[jaif]

"So how do you derive information about something that does not exist? Information is experience or it is nothing more than random noise. If your knowledge is not based on some kind of measurement of the world, then it is no more lilely to be correct than picking an answer at random."

First off, nobody said all knowledge is "correct". That's not part of the dictionary definition: as long as you believe the idea in your head, it's "knowledge".

Let's put this another way: I know about centaurs. There are no real centaurs: they don't exist, it's just an idea in my head (and in many peoples).

As for basing knowledge on experience, of course that's generally the root. However, the human mind is able to combine ideas and make obscure connections to come up with "new" ideas. I put new in quotes because there's a huge philosphy debate on what's really "new", and I shudder to go down that road because it's really boring.

All that said, I agree entirely with this '..."known and nonexistent" is nonsensical. That phrase can be applied to anything which anyone can think up.' I was playing a game of semantics, but it boils down to what he says here; you can believe whatever you want.

Finally, NTJedi, as an outside observer I do have to say that I agree with the others that your argument style is rather insulting. Just look up the meanings of the words involved in a dictionary, and then take an english course where past tense, present tense, etc are explained. Spending pages debating common english words and using slippery sematical differences is just a baby game.

"God is love."
"Love is blind."
"Ray Charles is blind"
"Ray Charles is God"

See? Playing with words just leads to nonsense (though fun nonsense, in this case).

-Jeff