With an afterlife, things you do on Earth have no effect on the eventual outcome of the universe.

Without an afterlife, things you do on Earth have an effect on the eventual outcome of the universe.

My assumption is that the afterlife has characteristics of most religions on Earth (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.) where this world will eventually come to an end and a new will begin.

As opposed to this world coming to an end to be replaced by nothing?  Wow, I can see what a difference my charitable contribution really made in the long run!  

And doesn't it bother you that you're relying on the assumption that the Earthly deeds have no effect on who gets into what afterlife?  

Also, even if the old world is erased and replaced by the new, everyone who still remembers the old world is thus affected by what happened in it, i.e. earthly deeds.  (As in my first question.)  Or, let's say, the number of friends he starts out with in Heaven.   

Finally, does this mean that you concede that the existence of an afterlife doesn't per se mean that the preceding lifetime was meaningless, if there is not a "world reboot"?  

I make no difference between the world being replaced by (insert religious reference here) or the universe coming to an end.  In scientific terms, our universe would end in a Big Freeze as cosmic accelerates continues its course, Big Crunch as the universe collapses on itself, or through the natural decay of atomic particles.  Thats if mankind or other forms of life are not able to have an affect on the end of the universe or prevent themselves from being a casualty of it, and noone can currently make an educated guess about this.

If your Earthly deeds get you into the afterlife, they would matter in the sense as that they are the reason you are there.  However, these memories (as well as other ones) would be nothing more than a fading memory that would be forgotten with time. 

My point is that if it is forgotten or doesn't have an effect on the outcome of the universe, then it doesnt matter.  I cant remember what I did when I was 3 months old, so do these forgotten events matter?  About all I know of these childhood events is that I didnt manage to kill my self since I am still here.  However, lets say I'm in Heaven (fat chance) in a trillion years, will I remember if I came to Heaven as a child that choked to death on a hot dog or as a old man who died of old age?

Some questions I would like for you to answer:

If you are in Heaven, would you remember what you did on Earth a trillion years in the future?  If before the Big Bang there was a universe that use to exist be but was destroyed along with all traces of everything that occured in that universe, would events that took place in that universe matter?

Perhaps I was misunderstanding you.  I had thought that you were saying that there were deeds or whatnot that were meaningful if there was not Heaven, but not meaningful if there was Heaven.  I mentioned this point several times and that I disagreed with it.  

So when you say that, if you consider the two cases of everything being dead in the universe with no afterlife, or people in Heaven who have totally forgotten mortal existence, in both cases the events in that dead/forgotten past are equally meaningless, I AGREE!  But I perceived that to be the opposite of your earlier claim. 

[edit:  Belatedly, I'd like to add the caveat that the Earthly events are only "meaningless" in Heaven in that they don't mean anything to anyone; they still "matter" in that they had an impact on who is in Heaven at all.

[Also:  no response?]

  It may help to remind you what I was responding to:  "What I’m trying to communicate is that justification in epistemology amounts to “establishing” that which it already essentially is. This is contrary to establishing that which it was not [...]"

   I still don’t know what else you’re trying to say in response to my clarification of what I put forth about justification. I still don’t know how you’re attempting to make justification an applicable concept to epistemology, so that would be a problem any time you refer to justification. This bit about “being aware of justification” in relation to a belief becoming knowledge (or whatever, since I don’t really understand it) seems beyond that essential issue for me to understand you.

    What I said was that having been justified is a change of essence from the perspective the person who has justified it, so a true belief is not already (before justification) essentially that which it is after justification.  Obviously it was true before, and let's say we believed it to be true, but now we've established that it's true.  The truth of it did not change; the belief (we're saying) did not change; a third aspect changed (from "not justified (by me)" to "justified").
 
   Sure, but of course I see that change of essence as “becoming certain/indubitable” and so with your reference to justification: Again my lack of content and function for justification is still something I’m waiting for you to provide (something other or more than indubitability).

This is borderline gibberish to me.  You seem to be saying, "Calling it 'belief and truth' is misguided for reasons I don't feel like going into AT ALL.  Also, I misled you earlier when I agreed to that description," without saying explicitly whether you are rejecting truth as a separate condition.  Is that anywhere near the mark? 

  The term “belief” has just been very ambiguous. Yes I don’t care to go into much because I think our clear issue is over justification and the function it was hoped to perform to “that which is not knowledge”.
   In one sense, yes, “true belief” is certainly a description of knowledge. But in that sense if we held a “true belief” then what’s the problem, what’s the question? It doesn’t seem to make any literal sense to ask “Is the true belief really true?”. However asking “How we really know it is a ‘true belief’?” catches a hint of something else we’re after (and/or some distinction made within terminology perhaps).
   Anyway, I really just don’t think it’s useful to argue about whatever you may think of that. The issue is definitely over the meaning of justification and the ‘characteristic’ it was hoped to bring to “that which is not knowledge”.

To you the term "belief" can only refer to what I might call "doubtable belief" -- good to know.
     I see dubitability and indubitability both as reference to belief.  It is a reference to the state of mind of us having an opinion of something.  Dubitability is simply there being a possibility of us thinking, "could I be wrong?" and indubitability is (also simply) the impossibility of that.  I do not think that either of those states can affect whether the opinion is actually in accord with the truth. 

   We’re still toying with the definition of belief and since we’re not accepting each others meaning I’ll just say it’s irrelevant. We accept the difference between dubitable and indubitable. You say that indubitability is not what (alone perhaps) makes something knowledge. I need to know what you think does make it knowledge, how justification performs that (or what “establishing” entails as I’ve seen you use recently), and (or rather) what justification means to you (in a way that isn’t the inapplicable conception I’ve exposed it to be).
 
    Without distracting from those fundamental questions to you: In my understanding certainly/indubitability is simply the essential characteristic of knowledge. If “knowledge” can be doubted, if we can conjure up an equal possibility in our mind, then we are right back to good ol’ Descartes looking for certainty among them, looking for a method to become certain.
    Again, I don’t wish to hear a comment on this, some further addition, aspect of disagreement, or thought. I just say it to put my position in perspective of yours when I ask for those former questions to be answered.

I ... look, you're saying I'm being intellectually dishonest, and you can say "now don't take this the wrong way" all day long but it doesn't change what you're suggesting.  Not saying you shouldn't call people out on shit they try to pull (even unconsciously or inadvertently) but don't pretend you're not accusing them of anything.  Because you are.  If I say someone has misspelled a word, I'm ACCUSING them of misspelling.  And I'm right.  And sometimes they get indignant.  But I'm still right.  In this case I'm insulted, and say you're wrong. 

   Right, I suggested that you were engaged in sophistry. I didn’t deny that afterward either. I also didn’t claim it was intentional. If an error in thinking is not intentional, can you call it intellectual dishonesty? But anyway, if it was taken as a mere insult, then I apologize.
   Regarding any purposeful ‘negativity’, I do feel, however, that any such subliminal sarcasm within the content of the contentions I’ve brought to this discussion have been fairly mild and not so irrelevantly abrasive in nature. Rather it’s been more the language and attitude of a formal, respectable debate. I think your expressions of frustration and indictments have been a tad more abrasive in my perspective.

Well ... so you are saying that if the meanings of the words are what you think they are, then I, as an at least somewhat rational person, could not mean that when I said those words? 

   No, I’m saying I don’t understand what you mean by those group of words together. I’ve mentioned my suspicion that it’s going to be ultimately meaningless (like many philosophies seem to be to me) or morphed into something else upon nit picking but go ahead and explain it more so I’ll have a chance to figure that out.
   I of course hold that many adhere to propositions thought to be coherent and meaningful but which are not upon deeper examination. I don’t think they have to be idiots to do that.

Would it be too much to ask you to take a look at my previous posts (relevant to that point) and take a stab at what you think I did mean (or might have meant)?

I did. I still don’t know what you mean. I’d say it comes off as “gibberish” but I would wonder if I’d be accused of being insulting. 

Here is where we are at:
   This is the fundamental issue and my responses have been attempting to point back to it. I either don’t see how your previous responses have related to it (as I haven’t understood most of it for one) or they really don’t relate to it.
   This is the only thing I see as primary at this point so I’m obviously hoping you can merely respond to this (as opposed to each previous “point” which I’ve attempted to dig back to this root.)

1. Explain to me what justification means to you (In specific regards to, and in a way which isn’t the ‘inapplicable conception’ I’ve explained it to be).
2. (If truly separate from the first question:) Explain to me what justification/establishing was supposed to do to “that which is not knowledge” to make it knowledge if not merely to make it indubitable. (I prefer the question in that language but you could say rather: What is your formula of knowledge? Obviously do not respond to all this by just saying in some way “it needs to be justified/established” as what you mean justification is what I’m at a loss for – hence my “first question”.)

   Since there’s so much trouble understanding each other, please present your case in baby-steps, if you will. Much of the time you explain something to me again it looks different, like there’s an additional piece of information you’re giving me or coming from some totally different aspect (or it’s irrelevant etc. etc.). Connect the dots really slowly and explicitly, leaving no relationship unturned, if you find that doable.

In light of your evident desire to boil this down, I did not respond to points individually.  Feel free to reinsert anything you wish a specific response to. 

NOTE:  One part is going to get revision for clarity, see below NOTE.  (UPDATE:  the UPDATE has been delivered.)
[edit:  edited in a period lasting approximately from 2009 July 03 04:38 to 05:30.]

Belief
I know we have different ideas of "belief", but I at least think we understand each others' concepts of it.  (At least mostly?)  Let me know if you do not feel the same way. 

Truth
I don't recall at the moment having had any disagreements lately on what "truth" is. 

Justification
Justification is something that connects what I call belief to truth.  [edit: (Hereafter in "Justification", "belief" always refers to what I call belief, which if I have understood correctly includes what you call beliefs as well as what you call certainties (since I don't think that certainties necessarily equate to knowledge; see the following and "Knowledge" and "Certainty").)]  Belief is not true or false in and of itself, although the belief can be OF a position that is true or false.  Truth is similarly unconnected to belief; it is fact, a state of being of the universe.  Personal perception and opinion is irrelevant to whether something is true (aside, obviously, from the truth of what you perceive or opine). 

So justification is what establishes that which is believed as also being true, or connects the belief to truth.  Until justification occurs, the belief is not connected to truth, even if it coincides with truth by chance.  That is my biggest problem with indubitability/certainty; there is nothing that ensures that the certainty is true, unless there is some agent or agency that either I overlooked in some post or you have not mentioned.  The certainty is only certain TO ONESELF; there is no actual, universal truth value attached, only one's opinion, however absolutely certain that opinion may be.  Without justification, there is only belief, because none of us can literally have "truth". 

Justification can justify either conditionally (If A is true, then B is true) or absolutely (B is true) -- at least theoretically; whether or not anything could ever actually be absolutely justified is in question, of course. 

Inapplicable Conception
Now what does that remind me of...?

But seriously, I believe you refer to the following objection:  that justification requires preexisting knowledge in order to prove anything as knowledge [edit: (in other words, in order to justify what I would call a belief, which would create knowledge, which is awareness of the justification of the truth of that belief)], so it's useless if you don't already have knowledge or another way of getting it.  [edit:  (You said "meaningless", not "useless", which may imply a different type of objection, but I did not notice an objection to justification other than along those lines upon this review.  And, in fact, further review seems to support the idea that you were attacking it as being useless.)]

My response is twofold:
(1) In certain cases preexisting knowledge is not required (using the "(aside, obviously, from the truth of what you perceive or opine)" loophole for obtaining truth). 
(2) There is not an alternative method for establishing that a relationship exists between (what I call belief) and the truth [edit:  and what that relationship is], which is a necessary part of knowledge IMO (see "Knowledge").[*] 

You also spoke of sense data being (epistemological) knowledge without justification, through lack of doubt.  This is basically a statement of your "indubitable = knowledge" idea, which I did not yet see.  You can see in my response at the time that it was basically, "but that's just belief".  (Well, to be honest, that's pretty much still how I see it.)  My response also stated my idea that in this type of case our belief of our own perception was by itself justification for the truth of our own perception, which is how we can know we percieve what we believe we percieve.  (As in (1) above.) 

NOTE:  I recognize that this may be a bit muddled, but I'm posting anyway as I'm leaving for work.  I will check back to revise later.
UPDATE:  Instead of revising the above, I simply added the above example and explanation:
Let's recall an earlier part of the thread, where you talked about the problem with using our perceptions to make judgments about reality.  The problem is simply that our perceptions don't give 100% accurate reflections of reality (the piano illusion and so on).  But our perceptions are 100% accurate reflections of our perceptions (although "reflections" might not be the word anymore), right?  So that is why we can use them to make judgments about reality regarding our perceptions.  Everybody simply accepts their senses; but only a person who makes the above realization can be said to know (epistemologically) that he sees what appears to him to be a piano, while others are merely certain of it (and their certainty, in the case of personal perceptions, coincides with truth).  Complete and utter acceptance, without that understanding, which is what "certainty" appears to me to be (see "Certainty"), is still not knowledge (see "Knowledge" and "Certainty"). 

[* edit:  It occurs to me that that's a fairly obvious thing to say, as I'm only defining justification as something that establishes such a relationship.  But my key point is that it's necessary and certainty doesn't do it.]

Knowledge
Obviously (that which I call belief) and truth that are united by mere chance don't qualify as knowledge, don't you agree?  So knowledge needs to contain an element that excludes that from the definition.  Justification does this.  IMO certainty does not (see "Justification" and "Certainty"). 

[edit:  Oh, I just put this in an above edit and liked its succinctness:  knowledge is "awareness of the justification of the truth of a belief" (by my definition of belief).]

Certainty
While I'm at it, I should take a moment to check on something.  I've come to have doubt that I really got what you meant.  I now have two possibilities in my mind: 
(1) One is unable to concieve of a world wherein the certainty is not true.  (Implies (2), obviously.)
(2) One is unable to honestly entertain the possibility of the certainty not being true. 
Please let me know which is the best descriptor of what you mean, or (sigh) if neither are close, then please try to spell it out (again?). 

Either way, IMO, certainty does nothing but specify how strong the (thing I call belief) is, so unless (for some reason) we are/can be certain of a (belief) ONLY IF it is true, then no (belief)-to-truth connection has been established.  (In that case, certainty would still accomplish nothing in and of itself (IMO), but its sheer existence would imply that the (belief) is true.)

Re: Sophistry
Oh, I'll certainly admit I've been more abrasive.  On the other hand, I prefer attacks to be open, so I don't think "subliminal sarcasm" is preferable to open scorn, which I've tried to avoid (although if "subliminal" means what I think it means then I suppose you couldn't help it).  Of course, if I was engaging in one of those as well as general abrasiveness, then that is a failure on my part. 

Gibberish
"I did. I still don’t know what you mean. I’d say it comes off as “gibberish” but I would wonder if I’d be accused of being insulting."

One.  I dislike sly sarcasm, at least when it pretends to be innocent.  I find it hard to believe that was subliminal. 
Two.  If the question is made irrelevant by the above post, please take (Three.) as advice for future reference.
Three.  You didn't answer the question.  Is it "yes"?  Was it indeed too much to ask?  If so, fine.  If not, take your best damn guess, not just keep on saying LOL WUT.

Where we're at
I'm pretty happy with how the above turned out (except the NOTE, which I've since UPDATEd) and I certainly hope you find the answers to your two requests -- because if you don't, I don't know if it wouldn't be better to abandon this even after all these months of not giving up.

I'm sorry but I see religion as a crutch people use to make up for things they don't understand or are afraid to.

Afraid of death? If you're good you'll go to heaven!

Thinking that homosexuality is "unnatural" or sinful is just plain wrong, which is why I'm happily atheist.

I appreciate the response and found it a bit more close-nit and understandable.

Belief
   The statements addressing our struggle to define belief I found confusing and there is still a gray area of what you may be implying sometimes but in my understanding I take it simply as “that which is not knowledge” – call it “opinion” if you will.
    To address any further subliminal concerns in bickering about the word belief: Trying to say in essence that “well doesn’t everyone just have belief - isn’t that all there is in our minds?” would just sound like equivocation. Trying to say in essence “well don’t most people feel certain about what they believe – isn’t that just part of the nature of belief?” is an assumption (I’d say belief but obviously the term has a different particular meaning in the discussion) and not even problematic to what I’m saying unless you have further assumptions of what people are truly certain about.

Justification
   In the cause of clarity, I appreciate the analogous language of justification as “connecting” belief to truth. What I am still needing from you, however, is clarification on how justification goes about doing this, as I am still at a loss for how you get around the “uselessness” of justification as I feel I exposed. I do not understand your claimed example still of it’s occurrence in sense data (and obviously think I already know what you’d have to do to make some sense out of it – start with knowledge at some point which would defeat the notion of justification already, but again, go ahead and clarify for me.)

Certainty and Establishing the “Connection”
   As “connection” is a bit analogous and not so abstract I’d have to play along a bit to conform what I’m saying to it. I am not necessarily accepting this “connection” as a real thing of course in recognizing it is in some way analogous. *Blah blah blah disclaimers*.

   If a “connection” were to be made we would, according to your scheme, have to be aware of it to note “oh belief X has been connected to truth, therefore I know X”. If one was not aware of the connection, apparently he would still be in a state of ‘opinion’.
   Therein lies my point though. Within accepting this scheme, being aware of the connection – would already be what is meant in knowledge. For: Are you certain the connection has been made? How do you really know the connection has been made? Whatever you require as a process or formula for knowledge must already begin with that essential element that I already understand to be the essential element of knowledge – certainty/indubitability. Again, if not, I will ask how you know the connection has been made, or exists, or whatever terminology you wish to use, analogous or abstract. To whatever you assert, if you remain consistent, the question of being certain of what you are positing for the reality of obtaining knowledge will continue forever.
   Apparently it doesn’t occur to you to question the certainty of something you claim you’re “aware of”. That’s what I mean by knowledge. That’s what I mean [EDIT:  in the case of] ‘perceptions’ (as you put it) of sense data.
   If you feel this is twisting the analogous use of “connection” then I’d just go back to the raw question again which is the same issue: How do you justify a belief? (Or rather what does justification do exactly?) (Repeating that it in some way ‘justifies’, ‘establishes’, or ‘connects’ would not be explaining anything more but synonymous terms.)

[EDIT: If 'connection' was suppose to be an explanation of how justification could occur without knowledge already then I would definitely see it as merely renaming justification or putting it into an analogy without addressing the specific problem I've raised for it - or rather, not answering how it accomplishes such 'connection' without knowledge already being present.]

Inapplicable Conception of Justification
Now what does that remind me of…?

Do I detect “sly innocent sarcasm”?

My response is twofold:
(1) In certain cases preexisting knowledge is not required (using the "(aside, obviously, from the truth of what you perceive or opine)" loophole for obtaining truth). 
(2) There is not an alternative method for establishing that a relationship exists between (what I call belief) and the truth [edit:  and what that relationship is], which is a necessary part of knowledge IMO (see "Knowledge").[*]

1. Again, still waiting for clarification on the explanation of that.
2. Within this use of the term “connection”, finding yourself certain that there was such a “connection” would be the alternative “method” *chuckles at how annoying that must sound*. Now,  saying it “needs to be established” may carry the subliminal assumption that there simply must be a method the individual discovers and initiates. But rather, according to revelation (still within this scheme of terms), you may describe the connection as “established for you”.

You also spoke of sense data being (epistemological) knowledge without justification, through lack of doubt.  This is basically a statement of your "indubitable = knowledge" idea, which I did not yet see.  You can see in my response at the time that it was basically, "but that's just belief".  (Well, to be honest, that's pretty much still how I see it.)  My response also stated my idea that in this type of case our belief of our own perception was by itself justification for the truth of our own perception, which is how we can know we percieve what we believe we percieve.  (As in (1) above.) 

   I believe my answer to your response was the ol’ “lol wut”. Whatever you might mean by your response, I still pose that you’re inevitably starting with something – whether you call it awareness of something, recognition, perception, whatever. You’ll be granting knowledge of something somewhere without “justifying” it. Otherwise I’m still betting it’s making unreal distinctions merely by way of words.
   Like here’s a thought: “Believing your perception”? Perception already means it’s in your mind and if not in the state of knowledge than, for your sake I’ll say, of belief – which makes “Believing your perception” meaningless. It’s like saying believing a belief or believing knowledge. It already is a belief or knowledge (granting your disagreement in that distinction of course).
   …Further if a perception… is a perception… than it is what it is. If said perception is in your mind… as only a perception can be… it’s a perception. How does one sensibly set it aside from belief and knowledge… and then say that believing it makes it knowledge. I’m only attempting to show my issue with the words here. Still waiting for some clarification [EDIT: for] a sensible set of statements to appear to me (I promise I don’t mean to sound demeaning in that).

NOTE:  I recognize that this may be a bit muddled, but I'm posting anyway as I'm leaving for work.  I will check back to revise later.
UPDATE:  Instead of revising the above, I simply added the above example and explanation:
Let's recall an earlier part of the thread, where you talked about the problem with using our perceptions to make judgments about reality.  The problem is simply that our perceptions don't give 100% accurate reflections of reality (the piano illusion and so on).

   Removing potential ambiguity: Our perceptions, if meaning sense data like I was talking about, are fine – they are what they are (what I designate as knowledge but not trying to mix up any separate issues if you see it that way). [EDIT: But] it’s our interpretation about what they represent that would make them potentially an inaccurate reflection of reality (rather, call them a belief if an inaccurate reflection, not interpretation for clarity sake here, *sigh* - that poor term belief).

 But our perceptions are 100% accurate reflections of our perceptions (although "reflections" might not be the word anymore), right? 

   If meaning a perception is… gee, a perception like I’m putting forth in mock response (for lack of a less abrasive sounding word) to this “perception of a perception” thing, exactly. That’s what I mean by sense data as knowledge – the perceptions are indubitable. They come without our true initiation of them, without a process of deciphering doubt and possibility, they “jump” into our mind and there’s nothing one can do about it (save the mind focusing entirely on something else it’s aware of [EDIT: and so not being aware of the former] - if one were to miss the point).

To everything else in this section: I’m just tired of writing at the moment. I’m responding to what I see as relevant anyway. Although I’m giving in to reiteration this time because I’m also tired of reorganizing. This is all repeating the same issue it seems. I would hope you’ll address them accordingly.

Knowledge
   Sure I agree. When belief (that which is not knowledge) happens to mimic (coincide with, if you care) truth, it’s still not knowledge. Fairly definitive.
   They have to be “connected”, sure, and to me that means more clearly that the belief would become knowledge – it would gain the essential element I call indubitibility. That’s just what knowledge means to me.
   If it be important to point out and not seemingly random: A process of getting to knowledge, if there be, should not be confused with the meaning of knowledge.

Certainty
While I'm at it, I should take a moment to check on something.  I've come to have doubt that I really got what you meant.  I now have two possibilities in my mind: 
(1) One is unable to concieve of a world wherein the certainty is not true.  (Implies (2), obviously.)
(2) One is unable to honestly entertain the possibility of the certainty not being true. 
Please let me know which is the best descriptor of what you mean, or (sigh) if neither are close, then please try to spell it out (again?). 

I’m not sure I understand exactly what you mean in these or what the question is exactly. Maybe I’m just caught up on “certainty” being within what I think might be a question about my definition of certainty. I don’t know. Sorry.

Either way, IMO, certainty does nothing but specify how strong the (thing I call belief) is, so unless (for some reason) we are/can be certain of a (belief) ONLY IF it is true, then no (belief)-to-truth connection has been established.  (In that case, certainty would still accomplish nothing in and of itself (IMO), but its sheer existence would imply that the (belief) is true.)

   Yes, I say we can only be indubitable over knowledge since I find it the essential characteristic in the meaning of knowledge. That’s the reason.
   Again I assert, the only way to “move” opinion (or connect it) to knowledge will require that certainty somewhere – something you will just have to say you’re aware of – something that can’t be doubted.

Sophistry
   Maybe I dislike open attacks (or insults, since that’s what the accusation was over I thought). I feel the “sly innocent sarcasm” is part of my arguing language (like literally a form of communication) along with many people I read and discuss with. Again I’m not really saying them for the purpose of being insulting, while the effect of portraying a position negatively is there. I’m sorry if you find it entirely aggravating. Not sure if I can root that entirely out of my communication at this point.
   I feel it would be unreserved or juvenile of me to express my feelings [EDIT: if I wanted to merely express them] about your reasoning or position in open abrasive remarks. I don’t know that I’ll resort to that. (Perhaps that was sarcastic again.)

Gibberish
   When I said “I did” that was a “no that’s not too much to ask”. I read them again. I don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t think I could “take a guess” and be serious about it since I read it as something rather confused. It doesn’t make sense to me and if you’re using the words the way I understand them and explained them, it can’t make sense.
   Please clarify. (Although this request is now being repeated above I believe). (Getting lost now)

Where we are:
That was all very repetitious of the same points. Hopefully you can pick them out and respond accordingly. I believe it’s really still where I thought we were at last time.

Belief
Opinion, sure—but doesn’t that sidestep the main dispute between us? [edit: And I would say "not by itself knowledge".  Just to make absolutely sure that we're not implying exclusivity here.]

As for the rest, it didn’t seem to me to be on point.

Justification
So you feel pain.  How do you know you feel pain?  Because you feel pain.  It’s tautological if I’m remembering the term correctly.
You see (what appears to you to be) a piano.  How do you know you see it?  Because you see it.

But is it REALLY a piano?  That’s a question that cannot be answered absolutely by your sense data if it is not infallible.  All you know is what you see, not whether what you see is an accurate reflection of ‘reality’ (the truth).  (Similarly for “But is it really X that’s hurting you?”  The knife feels sharp, but whether it is sharp (or a knife) is another story.)

The perceptions themselves are proof of what you perceive, because your perceptions are ipso facto what you perceive.  But your perceptions may not be ‘true’.

If that doesn’t help you understand, then, considering the amount of times I’ve tried in the past, I have to ask if you honestly think any further attempts by me could realistically be expected to succeed.  (Regardless of whose fault it is.)

Certainty vs. Connection
Well, if you want to play the game of “well maybe that proof you just did was some sort of hallucination and you actually haven’t proved jack” then obviously you can’t prove anything, and thus can’t know anything.  But keep in mind that whether you actually did the proof is not relevant as long as you are aware of the proof—if (unbeknownst to you) you were created five seconds ago complete with false memories of learning the Pythagorean Theorem, it’s still true and you still know it.

How do you justify a belief? (Or rather what does justification do exactly?) (Repeating that it in some way ‘justifies’, ‘establishes’, or ‘connects’ would not be explaining anything more but synonymous terms.

Sorry, but I see this as similar to if I were to say, “How are you certain of something, exactly?  ([edit:  Saying that something indubitable] ‘cannot be doubted’ is not explaining anything but simply restating it.)”  I admit “establish” and “justify” were being used fairly interchangeably at one point but when I said “makes a connection between the belief and the truth” I think that’s a pretty basic definition of the function I’m trying to describe.  I’m not sure how it would be broken down further.

Inapplicable Conception of Justification
Oh, please.  It was a JOKE with no deeper meaning, and clearly not serious or any conceivable jab at any of your arguments.  Are you really going to claim that your remarks were of a similar nature?

1.  I believe this was answered above—or at least the latest of MANY attempts was made.
2.  I believe your counterargument (first sentence of your response) hinges on the issue discussed in “Certainty”.

Knowledge
Likewise, your claim that indubitability is in fact incompatible with the possibility of mistakenness lies at the key of our disagreement here, and discussion of this rightly belongs in “Certainty”.

Certainty
Yes, I say we can only be indubitable over knowledge since I find it the essential characteristic in the meaning of knowledge. That’s the reason.

But that isn’t a reason at all!  That’s just your position, which you haven’t explained the basis for.  Why is it impossible for someone to have an indubitable opinion that is mistaken?

(“It just is!” is not acceptable, unless, I suppose, you’re going to argue that that is an indubitable opinion you hold and therefore cannot be mistaken, and if you feel like begging the question.  “It is because that’s how I’m defining indubitability!” would (if you go this route, and I’m not saying you have or will) seem to me to leave itself open to potential contradiction with reality, absent … er, justification.)

Gibberish
When I said “I did” that was a “no that’s not too much to ask”. I read them again. I don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t think I could “take a guess” and be serious about it since I read it as something rather confused. It doesn’t make sense to me and if you’re using the words the way I understand them and explained them, it can’t make sense.
   Please clarify. (Although this request is now being repeated above I believe). (Getting lost now)

Here is my original request:  Would it be too much to ask you to take a look at my previous posts (relevant to that point) and take a stab at what you think I did mean (or might have meant)?

Now, it seems to me that BY YOUR OWN TESTIMONY you have fulfilled the first part of that request (rereading stuff), but failed to fulfill the second part (“taking a stab [AKA guess] at what you think I did mean”), and in fact do not feel able to do it at all.  So it perplexes me that you deny that “it was too much to ask”, since you yourself appear to have said that it was indeed too much to ask.  You did notice the “AND”, right?  (The reasonableness of the request is not a factor in this equation.  That is why I said “If so, fine”:  because it might have been too much to ask.)   

Where we are
It is my hope that the entire debate has boiled down to one key issue (“Certainty”), and one side issue (“Gibberish”) which can hopefully be quickly resolved.  As for the key issue, it may well be unresolvable if it comes down to unreconcilable opinions, but at least we’ve identified (hopefully correctly) what has truly been at the heart of this epic debate, having penetrated (or perhaps strip-mined) so many layers of disagreement and misunderstanding.

If so, I’m glad, even if after all this time we simply throw up our hands and walk away.  I can’t say it’s been an unalloyed pleasure—at times I felt queasy whenever I saw this thread had a new post—but though I can regret the torturous route we’ve taken, I don’t regret having the debate in the first place. 

Not really a suprise to me, i thought it would be more.