One must be forgiven for wondering just what mechanisms obtain here that allow anyone, even KA, to know and comprehend the contents of the minds of others.
In other words, the subject of knowledge is pointless since to talk about knowledge requires us to talk about the contents of mind. And usually that extends to other minds.
That's a very fine dance Gad; as stupefying a red herring as anything you ever posted at ZLMB. I think, indeed, I know you know very well the point I'm making here. You just...uh...don't want to make it.
Coggiins:
If I claim to know there is a God, most rationalists would only complain that this obviates any objective verification,
Why would rationalists do that? Will you hurry and get into that graduate school you always talk about and get some of the basic terminology down you throw around without any consideration?
Uh huh. The Scratch technique of honing in on a semantic quibble and making a point out of some possible linguistic ambiguity this might involve. And all so the "free thinking: atheist can prance around so as to avoid the very real problems his belief system and its core propositions involve.
Coggins:
and hence, is not open to confirmation by independent observers. This would be the standard empiricist problem with religious truth claims.
Now it's the empiricist's problem?
Doesn't it get tiring pretending to be educated and clever?
Coggins:
Now, KA claims that she has acquired absolute knowledge, in some manner, that my claim of absolute knowledge of the existence of God is in fact, a false claim. We would wish to know then, in what manner this knowledge was obtained, and how it functions; that is, how it is that the subjective contents of my mind are available to her such that an absolute claim about them can be made with certainty (a certainty that she denies to me regarding a positive claim about God's existence).
The mechanism was the same one responsible for your understanding of "rationalism", your imagination and tendency to make things up.
I'm much more interested in the psychological defense mechanisms (like denial and rationalization) that drive intellectual avoidance rather than intellectual engagement with seriouis arguments.
Coggins:
Why is absolute, certain knowledge open to her and not to me? How could she have acquired knowledge regarding my interior experiences, perceptions, and feelings?
One of your problems is, cog, that you're conflating the problem of other minds with the more general subject of knowledge. To make your case, you've become a solipsist's solipsist.
I've become no such thing. I'm asking a series of questions intended to expose the interconnected logical inconsistencies and epistemological assumptions of Kimberly's own solipsistic approach to LDS claims of the nature of testimony. That the self negation inherent in the claiming of claiming certain knowledge that others can have no certain knowledge seems to escape "freethinkers" like yourself who have pre-closed their minds to anything outside the thick template their own self generated intellectual bigotry does not surprise.
Its not, of course, that you can't follow the argument. As always, its simply that psychological and emotional solidarity with a fellow critic of God and all things religious (and Mormon) overwhelms your desire or ability to do so.
