Well, it just has to be hypothetically possible, not actually possible.

Well, by my meaning of truth, it’s never hypothetically possible for a contradictory reality to occur. In short, because contradiction is meaningless. What the hec is a married bachelor?

And, well, you can't have it both ways.  Agreeing to call it "personal absolute knowledge" won't make me happy if you follow it up with "but it's also universal absolute knowledge" which defeats the point. 

    I was merely trying to understand your terms in a way that didn’t contradict my meaning of truth. If I absolutely know the world is round, it doesn’t matter if someone tells me they have absolute knowledge that the world is flat. I, apparently, know otherwise and so they obviously do not have absolute knowledge of this. I cannot believe them. There’s no use in asking “well, but what if they do have absolute knowledge though?”… that’s just repeating the contradiction to me. It’s not a problem to consider this fellow does not have absolute knowledge, but is only saying he does.

    The thing is, we already understand this outside of this specification of revelation. If a person contradicted you about the roundness of the world you’d see him as wrong no matter how much he tells you he’s absolutely positive about it. Whatever we got our “confidence” in this from, we simply realized he contradicted it and that’s means he’s wrong. And we didn’t even engage in a debate about epistemology with the fellow lol. Revelation is no more ‘dogmatic’ or obstinate than that.

    To the last scenario you brought up, yes, again because of language we’re able to arrange good English words into nonsense. It’s not merely that Person A is unable to doubt what absolute knowledge he has and ‘cannot conceive otherwise’. It’s that this scenario already states something nonsensical to my use of the term ‘absolute knowledge’ (that is, truth). Person A knows the truth that the earth is round and Person B knows the truth that the world is flat. Might as well say, the earth is flat and round. That’s meaningless to me. Adding a supernatural entity into the mix with ‘lots of power to screw with people’ doesn’t do anything but distract from that point. I can’t call truth, not truth – it’s meaningless – saying “hypothetically’ still doesn’t give it any meaning.

I'm trying to figure out whether to you knowledge = truth, i.e. does a person's PERCEPTION of what is true MAKE it true. I am saying that no it does not.

Also, YOU are neither A nor B so YOU can be an observer. It would only be a nonsensical idea from the perspective of someone with an absolute certainty on the matter like A or B ... or if you think a person's absolute certainty makes it a universal truth.

Do you think that truth is independent of belief? 'Cause it doesn't sound to me like you do. It sounds to me like you are saying if a person believes something absolutely then that MAKES it true. Not as in "they believe it's true" but ACTUALLY TRUE.

...which would be kind of like those comics where gods are real and given power by people's belief in them IMO. I suppose that would be cool.

"You can’t get a correct interpretation of sense data by (you imply that with ‘from which’) sense data." That sounds an awful lot like what I said. 

I don't think you understand what I mean by interpretation.  It's simply "the sense data means X".  Such a statement can be made with varying levels of certainty.  Obviously if the interpretation and sense data are both absolute knowledge then the level of certainty is 100%, which is my point. 

That's right, you haven't explained at all WHY revelation can only work on one instance of sense data and not declare a proper interpretation of a particular arrangement of sense data for all such arrangements, and not just the one time.  Why can't that be revealed as well?

Clarification:  It seems to me that your posts are taking the position that absolute belief either (a) implies, (b) creates, or ( c ) is absolute truth. 

1.  Do you deny all three possibilities?  If so, please explain how your position differs. 

2.  If not, which one is your position?

    Yes *sigh* what I’ve meant by absolute knowledge is that it is knowledge of the truth. And as if the further qualification must be added, it means its “undoubtable” when you have it. This discussion is about epistemology. So that would make sense for me to bring up a term up with that meaning in the answer to the question of epistemology. Something with truth value.

    It appears to me you’re basically finding new wording every time to undermine the meaning of absolute knowledge. The new ways you put forth are 1. put absolute knowledge only through the “window of someone’s perception”. 2. Pose someone only “believing something absolutely” (which then I’m apparently calling absolute knowledge).

    The implications of saying you only perceive such and such… is not the meaning of absolute knowledge.

The implications of saying someone “merely believes something absolutely”… is not the meaning of absolute knowledge. The common use of the word belief often does not imply a truth value. “Absolute knowledge” does. If you feel we are inexorably enslaved to a “perception” or a “truth-valueless belief” in relation to the truth about the world this inevitably would mean you don’t believe such truth can be known.

    However, as I’ve pointed out that the status of sense data as a bit of absolute knowledge, it’s a little more obvious, I think, that we wouldn’t think to apply such “stepping stones” between us and itself. When we experience sense data is that merely a perception? Do we merely believe we are aware of sense data? No, sense data is just there and holds the kind of absoluteness I’m talking about. Call sense data whatever you want though. (Bertrand Russell actually addresses this near the beginning of his book “The Problems of Philosophy”).

   In the same way, if there is such an instance of absolute knowledge (“undeniable” as if I must keep making this qualification)... then that's what I'm talking about in regards to revelation. I’m not talking about “mere beliefs” that are shaken by possibilities in your mind. If they can be shaken, if you find they can be doubted, then it is clearly not what I’m talking about. This is the issue of epistemology.

I don't think you understand what I mean by interpretation.  It's simply "the sense data means X".  Such a statement can be made with varying levels of certainty.  Obviously if the interpretation and sense data are both absolute knowledge then the level of certainty is 100%, which is my point. 

    Varying levels of certainty? Is that in relation to some method of truth you proposed that I’m seeing no connection with? Besides not knowing what you meant by that, I either don’t know what you mean by the last sentence or don’t see the relevancy in it with anything I’ve said.

That's right, you haven't explained at all WHY revelation can only work on one instance of sense data and not declare a proper interpretation of a particular arrangement of sense data for all such arrangements, and not just the one time.  Why can't that be revealed as well?

    No, I actually think I was clear that revelation could declare a particular arrangement of sense data you will encounter to always hold the same interpretation if that be the case. I said:

“There’s no indication from sense data that it does have the same interpretation at any time. You could only know that if revelation told you: “every time you encountered such sense data it meant such and such interpretation” - which would be about the same thing as revelation telling you every time it occurred”

    I followed that up with making the point that… this is perfectly in alignment with this answer of revelation. Meaning it’s not a method of empiricism and it’s not building an I/O system from ‘practicality’ or whatever (honestly I just don't know how to say it still).

Clarification:  It seems to me that your posts are taking the position that absolute belief either (a) implies, (b) creates, or ( c ) is absolute truth. 

    None of the above. I haven’t been using the term absolute belief. I’ve been saying absolute knowledge. Absolute knowledge means knowledge of the truth. I’m not using the term belief, again, because that implies no truth value in the common use of the word. The term absolute knowledge does imply a truth value.

    The whole thing is simple: An answer (proposition) that is not contradictory /problematic to the question of epistemology: The source of absolute knowledge (knowledge of the truth) would give us absolute knowledge. Then… we’d have absolute knowledge. I’m only trying to show this would be an answer, I’m not saying you have to believe this is the case (although I will argue you would be left with denying we can have absolute knowledge).

Please forgive me if any of this came across as abrasive.

(1) "Yes *sigh*" Yes?  What the hell are you saying "yes" to?  That you said the same thing I said? 

(2)  No, every time I am either trying to find a new way to pierce your barrier of nonunderstanding of my objections or trying a new tack on which objections might best suit the discussion. 

(3) KEY Well then as I see it the problem devolves back to how it is certain*  that revelation confers absolute knowledge.  You once said, "You couldn't be sure... unless absolute knowledge was given to you. That's the point. If absolute knowledge is given to you about whatever, including the information of where it came from, then... you have absolute knowledge."  But I still say this begs the question by presuming that revelation CAN give absolute knowledge.  Or perhaps it might be better to simply say, "You are wrong."  How do you propose to differentiate absolute belief from absolute truth in your own mind?  What proof exists that a belief is true?  Revelation?  I say revelation only confers belief, not necessarily truth.  Prove me wrong.  ** ***

*"How IT is certain", not "How the recipient is certain".  (See postscript.) 

** On truth:  Revelation could only assuredly confer absolute truth as well as belief IMO if truth only existed within oneself, whereas I have the position that it exists outside of oneself.  Thus there is only one real truth set that we try to access. 

(4)  Ugh.  "Varying" could mean between 0% and 100% only and be just as valid.  My last sentence referred firstly back to your statement, "An interpretation of absolute knowledge? Like I’ve said, if it’s absolute knowledge that’s given to you, it necessarily means there’s no question in it. If you question it or call it a mere ‘interpretation’ then it’s no longer absolute knowledge, it’s a possibility like anything else that you’re looking for a way to establish."  I took this to mean that "interpretation" implied uncertainty and I don't know how else I could have taken it.  So I responded that no, interpretation did not necessarily imply uncertainty. 
     Secondly, it referred back to "my point", that is to say, "if the sense data is a form of revelation (as you suggested above), and if interpretations of that sense data can also be revealed, and if revelation confers absolute knowledge (your def'n.), then couldn't you put those two types of absolute knowledge together logically and derive more absolute knowledge from them?"

(5)  I see.  I'm sorry, I somehow failed to read your post correctly.  Ironically, just as you did mine.  The I/O system I spoke of there was one built on revelation and sense data.  I was thinking it could still be empirical because empiricism is about interpretations of sense data, so as long as the revelations produce interpretations that result in a coherent, persistent world -- where's the problem? 

(6)  See (3).

(7)  OH WAIT.  "an answer" /facepalm  Are you saying that you are asserting "revelation confers absolute knowledge" as a POSSIBILITY only?  I don't recall you mentioning this little MASSIVELY IMPORTANT DETAIL before.  Otherwise see (3).  [edit:  You say that revelation is a source of absolute knowledge, but what reason do you have for this claim?  (Hint:  "revelation" is not a valid answer.)  (Or, if you define "revelation" as such, I suppose I should be asking how you know (instead of just believe) that what you are receiving is indeed revelation and not simply a source of absolute belief.)] 

*** If you can't, then it would seem to me that you believe either (a), (b), or ( c ), since what one "knows" only in one's own mind, without proof that can be articulated, is simply a "belief" and not necessarily epistemological knowledge, IMO.  Or, I guess, you take the more direct route and jump to believing that R is AK directly.

P.S.  I apologize for using the word "certainty" irregularly -- sometimes to mean belief (i.e. "you are certain") and sometimes epistemological truth.  Here it means the latter.  I will endeavor to be consistent with it from now on so as to avoid needless confusion. 

1. I'm trying to figure out whether to you knowledge = truth

That’s what I was saying yes (with clarification) to.

2.   No, every time I am either trying to find a new way to pierce your barrier of nonunderstanding of my objections or trying a new tack on which objections might best suit the discussion. 

     I understand what you’re saying but you’re missing the point I make every time you do this. It’s refusing to accept the meaning of absolute knowledge. If absolute knowledge existed in someone’s mind, there’s no sense in asking, in one way or another, “well how do they really know for sure they absolute know?”.

     If you’re providing an argument as to why absolute knowledge as a concept cannot possibly exist or be given to us, that’s different than what’s being discussed here. As I’m clearing posing this as an answer to the question of epistemology (“Hypothetically” sure – sorry if that was unclear, I just thought the language I was using and the topic strongly implied that. Further I used plenty of “ifs” and “would be’s” if you read back. Even in the quote you posted under 3. I pose it with an “if” at the beginning.) it doesn’t make sense to literally contradict my proposition every time by saying ‘what if it isn’t what you’re saying it would be’. We’re discussing whether or not it’s an answer to the question of epistemology.

    If revelation gave absolute knowledge then that would be a way of gaining absolute knowledge. In the same manner, if John wasn’t married he’d be a bachelor.

    (In regards to point 7.) I’m curious how making it clear that this is a ‘hypothetical’ answer makes any problems go away. I mean, if (I say if for your sake) I had absolute knowledge then… it still wouldn’t make sense to ask me how I knew I had absolute knowledge.

       Further, not to stray too far from that specific point, I’m also saying revelation is the only working answer presented. Other methods fail, thus either we get absolute knowledge from revelation or we get no absolute knowledge at all. Essentially true skepticism (Perhaps like what you’re already saying in denying truth – I think). But maybe something said here would distract from the main point. I’m only trying to make it clear that revelation at least would be “an” answer to epistemology (and not rationalism or empiricism).

      (Have to say: Remember, empiricism does not mean literally sense data. It’s the doctrine that states we can know truth about the world [interpretations of sense data] by sense data alone.)

3. Well then as I see it the problem devolves back to how it is certain*  that revelation confers absolute knowledge.

*"How IT is certain", not "How the recipient is certain". 

Sorry, don’t understand what that means.

How do you propose to differentiate absolute belief from absolute truth in your own mind?

    If I am able to doubt it in my mind, apparently it’s not absolute knowledge. If I can’t confess I’m 100% certain and that it can’t be anything else, then apparently it’s not absolute knowledge.

    Keep in mind the point I made a while back about whether or not one thinks any knowledge is dependent upon also knowing the source it came from at the same time.

I say revelation only confers belief, not necessarily truth. 

…

*** If you can't, then it would seem to me that you believe either (a), (b), or ( c ), since what one "knows" only in one's own mind, without proof that can be articulated, is simply a "belief" and not necessarily epistemological knowledge, IMO.  Or, I guess, you take the more direct route and jump to believing that R is AK directly.

    Basically you’re saying that “mere belief” is all that there is in our mind and that revelation could only give that mere belief (as opposed to absolute knowledge, like I’m proposing). Well, by your own standards I would think that’s something you’ll have to prove as well. (Although, as your position seems to deny such truth, it would mean you can’t do it). (Notice your statement is not an analytical one so it can’t be given any definitive status.)

    (Again as my position is being offered 'hypothetically' I'm certainly not in the position to prove that it is indeed occuring. Although "proving" things is definitely what this whole general topic is all about, and if the hypothetical method I'm posing is correct, "proof", in the colloquial sense, either totally begs the question of 'how do you know' all over again and/or is entirely dependent upon revelation still.)

** On truth:  Revelation could only assuredly confer absolute truth as well as belief IMO if truth only existed within oneself, whereas I have the position that it exists outside of oneself.  Thus there is only one real truth set that we try to access. 

What? This is what I’m talking about. How could I possibly understand that? It doesn’t even have any clear connection to anything else you’ve said.

   Truth means truth (ya the “one truth” if that’s really a qualification) and “where it is located” in a literal sense would have no relation to that meaning. The only thing I could catch a hint of is maybe you mean “subjectivism” in reference to “within”. But I couldn’t possibly see any relevance in mentioning that (for the purpose I still don’t know) and I’ve already dealt with why subjectivism is meaningless.

4. Ugh.  "Varying" could mean between 0% and 100% only and be just as valid.

  And yet I still don’t know what you’re talking about in relation to anything you’ve been presenting. And I’m too afraid to ask what you mean by valid.

 I took this to mean that "interpretation" implied uncertainty and I don't know how else I could have taken it.  So I responded that no, interpretation did not necessarily imply uncertainty. 

Sorry, don’t understand what that means or it’s relationship.

5. Empiricism is not merely “about” interpretations of sense data. Empiricism is specifically saying that one can obtain the correct interpretation of sense data by sense data (there’s more to empiricism than that but it isn’t relevant to what we’re discussing). So when I say revelation would give you the correct interpretation(s) it’s no longer empiricism at all. Since the doctrine of empiricism is to derive such truth from sense data.

    Just in case: whether knowledge can be categorized systematically as input/output in relation to the world is not the issue. Just how we get knowledge in the first place (yes yes, absolute knowledge, something knowingly dependable).

One cannot derive absolute knowledge from input, except e.g. if I look at a mathematical proof and see that it is correct, then it is still correct even though the world may not actually exist. Other than that, I think I would agree with your argument.

Sorry, don’t understand what that means. 

 That's the third time I've said that phrase this post, isn't it?  Please don't kill me!