Very short version of the long argument.

[Mystic]

Well, it was indeed short. 
Good on you for that.

Now, if you could just manage to demonstrate that what you and these supposed "messengers" know, is in fact, TRUE and CORRECT....then you'd actually be getting somewhere.

I can but we need listening ears that accept the truth when presented to them. A heart that doesn't want to see but falsehood will not accept the truth of God and his beautiful names.

[brewer]

Your first premise was crap and not a basis for an argument/proof.

So we can know something about ultimate goodness (whatever it is) without a connection to it?

There is no ultimate goodness, it does not exist. That's why the initial premise is faulty. It is fantasy delusion. All you have is a make believe connection.

You'd be better off making a connection with Superman.

[Mystic]

Guys, if you want details, look at the long argument in the other thread. It's all there in a narrative, that explains each premise (not in order), but it's there.

This is the short argument, doesn't mean that each premise cannot be elaborated on (I did that in the other thread).

---

So we can know something about ultimate goodness (whatever it is) without a connection to it?

There is no ultimate goodness, it does not exist. That's why the initial premise is faulty. It is fantasy delusion. All you have is a make believe connection.

You'd be better off making a connection with Superman.

You can't deny conclusion in an argument. You have to deal with the premises. So are you saying we can know something about ultimate highest goodness possible without a connection to it?

[Athene]

Well, it was indeed short. 
Good on you for that.

Now, if you could just manage to demonstrate that what you and these supposed "messengers" know, is in fact, TRUE and CORRECT....then you'd actually be getting somewhere.

I can but we need listening ears that accept the truth when presented to them. A heart that doesn't want to see but falsehood will not accept the truth of God and his beautiful names.

No. You're repetitive insistence as to what the truth is, is not sufficient. Nor are your breathless pleas, prose, thinly-veiled insults, wants, or personal desires.

Proof is what the audience requires. 
Now provide it, if you can.

[Mystic]

I can but we need listening ears that accept the truth when presented to them. A heart that doesn't want to see but falsehood will not accept the truth of God and his beautiful names.

No. You're repetitive insistence as to what the truth is, is not sufficient. Nor are your breathless pleas, prose, thinly-veiled insults, wants or desires.

Proof is what the audience requires. 
Now, provide it, if you can.

Proof is required, but so is the state of accepting proof. Proof is not sufficient for people to believe,  never has been in the past, and never will be. The people are required to be honest and accept proofs, without this condition, proofs will not make people believe and accept the way towards God.

[brewer]

Guys, if you want details, look at the long argument in the other thread. It's all there in a narrative, that explains each premise (not in order), but it's there.

This is the short argument, doesn't mean that each premise cannot be elaborated on (I did that in the other thread).

---

There is no ultimate goodness, it does not exist. That's why the initial premise is faulty. It is fantasy delusion. All you have is a make believe connection.

You'd be better off making a connection with Superman.

You can't deny conclusion in an argument. You have to deal with the premises. So are you saying we can know something about ultimate highest goodness possible without a connection to it?

If I find the first premise faulty then there is no argument/proof. Any conclusion made from a faulty premise is also faulty. 

There is no "ultimate highest goodness". That is something you've made up in your head. It does not exist, or exists only for you in your made up fantasy.

[Athene]

Proof is required, but so is the state of accepting proof. Proof is not sufficient for people to believe,  never has been in the past, and never will be. The people are required to be honest and accept proofs, without this condition, proofs will not make people believe and accept the way towards God.

Nope. Either you don't have a clear understanding of what proof actually is, OR you willfully manipulate and/or ignore the definition in order to suit your agenda.
Bottom line- You ain't got none, Son...proof, that is.

Now, how is that MY problem?

[TheBeardedDude]

There is no highest possible goodness, it is fantasy.

Very short argument.

Denying the conclusion in an argument is a sign that person has nothing to say regarding the actual argument.

This isn't a logical conclusion from your "argument." It is an assumption that takes an abstract concept ("goodness") and defines it as an objective concept, then defines it as an objective concept that exists on a gradient where one end is maximized "goodness" but there is no demonstration of:
1) goodness objectively existing
2) goodness existing on a spectrum
3) maximum goodness being a real thing (for instance, infinity is a mathematical concept but doesn't actually mean that infinity is realistic)

[Cyberman]

Well, it was indeed short. 
Good on you for that.

Now, if you could just manage to demonstrate that what you and these supposed "messengers" know, is in fact, TRUE and CORRECT....then you'd actually be getting somewhere.

I can but we need listening ears that accept the truth when presented to them. A heart that doesn't want to see but falsehood will not accept the truth of God and his beautiful names.

So it's our fault you're talking bollocks, is it?

[Mystic]

I can but we need listening ears that accept the truth when presented to them. A heart that doesn't want to see but falsehood will not accept the truth of God and his beautiful names.

So it's our fault you're talking bollocks, is it?

It is your fault, exactly. It is bollocks to you because you cannot handle the truth and the path it calls to.