I see you have a touch of adjectival diarrhoea !
The "point" I am making here which your
vested interests and intellectual baggage make you blind to, is that words like "know", "existence" and "reality" are NEVER context independent, and that those contexts always have a personal element (called "I") and a social element (which Kuhn called "paradigm"). So the "I" which believers like Neo see themselves as "being"
is set within a particular variety of religious social paradigm (JW I think). And when such a person asserts "I know", he does indeed know
within his paradigm on which his self integrity is predicated. That "I" cannot say otherwise. Its
"existence" as viewed by itself proves the point.
The other nail in your particular intellectual coffin is that you fail to understand that paradigms in general, and scientific ones in particular, are are based on consensus
which shifts with zeitgeist
and is a function of conditioning. (Your
resistance of such conditioning puts you out on a limb). The historical consensus surrounding SR is impervious to your
puny attempts to overturn it. It was a natural fait accompli
which generated subsequent advances in physics irrespective of later hindsight when viewed from alternative paradigms (themselves subject to revision).
Of course, the integrity of that "layman" you call yourself will resist such contextual analysis. Who would want accept that their intellectual investment hitherto had been futile ? So go on, thrash about with irrelevancies about my
"philosophical status". Set up a "fresco" which "laymen" needs to demolish. But don't expect another "fresco" who is aware
of such games to want to play.