Anti-theist

The excuses and explanations may all be relative but the truth is absolute.

It’s all within us

all I can say is WRONG.

You think you infallibly know about His infallibility.

That it is wrong to be a relativist.

All religions have value only in a human-centrist paradigm.

There is only One God. No more than One is needed.

I say to stand for something. Choose this day whom you will serve.

I believe that humanity is making a big mistake if we move away from religious belief and trust only in our own vain imaginations, even if we profess to be science minded.

To say that choosing this decision makes me infallible is stretching it a bit.

To think otherwise means that your expectation of fallibility within humans equates to doubt.

And a hasty retreat back to measurable evidence, which is a weak place to hang out.

Doubt is the foundation of all rational thought. You can't reason without reliable premises and reliability must be tested.

DOUBT (BE IN, MAKE TO), DOUBTFUL, DOUBTING
1. aporeo NT:639, always used in the middle voice, lit. means "to be without a way" (a, negative, poros, "a way, transit"), "to be without resources, embarrassed, in doubt, perplexity, at a loss," as was Herod regarding John the Baptist, Mark 6:20 (RV, following the most authentic mss., "was much perplexed"); as the disciples were, regarding the Lord's betrayal, John 13:22, "doubting"; and regarding the absence of His body from the tomb, Luke 24:4, "were perplexed"; as was Festus, about the nature of the accusations brought against Paul, Acts 25:20, KJV "doubted," RV, "being perplexed"; as Paul was, in his experiences of trial 2 Cor 4:8, "perplexed," and, as to the attitude of the believers of the churches in Galatia towards Judaistic errors, Gal 4:20, KJV, "I stand in doubt," RV, "I am perplexed." Perplexity is the main idea. See PERPLEX. Cf. the noun aporia, "distress," Luke 21:25.

2. diaporeo NT:1280, dia, "asunder" (intensive), and No. 1, signifies "to be thoroughly perplexed," with a perplexity amounting to despair, Acts 2:12; 5:24 and 10:17, KJV, "were in doubt," "doubted," RV, "were (was) perplexed." See also Luke 9:7 (some mss. have it in Luke 24:4, where the most authentic have No. 1). See PERPLEX.

3. diakrino NT:1252: see CONTEND and DIFFER, A, No. 2; in Acts 11:12, KJV, "nothing doubting," RV, "making no distinction"; in Jude 22, RV, "who are in doubt" (KJV, "making a difference," RV, marg., "while they dispute"); in James 1:6, KJV, "wavereth," RV, "doubteth." This verb suggests, not so much weakness of faith, as lack of it (contrast, Nos. 4 and 5).

4. distazo NT:1365, "to stand in two ways" (dis, "double," stasis, "a standing"), implying "uncertainty which way to take," is used in Matt 14:31 and 28:17; said of believers whose faith is small. Cf. No 5. (Double Mindednesss)

5. meteorizo NT:3349, from meteoros (Eng., "meteor"), signifying "in mid air, raised on high," was primarily used of putting a ship out to sea, or of "raising" fortifications, or of the "rising" of the wind. In the Sept., it is used, e. g., in Mic 4:1, of the "exaltation" of the Lord's house; in Ezek 10:16, of the "lifting" up of the wings of the cherubim; in Obad 4, of the "mounting" up of the eagle; in the NT metaphorically, of "being anxious," through a "distracted" state of mind, of "wavering" between hope and fear, Luke 12:29, "neither be ye of doubtful mind" (KJV, marg., "live not in careful suspense"), addressed to those who have little faith. (Note The interpretation "do not exalt yourselves" is not in keeping with the context.

6. psuchen airo, lit., "to raise the breath, or to lift the soul," signifies "to hold in suspense," RV of John 10:24 (KJV, "make us to doubt"), suggestive of "an objective suspense due to lack of light" (Warfield), through a failure of their expectations, rather than, subjectively, through unbelief The meaning may thus be, "How long dost Thou raise our expectations without satisfying them?"

(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright (c)1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

Descartes opens the First Meditation asserting the need “to demolish everything completely and start again right from the foundations” (AT 7:17, CSM 2:12). The passage adds:

Reason now leads me to think that I should hold back my assent from opinions which are not completely certain and indubitable just as carefully as I do from those which are patently false. So, for the purpose of rejecting all my opinions, it will be enough if I find in each of them at least some reason for doubt. (AT 7:18, CSM 2:12)
In the architectural analogy, we can think of bulldozers as the ground clearing tools of demolition. For knowledge building, Descartes construes sceptical doubts as the ground clearing tools of epistemic demolition. Bulldozers undermine literal ground; doubt undermines epistemic ground. Using skeptical doubts, the meditator shows how to find “some reason for doubt” in all his preexisting claims to knowledge.

The ultimate aim of the method is constructive. Unlike “the skeptics, who doubt only for the sake of doubting,” Descartes aims “to reach certainty – to cast aside the loose earth and sand so as to come upon rock or clay” (Discourse 3, AT 6:29, CSM 1:125). Bulldozers are typically used for destructive ends, as are sceptical doubts. Descartes’ methodical innovation is to employ demolition for constructive ends. Where a bulldozer’s force overpowers the ground, its effects are destructive. Where the ground’s firmness resists the bulldozer’s force, the bulldozer might be used constructively – using it to reveal the ground as firm. Descartes thus uses skeptical doubts to test the firmness of candidates put forward for the foundations of knowledge.

According to at least one prominent critic, this employment of skeptical doubtis unnecessary and excessive. Writes Gassendi:

There is just one point I am not clear about, namely why you did not make a simple and brief statement to the effect that you were regarding your previous knowledge as uncertain so that you could later single out what you found to be true. Why instead did you consider everything as false, which seems more like adopting a new prejudice than relinquishing an old one? This strategy made it necessary for you to convince yourself by imagining a deceiving God or some evil demon who tricks us, whereas it would surely have been sufficient to cite the darkness of the human mind or the weakness of our nature.

Only if you choose to give more weight to Rene Descarte than you do to St.Paul or the authors of the Gospels.

The clear meaning of the scriptures clashes with Descartes "Age of Reason" philosophies.

Infallibility suggests arrogance. I would go more with certainty.

Scripture clearly tells us that a double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Your way suggests that were a man to employ your "doubt" in his life, he would likely second guess his proposals even to marriage...such that the girl would likely dump you.