>>239I see no reason why you should get so upset. If you think that I have misunderstood something, you are welcome to make the effort to express it a little more clearly. If you don't succeed, it's either because you're not suited to explain and should therefore leave the topic for more mature people, or because your points weren't particularly logical in the first place.
And by the way, I am not at all of the opinion that the opinion held by >>236-kun is necessarily un-Christian or even anti-Christian, since there are certainly believing Christians who share his ideas.
>>240>>241While you are correct that there are problems, paradoxes, and challenges in worldviews of all kinds, including religions, these are ultimately due to human error-proneness and thus negligible, as they say nothing about the big picture.
Philosophy has long been concerned with questions about the nature of knowledge and reality. But these complexities do not mean that we should discard all knowledge. We have made progress and developed models that allow us to understand and interact with the world. Radical skepticism that claims nothing is knowable, on the other hand, only leads to meaningless consequences and blocks gains in knowledge, because, despite the philosophical challenges, our history of progress shows that we can expand our understanding of the world. Exaggerated doubt, on the other hand, whether general or against a particular worldview, inhibits the search for knowledge and is therefore less useful than a position that acknowledges that progress is possible despite unanswered questions.
As for the question of the nature of knowledge, I think there are three kinds: that which we learn by observing the mortal world, that which we infer through our thinking or by reflecting on the thoughts of others, and ultimately that which God gives us to understand through spiritual revelations.