Hangdawg,
Quit dodging. When I asked how you know something is unquestionable truth if you don't understand it, I wasn't quibbling over the term 'unquestionable.' If you want to call it 'absolute' truth, fine. The question remains: if you don't fully understand it, what basis do you have for considering it absolute truth? And if it's based solely on your subjective experience, how can it be 'absolute'?
When you claimed that if someone 'believes so strongly it's the same as knowing,' I challenged you. People believe all sorts of things, often quite strongly, but that doesn't make the proposition true. Does the fact that the members of the Heaven's Gate cult castrated themselves and committed suicide make it more plausible that the Hale-Bopp comet was in fact their spaceship? Believing something in the complete absence of objective evidence, just because it makes you feel good to believe it, does not constitute knowing.
You continue to praise the achievements of science, or at least admit that 'science is not a bad thing.' We offer these as persuasive evidence that the presuppositions underlying empirical evidential inquiry are in fact superior to the presupposition that completely subjective experience is a valid foundation for knowledge. But you can't have it both ways. You seem to want to avoid looking silly by agreeing that objectivity has a practical advantage in expanding our knowledge, but then you turn around and say that objectivity itself should be questioned.
Make up your mind. We have supported the argument that certain presuppositions are more practical and logically valid than others, so quit claiming that "it's all a matter of faith."
regards,
Esteban Hambre
™ Version 4.2
