@layman,
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.