“Evidence perceived via the senses is fallible; for all you know, the Universe is a figment of your imagination, and you are dreaming all of this.
Nothing can be proven in any objective sense; the best we can do is examine the data conveyed to us by our fallible, subjective senses and decide on the basis of faith alone what relationship (if any) these sensory data have to a universe external to and independent of ourselves (if any).
The only things you can know for sure to exist are those things that you directly experience, rather than things you perceive via the senses.”
Of course you cannot possbily know that any of that is true, since you might just be dreaming it all. Sure sounds like pipe-dream.
Why go to the bother saying such things, since there is no such thing as proof, so you cannot possibly know it is true?
And why should anyone else listen to you, since you are so certain you cannot know anything?
Hank
You missed the point: that the only things we can know are true our those we experience without use of the senses (i.e. our own consciousnness and the existence of God). All other “knowledge”, including scientific knowledge, is ultimately based upon faith (e.g. that our senses aren’t lying tous).
Socrates once said something to the effect, I know that I know nothing for a certainty, and that makes me the wisest man of all men. I am wisest, for I acknowledge my ignorance.
Are you arguing that it is better that we have no awareness of our own ignorance, or that we could ever become wise without understanding our own limitations?