[quote="Gaber, post:17, topic:284812"]
I think that that is an important distinction. And yet, any such argument has avail only with the already convinced. So it cant really be said that such arguments intrinsically prove anything other than that a believer can have an exegesis of a "spiritual" experience, however genuine, in the realm of discursive thinking.
In my opinion, this is supported by noting that those who have the highest form of revelation, as far as I can see, unanimously declare that words and writings can only point, and are not themselves of any real use except as a sign of possibility.
There is also the question of what is proved. Say that someone accepts a "proof" as valid. And they have not had a direct experience. Ultimately, they are working a hypothesis until they have gone past the fulcrum that tips mysticism into the fulfillment of contemplation. That is to say that even phenomena and visions are yet not the end point of other than a more refined state the has not yet got past itself in the most and final radical transformation in understanding.
So in a way, an intellectual "proof" is just that: a proof to the kind of intellect that would accept that sort of linearity as adequate. In practice, it is not. other than as a possible goad to know beyond the intellect how it is that we can have and use an intellect. In other words, what is it that is behind and supports the discursive mind. That is a question that someone in the realm of considering that a "proof" is possible may not even ask. It is, after all, a tendency of the mind to assume that its stunningly limited concepts have an actual 1/1 correspondence to Reality. Do they? In the case of such arguments as we speak of, they can only end with the admission of using a marker for exploring further possibilities. That is to say the best end of such a "proof" is the detection of a posited need to engage in practice that discovers Substance.
We may be agreeing on this more than I perceive, but I lke a bit more detail in such expositions. :)
You still haven't provided an explanation of how (or if) your views on this subject are reconciled with Magisterial and Scriptural teachings related to this subject. I'm assuming you are Catholic, though I don't know what the word "Ronin" is supposed to indicate.
Regarding what you have posted, if I'm following you your position seems to hinge on the questioning of the axioms or assumptions that underlie rational thought. What is the value of human reason? What, if anything, is the relationship between my thoughts and objective truth, if there is such a thing? How can I discover the answer to these questions with my own reason, since that is the very faculty the value of which I am questioning? Without an answer to these questions, how can I accept any apparent conclusion reached through this faculty?
So far I've only been able to discover two answers to this kind of fundamental question: the practical argument that without accepting certain assumptions any kind of thought (including skepticism) is impossible, and faith.
This is why I included the last statement of my previous post. I have a private theory that the teachings of the Bible and the Church do not deal with the question of reason and the natural knowledge of God's existence on this ultimate level of consideration, but from the perspective of having accepted with certainty the assumptions underlying rational thought. From the perspective of faith, this attitude on the part of Scripture and the Magisterium constitutes an affirmation of reason's value beyond the merely practical argument and thus leads one to certainty or at least the affirmation of the possibility of certainty regarding the conclusions of human reason.