We can never really know anything

I don't suppose that I am rational. I do not suppose my senses aren't deceiving me. I don't even suppose an external world.

You can know with 100% certainty that there is some form of existence. Your experience proves that. Even if this is illusion, still the fact there is some form of existence can be known with 100% certainty.

If there is some form of existence, there must be a reality as it truly is.

Reality in the truest sense is The Ultimate Reality. That is God.

So you can be 100% certain that God exists. Not much else. Everything else you can only be so sure.

In simple terms and as far as we know, knowledge is uniquely a human thing. (Ok. Other Earth species may also possess the ability to store and utilise data)

Therefore human knowledge is human knowledge and consequently what we know is what we know. 

What actually is there to judge the credibility of our knowledge?

As current knowledge stands and no matter how much some people might protest to the contrary; Gods and Aliens and Ultimate Realities are just assumptions and cannot actually be known and therefore remain incredible.

Desartes use a similar argumrent to prove it was his self that was the one sure thing.

Epistemological nihilism is a blackhole not worth getting sucked into. Been there, done that.

As I demonstrated, there is a knowledge that is undeniable.

That there is some form of existence, and that if there is some form of existence there must be Ultimate Reality, that is, existence as it is in totality and actuality.

Desartes use a similar argumrent to prove it was his self that was the one sure thing.

In what way?

I think therefore I am? 

Even illusions have some reality to them. The thing that defines illusion, delusion, etc is that aspect of it that does not exist. However, as a perception, they exist.

In other words, illusions are like paperback novels, or movies. Books and films are real things, but what they depict is (often) not  real.

But what I just said is obviously true, and cuts through all delusion.

In other words, illusions are like paperback novels, or movies. Books and films are real things, but what they depict is (often) not  real

Books and films, even they are created. They are contingent existences. They, like all contingent phenomena are real in some sense and unreal in another sense.

There is some form of existence.


The Ultimate Reality, by contrast is real in the most total sense. Recognizing this is simply a matter of accepting that "The Ultimate Reality" is what it says it is. If you don't, then you are stuck fumbling around in vanity.

It is essential that this link be established between the created and the uncreated by accepting that He is who He says He is. That is the meaning of our Trinity. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. That The Ultimate Reality is seen through The Most Perfect Image and only with The Spirit of Truth that proceeds from The Uncreated, through creation, and with our cooperation activates and enlivens the Image so that we can be a witness to God in creation. Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

Yeah.  Mopac and Descartes both rely on the principle even the appeance of reality requires there must be something rather than nothing.

But is that principle justified? 

I don't think they can be proved by anything more fundamental.  An error would be to read to much into them.  For example the 'I' proven by the cogito is not 'a bipedal human' and the 'ultmate reality' is not necessarily the Abraahamic God.   But I've given trying to get Mopac to acknowledge the latter! 

the 'ultmate reality' is not necessarily the Abraahamic God.   But I've given trying to get Mopac to acknowledge the latter!