but that does not gaurantee our understanding of it is full and perfect, or that it won't change later? 
-Should we not remain open-minded despite Theistic-Supreme?:
>God is clearly not finished teaching us yet. 
>It is obvious to the mind that the Supreme would indeed be sufficient for being your TTB but it's also equally obvious that there might be other truths out there that come into play, like Creator being more in line with the Supreme's primary nature, etc. Ergo, Theistic-Supreme is *technically* true but the door is still open for other truths to shift what the proper TTB actually is away from basic Theist TTB. 
>
-Should we not remain open minded despite Theistic Supreme?
-We don't know what other truths there are actualized. Wisdom dictates open mind.
-Thetes no gaura tee that Theistic Supreme alone is the entirety of the reason for proper TTB. There could be more. 
-Sincevwe don't know what the Supreme exists as exactly, this introduced doubt.
-Are there other qualifications besides TS? We don't know.
-The Supreme alone is sufficient for TTB, but what if Supreme wants another TTB due to an unknown truth about Himself?
-Theistic-Supreme is but one truth among many others. OESDE kicks in and some could alter the proper TTB even without Theistic-Supreme being invalidated. RALA also has value but is offset by the reality that God clearly isn't finished teaching us yet. In absense of knowing just how true RALA really is, we default back to Kreator (as the burden of proof is on Theist).
-
-RALA creates a standard where God must tell us everything about something hte minute we encounter it, nd that's clearly just not realistic.
-No matter how air-tight the argument seems, yu cannot claim to know God's TTB unless you know all things.
-
=== RALA is Off-Set by Open-Mindedness: ===
-It's pretty obvious God expects us to keep an open mind in the face of infinity. RALA is not without value, but we don't know exactly where RALA should end and God's expectation of open-mindedness begins? 
-
=== Full Breadth of Logic & Understanding: ===
-We don't necessarily have all of logic and knowledge out there. Ergo, any arguments, even seemingly air-tight ones, could still one day be thrown open.
-
=== Other Factors for Determing the Proper TTB?: ===
-Theistic-Supreme/Aim of the A-Ideal could be only one determinant for finding the proper TTB.
-As per OESDE, it must be possible for the Supreme to exist in such a way that being about Him requires other factors for proper TTB being Aim of the A-Ideal.
-
=== Mathamatical Certainty: Other Pertinent Truths Out There: ===
-Boiled down into its most simplistic meaning, RALA means that not only are the truths we uncover protected by PK but also the conclusions we draw from them. But this is obviously flawed, given how much we don't know, clearly we don't have all the truths that matter. That much is just basic mathamaical certainty!
-Given that its obvious we don't have all truths, to say nothing of the 'major' truths concerning existence, it is therefore more than likely that conclusoins drawn from so-far revealed knowledge (protected by PK) will eventually have further truths revealed that will force us to rewrite our conclusions to some extent. In the sea of A-Infinity, this is definitely going to happen! 
-Further, since we know that we don't know all pertinent truths, it is therefore the reasonable conclusion that God wants us to be open-minded and not stick strictly to Theist alone, but Creator which is both God and not-God. For God to do otherwie would violate the sense of reason that He imbued us with!
-
-RALA clearly has limits, God has changed or allowed our undertanding of things to have changed in the past. Because we don't know the exact limits of RALA, that will always introduce Doubt into Theist/Theistic-Supreme.
-Is RALA really necessary? If God does introduce new logic or knowledge that shifts us away from Theisic-Supreme, and it is good somehow, does that really threaten PK? Were we not supposed to keep an open mind the whole time?
-We don't know all of God's motivations, so we can't be totally sure what He exists as.
-Because God Himself is still largely an unknown, RALA is up i the air.
-If RALA were true, than I would still have to be Catholic! In the past, NT seemed tu support the claims of the RC!!!
-As good as Theistic-Supreme is, it is still counter-abalanced by OESDE. And by the knowledge that we don't know all that God has actualized yet.
=== RALA Killed by OESDE: ===
-Thanks to OESDE, there is no such thing as an "air-tight" argument. 
-The quesiton then becomes "can we know God won't change the truth of the proper TTB away from Theistic-Supreme?" 
>It's not a danger to PK if God changes the fullness of our understanding about revealed truths when those changes are revealed to be for the better AND it is obvious to the mind that we should have kept an open-mind the whole time anyway. 
-
=== God Has Allowed Adjustements to Understanding Before: ===
-RALA is disproven by my own past. I've followed NT, or what I thought was NT, to wrong conclusions held for years at a time. God does allow us to make mistakes. At least minor ones, which result in a shfiting of undestanding later.
Category:Creator
Category:Infinity Theology
Category:Anchors
Category:Anchor