Any claim to infallibility by oneself beomes the fallibility in itself
"Absolute certainty of any knowledge is impossible". There is no absolute certainty of anything (which includes this writing). Whatever your perceptive reality unfolds is a version of your interpretation of totality. The events you think unfolding, places you think visited and people you think met - exist within the framework of your mind. Your mind exudes a physical state comprising a body and brain which in turn relates to the laws of physical nature. The pleasure or pain you think experiencing is your transcended body interacting with other physical elements comprising the physical state. I'm physically writing this blog on the purported assumption that, other beings within my perceptive reality exist likewise, but I can not ascertain this to absolute certainty. My assumption of your existence is yielding to any certainty. If I would claim your existence for certainty, then I succumb to fallibility.
It is logically fallible to ascertain a claim to infallibility if the one asserting the claim is itself. For instance, consider the book of religion. A book of religion is suppose to be perceived as a book written by a god. Why? Because the book itself says so? Or some other humans said so? Or some other humans claimed the book itself or a god said so? Above is an example of a claim ascertained to by itself. This method of analogy contradicts rational logic. An absolute certainty is assumed by another based on an absolute claim made by the same entity owning to the claim. The flaw is in the logic process of analogy. The claim is senseless because it was ascertained to by itself. One cannot ascertain if the book of religion is indeed written by a god based on an assertion made by the book itself. One may instead end up ascertaining that claiming of such by the book itself makes itself likely fallible.
Had the book of religion not claimed by itself to be written by a god, one can even consider the possibility of it being written by such. Since one's concept of a god is that of being infallible, one now doubts the book was indeed written by a god, for it was too fallible for the author to have made such a fallible claim. Too fallible to some extent that one would even suspect such book to be written by a devil. Parallax: If a devil had wrote the book of religion, it may not want to acknowledge such. Godly beings would not want to read such had the devil claimed it. Instead, what a devil would have done is - claim the book was written by a god. This way, it be assured that godly beings abide by it henceforth doomed thereafter.
A book is physical hence produced by physical methodology whilst a god is an intangible and metaphysical entity. To ascertain the metaphysical qualities of a physical state, the affirmation must come from the metaphysical, not from within the framework of the same physical state. To ascertain if the book of religion was written by a god, one must first perceive the metaphysical entity of that which is a god, the act of writing made by that god and the transcended physical manifestation of such writing which is the book itself. If one can distinctively perceive the above three qualities, to some extent one may logically claim for oneself that a god wrote the book of religion. Only you can say to yourself if the book of religion was indeed written by a god or not. If you attest to or perceive this claim to or from another, you succumb to fallibility. To think and believe by faith within one's perceptive reality is rational. To preach, attest or claim one's faith to another on the assumption this be perceived likewise is what makes the basis of thought analogy irrational.
"I don't mind what you think or believe, as long as you don't shove it down my throat even if my mouth isn't open"
It is logically fallible to ascertain a claim to infallibility if the one asserting the claim is itself. For instance, consider the book of religion. A book of religion is suppose to be perceived as a book written by a god. Why? Because the book itself says so? Or some other humans said so? Or some other humans claimed the book itself or a god said so? Above is an example of a claim ascertained to by itself. This method of analogy contradicts rational logic. An absolute certainty is assumed by another based on an absolute claim made by the same entity owning to the claim. The flaw is in the logic process of analogy. The claim is senseless because it was ascertained to by itself. One cannot ascertain if the book of religion is indeed written by a god based on an assertion made by the book itself. One may instead end up ascertaining that claiming of such by the book itself makes itself likely fallible.
Had the book of religion not claimed by itself to be written by a god, one can even consider the possibility of it being written by such. Since one's concept of a god is that of being infallible, one now doubts the book was indeed written by a god, for it was too fallible for the author to have made such a fallible claim. Too fallible to some extent that one would even suspect such book to be written by a devil. Parallax: If a devil had wrote the book of religion, it may not want to acknowledge such. Godly beings would not want to read such had the devil claimed it. Instead, what a devil would have done is - claim the book was written by a god. This way, it be assured that godly beings abide by it henceforth doomed thereafter.
A book is physical hence produced by physical methodology whilst a god is an intangible and metaphysical entity. To ascertain the metaphysical qualities of a physical state, the affirmation must come from the metaphysical, not from within the framework of the same physical state. To ascertain if the book of religion was written by a god, one must first perceive the metaphysical entity of that which is a god, the act of writing made by that god and the transcended physical manifestation of such writing which is the book itself. If one can distinctively perceive the above three qualities, to some extent one may logically claim for oneself that a god wrote the book of religion. Only you can say to yourself if the book of religion was indeed written by a god or not. If you attest to or perceive this claim to or from another, you succumb to fallibility. To think and believe by faith within one's perceptive reality is rational. To preach, attest or claim one's faith to another on the assumption this be perceived likewise is what makes the basis of thought analogy irrational.
"I don't mind what you think or believe, as long as you don't shove it down my throat even if my mouth isn't open"
