Since I will not allow you to the control the dictionary, e.g. "fact" and "proof" - and other rules of engagement, e.g. false analogy (a logical fallacy btw) - then we have nothing further to discuss.
But it has been interesting. Thanks for the banter, dear kosta50!
I don't control dictionaries; dictionaries are agreed-upon definitions of words, and facts are something that should be provable, something real, something we all (not some) know it exists. Gnostic, spiritual, revelational, etc. knowledge is not a fact, and neither is a theory. I go by dictionary rules. I don't make up my own definitions.
I agree that we have nothing more to discuss. But you are welcome to give a closing remark. Thanks for the banter, too.
But it has been interesting....
Certainly I don't know what there is for you two to "discuss" — you can't even get on the same page. Also certainly I do not blame you for this, dearest sister in Christ.
The "fact" is, kosta has a rather peculiar mental tick. It goes something like this:
(1) There is no such thing as truth.
(2) But if there is, we can't find out anything about it. So we can't "prove" it. Since we can't "prove" it, therefore it can never be a "fact."
(3) Since it cannot be a "fact," then loop back to (1).
Kosta evidently wants to go by "facts" alone. But since he either denies or is extremely skeptical about the reality of truth, one wonders what standard, what criterion he uses to "prove" his "facts."
He keeps harping on pink unicorns on Jupiter, maintaining that they are akin to beliefs about God. It is probably true that, "factually," there are no pink unicorns on Jupiter. (BTW, how do we "prove" that?)
Yet kosta has established the "fact" that unicorns really do exist in some sense — by using them as a stick to beat you with. They exist in his imagination. Not to mention the imaginations of other human beings over the ages. In this sense, they have existed for a very long time, usually as a symbol of purity. (Though perhaps our friend kosta does not care much about either symbols or purity, because of their spiritual/religious overtones.)
But of course, this validation can only be made by means of historical sources — not by direct observation, but by "testimony" — and kosta has already told us on many occasions that testimony is unreliable and therefore unacceptable to him as evidence.
When you boil it all down, it seems kosta doubts everything in the world except what he can directly observe. In this sense, he is the measure of his own reality. So one imagines historical "facts" are useless to him.
No wonder you and he cannot get on the same page! You do not live in the same world!
Nonetheless, even these pink unicorns on Jupiter, supposed "non-facts," point us back to God. But I do not find this surprising. As a Christian, I joyfully acknowledge that all things in heaven and on earth point us back to God in some way.
Kosta, for whatever reason, will not look in that direction. He prefers to run the loop of (1) to (3) incessantly.
I don't know why.
JMHO FWIW
Thank you so very much, dearest sister in Christ, for the simply magnificent series of essays you've posted to this thread!
All thanks and praise be to God!