Absolute balderdash! You cannot KNOW for yourself with perfect certainty that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ or that the Mormon church is what it claims to be. How exactly are you supposed to tell someone else how to know for themselves that which you don't know yourself and that which, in fact, cannot be known? Ridiculous.
Now this is a very interesting proposition. KimberlyAnn knows that I do not know that, just to take one point of several mentioned, there is a God.
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. If I claim to know there is a God, most rationalists would only complain that this obviates any objective verification, and hence, is not open to confirmation by independent observers. This would be the standard empiricist problem with religious truth claims.
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).
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?
Was it objectively acquired (in which case, since my subjective perceptions are not available for objective scrutiny, as any metaphysical materialist would agree, the means would remain obtuse)? or it this claim also subjective on her part (in which case her claim to know something regarding God or my claims to knowledge about him can be no more legitimate epistemologically than my testimony is claimed to be).
One option is that KA has a god-like mind herself, and has acquired such knowledge about my subjective perceptual world through some revelatory means. This, however, would be inconsistent with her general views regarding both the existence of god-like mental states and the likelihood of the existence of the principle of revelation.
Another is that she is projecting her own life experience-which does not include any experience with spiritual feelings, perceptions, or reception of spiritual knowledge, onto me, assuming that her experiences in this area must, for all intents and purposes, be very much like everyone else's.
The quandary is: I claim to know something others do not know and which is not directly accessible objectively. I claim to know techniques through which one can know subjectively the same things I know. KA refuses to use the techniques. There is then no subjective experience to confirm my claims.
Objectively, she cannot refute my claims to knowledge, as she must already admit that my claims to knowledge cannot be inspected in an objective way. Therefore, no analysis is possible.
Nor can she refute my claims in a subjective way, as this puts here own claims in the very same boat as mine, ie, they are purely subjective and cannot be verified rationally or empirically.
What then is really being asserted here? how can claims to knowledge be made about subjective perceptions immune to the very analysis through which such a claim could be generated?