We can never really know anything

Mopac has really been indoctrinated. Don't think there is a non-force-able way to help him. Not implying I would do something like that because he is not someone I care about.

Don't worry, when the people you support politically bring about socialist revolution, they will do the forcing for you, just like they do everywhere they torture and murder my people.

They care, because anything that goes against the "scientific atheism" or state worship of communist society is considered sedition.

Maybe the time is coming soon, and you can be comforted to know that those pesky Christians who preach love of The Truth and goodwill towards man are finally silenced.

You are looking at things backwards. You are taking your understanding of the "Abrahamic God" and disouting that this is The Ultimate Reality. Rather, you should instead believe what we say, and that is that the scripture which is all you are working with chronicles a people who are struggling with God. That is what "Israel" means.

It is the last refuge of know it all dipshits everywhere.

I have stated repeatedly, this is how the church has always understood God. I am not the one using newspeak. But you don't listen very well, and I know you don't because you break my posts into little ADHD chunks when you respond to me.

The Ultimate Reality exists. That is what God is. How is it on me when the only atheist argument is to define God to be something other?

I feel no inadequacy in my position when the opposition to it can only have an argument if they make strawmen. Unless they make a strawman, they have no argument! 

The other argument they have is to attack created things such as scriptures and traditions. Tearing down a created thing does not tear down The Uncreated Truth.

The point is, there is no argument against God, and denying God is foolish.

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? 

We rely on axioms to do anything.

We presuppose we are rational.

We presuppose our senses are not deceiving us.

We presuppose we can view the external world.

Under these presuppositions we can lets say speculate on the world but that doesn't mean we know things.

It just means under specific axioms we can speculate on the external world.

If we did know something we wouldn't be using axioms instead we use it because it is the only way to observe what is around but that doesn't mean we know. 

This is mainly used for people to counter what I said or give examples of when we have known something. 

Hopefully you understand what I am trying to say.

Axioms are usually reverse-engineered (deduced) from our intuition using logic.  Very few systems are built explicitly from the ground up.

Rational is a synonym of Logical.  (IFF) you believe in cause and effect (THEN) all thoughts and actions are logical consequences of initial conditions.

Our senses are not intentionally lying to us, they are merely imprecise and incomplete.  A good example is the blind men who examine an elephant. [LINK]

Anything fundamentally separate (external) is undetectable.  In order to interact with something, we must have a fundamental similarity to it, that is to say we must be part of the same system.

De facto Monism is necessarily true.

Knowledge is merely data.  We do collect data.  Whether or not this data is "True" is more of an ontological question.

There is nothing to stop individuals from speculating, whether they identify their axioms or not.

What is the "it" you are referring to?  Are you talking about direct experience versus logical induction/deduction?

I now know that you wrote this and that I have replied to it.  This is an example of something that I know.

I trust you will attempt to clarify any misunderstandings.

You are talking such nonsense it isn't even worth addressing.

De facto Monism is necessarily true.

What is this? Can't find it on Google.

Quite the contrary, I declare God victorious and your argument even lower than sophistry.

The Ultimate Reality exists. You yourself admit reality exists, so even you believe that there is a way existence is in actuality.

De facto Monism is necessarily true.

What is this? Can't find it on Google. 

Spinoza explains, [LINK] and [WIKI]

How is monism de facto?

Monism is all is one. De facto means it is wrong.

Care to explain what I am getting wrong? 

I don't think whether 'de facto' is the 'technically correct' term for what 3rutal meant isn't worth spending much time on.

What is worth spending time on? 

"Can a robot be conscious?"   We might have to spend time on what 'be conscious' means, but not on what 'de facto' means!

Explain to me how I can prove a tree to you when you think a rock is a tree.