How certain are we that God exists?

[ThinkingSapien]

Well, it is your right to not produce a better definition.

I’ve not refused to improve my definition. Prior to now you haven’t given any information on inadequacy, incompleteness, or anything else wrong. If you only tell me you don’t like it there is no where to go from there.

I will have other things to say about your definition, right now your idea of certain, certainty is founded on emotion i.e. , “a feeling of confidence,” compared to mine.

Certainity and doubt are in reference to a humans disposition is inexorably entangled with feeling. I am starting to think it’s not certainity that you are looking for as much as veridicality. “Certainity” is not the same as correctness. Look up the Dunning–Kruger effect. As an example.

Seekers of definitions are not after fulfilling their feelings, but after a guide to the facts, events, objects in actual reality of the universe from the definitions of words.

Okay, I don’t know what you are trying to communicate here…

Okay, just put your example into your extant definition and your seeker of definitions will feel what?

And I can’t tell what you are asking me here.

“I’m certain, I mean I have a feeling of confidence like for example that today from my house the sun will go below the horizon at 8:20pm.”

Yes I am!

Anyway, as we are now into polishing our definitions, will you insert your example in your definition, so that the improved definition from you will still be less than 50 words.

I have a feeling of confidence that from where I am the sun will go below the horizon at 8:20p today.

Another criterion of a good useful definition is that it be NOT directed toward feelings, but toward purely intellective (not emotive) considerations.

That’s not correct. Try to define “glad” without making any reference to emotion. If you make a reference to emotion then your definition doesn’t meet your criteria for “useful.”

KingCoil

ThinkingSapien

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[KingCoil]

#178 from KingCoil
Certain means that a piece of information like there is a nose in our face can be verified again and again if we doubt it, by applying our senses like sight to experience its presence.

#186 from Ypopp
The level of certainty of the existence of something depends on probability of the existence of a possible alternative. The lower the probability of the possible alternative, the higher the level of certainty. Absolute certainty means that the something to which it refers has no alternative, 2+2=4 for example.

Dear Yppop, you have provided an example, that is good.

But take notice, we have not yet come to absolute certainty; certainty is a term, and absolute certainty is another term – we are concerned as of now with the term certain, certainty, not yet with absolute certainty, that will come after we have concurred on what is certain, certainty.

You have also brought in the word probability.

And you accuse me of bringing in the word concept.

The thing is that the word concept is a common easy word, while probability is a word that calls for a lot of explaining.

I have been using the word concept all the time, and now you discover that I am introducing it just now in my exposition on the definition of the words, certain, certainty.

And you are thus saying adios, well that is your right to leave, but your definition is still on record in this thread.

What do we do with your definition?

Better you execute a formal withdrawal so that you have in effect never joined in the work to concur on the definition of the word and thus the concept (yes that word which you make a lot of in order to ‘adios’ from this work of concurring) of certain or certainty.

So, Yppop, what do you say, should I now just concentrate on three definitions from posters here who do care to join in the work of concurring on the meaning of the words, certain, certainty?

It is a tedious work but its being tedious is because it takes a lot of thinking instead of just sprouting terms more difficult to explain or and resorting to feelings when certainty has nothing to do with feelings, but with intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Okay, as you have not yet recalled completely and irrevocably your proffered definition of certainty, I will just now point out to you that another criterion of a good useful definition of a word is to not introduce terms which need also their own definitions to the everyman literate human in the street.

Let us examine your definition and my definition:

#178 from KingCoil
Certain means that a piece of information like there is a nose in our face can be verified again and again if we doubt it, by applying our senses like sight to experience its presence.

#186 from Ypopp
The level of certainty of the existence of something depends on probability of the existence of a possible alternative. The lower the probability of the possible alternative, the higher the level of certainty. Absolute certainty means that the something to which it refers has no alternative, 2+2=4 for example.

You have introduced two terms which call out for their own definitions, namely, probability and absolute as in absolute certainty.

On my part, what words do you think I have introduced in my definition which call for also their definitions to make clear to seekers of definitions what I am expounding about with the definition of the word concerned, like certain or certainty.

Dear readers here, we have now come to three criteria of a good useful definition of a word, namely: (not in any order of importance but all three are important) * that it must have an example illustrating the word/concept concerned, [ii] that it must not be founded on feeling of confidence (emotive considerations) but on intellective considerations, and also [iii] that it must not bring in terms which call out for their own definitions.

KingCoil*

 

[KingCoil]

Dear Sapien, please don’t engage in quibbling about what is wrong or whatever with your definition, I am now talking about the criteria that make for a good useful definition of a word.

So, do some good examination of your definition of certain, certainty, and see whether it has criteria of a good useful definition, useful to the everyman literate human in the street.

KingCoil

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I am now talking about the criteria that make for a good useful definition of a word.

So, do some good examination of your definition of certain, certainty, and see whether it has criteria of a good useful definition, useful to the everyman literate human in the street.

Are you creating your own dictionary here? If not, you may have gotten lost in minutiae.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Dear Sapien, please don’t engage in quibbling about what is wrong or whatever with your definition, I am now talking about the criteria that make for a good useful definition of a word.

In all honesty I think some of your criteria is …well…bad. As is your definition. Sorry if this in any way sounds insulting. I prefer to err on the side of honesty.

So, do some good examination of your definition of certain, certainty, and see whether it has criteria of a good useful definition, useful to the everyman literate human in the street.

The people on the streets I frequent and in my communities tend to be educated at least fairly adequately. I think they would have no problem with my definition. I think we may be encountering a language barrier. But we can work through it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Are you creating your own dictionary here? If not, you may have gotten lost in minutiae.

He wants to work through agreeing on a definition for key words before presenting his argument. Honestly though I think the conversation will die before we get to the thrust of the argument. This is thread 6 of several attempts to present an argument to prove God. But they die or evolve to a new topic before any coherent argument is presented.

Might work out better if the argument were presented and then definitions be addressed from there as needed.

 

[jochoa]

Dear readers here, we have now come to three criteria of a good useful definition of a word, namely: (not in any order of importance but all three are important) * that it must have an example illustrating the word/concept concerned, [ii] that it must not be founded on feeling of confidence (emotive considerations) but on intellective considerations, and also [iii] that it must not bring in terms which call out for their own definitions.*Hmmm…ok, after further reflection, my current understanding of human certainty without consideration of God is:
A firm belief directly proportional to the perceived alignment of an object in question and reasonable analysis of one’s environment.
Examples: God, the Creator of Everything, is partly certain because you and I are the creators of everything we will create, therefore we are in the least, gods, and all earthly lives appear to have a creative origin, but not all universal things necessarily appear to have a creative origin.
God, the Causer of the Universe, is very certain because all universal events have a single causal origin.

Please consider that I am a little uncomfortable with this exercise because it is limited thinking, which ends in a limited understanding of God. For example, limiting the definition of God as the Causer of the Universe, although satisfies the certainty of God’s existence, declares nothing of God’s livelihood. Within context of the example, God could be a non-living cause, which is what many atheistic thinkers believe.

As for your definition:
Certain means that a piece of information like there is a nose in our face can be verified again and again if we doubt it, by applying our senses like sight to experience its presence.

I would suggest the following adjustments:
Certain means that a piece of information like there is a nose on one’s face can be verified by everyone in existence by experiencing its presence.

I look forward to seeing how this discussion continues to develop!

 

[KingCoil]

Let’s go to your definition and my definition:

#178 from KingCoil
Certain means that a piece of information like there is a nose in our face can be verified again and again if we doubt it, by applying our senses like sight to experience its presence.

#208 from Sapien
A state of having a feeling of confidence for an idea/proposition or feeling of trustworthiness for an object or person.

Are you going to remove or change and thus remove your feeling that certain and certainty has to do with feeling of confidence and trustworthiness; and also incorporate your example into your definition, or not?

And do so within less than 50 words?

To others who are transmitting posts here, please produce your definition of certain or certainty at the very top of your post, otherwise I don’t read your posts.

KingCoil

 

[ThinkingSapien]

#178 from KingCoil
Certain means that a piece of information like there is a nose in our face can be verified again and again if we doubt it, by applying our senses like sight to experience its presence.

Which would also mean if I removed and object from your sensory range you could no longer be certain of its attributes.

You are describing repeatability. This could inspire certainity (certainity is usually inspired by some amount of evidence), but is not itself certainity. Some one expecting something to have a flaw that could lead to failure Could test it many times with the same results. But that doesn’t necessarily result in certainity.

#208 from Sapien
A state of having a feeling of confidence for an idea/proposition or feeling of trustworthiness for an object or person.

Are you going to remove or change and thus remove your feeling that certain and certainty has to do with feeling of confidence and trustworthiness;

Based off the work of Antonio Damasio (neuroscientist) et al, I’ll have to say at most the “feeling” aspect could be hidden in another word, but it would still be there. I’d explain, but that would be well over 50 words . If interested check out his publication of his work, “Descartes Error.”

Ex: a belief position or conviction supported or inspired by evidence.

and also incorporate your example into your definition, or not?

I’ve given an example twice. Not sure what more you are asking for…

 

[KingCoil]

Hey King,
I just derived a definition for “certain” that not only proves the existence of God with absolute certainty but also proves that you are not a real person, but alas I had to use 51 words so I can’t contribute it to this, your apparent eternal quest for the definition of “certain”.

Since none of my questions were addressed and my original definition elicited no response other than a diversion when you added and even more ambiguous word, “concept” to the mix, I plan to voluntarily jump ship (whoops another idiom and I promised not to use them) until such time that you get around to giving your personal answer to the question: “How certain are we that God exists?” So,* adios muchachos.
Yppop*

Okay, here is my "personal answer to the question: “How certain are we that God exists?”

We humans are as certain of God existing as we can and do engage in inferential thinking, i.e., intelligent use of our reason grounded on logic and facts, and that is what I call inferential certainty.

I have brought this answer up many times in this thread, from the very start in post #1.

Use the search function of this thread, meaning, search thread for inferential, certainty.

You see, Yppop, my idea is to filter out useless words from posters, useless for the purpose of this thread on “How certain are we that God exists?”

And this requirement that posters set forth their definition of certain and in your case certainty, is precisely to filter out posters who are into writing words here but not into genuinely constructive (name removed by moderator)uts to the topic of this thread.

You will notice these posters by the way they write to exhibit their socalled learning but of no useful relevance to the topic of this thread.

Now, I have stopped reading them who do not put forth their definition; because I want to concentrate on folks like yourself who care to produce your own self-thought out definition of the word and concept in that word, certain or certainty.

The way I seem to see in you at this point of your participation, is that you are now into seeking a way out because you are apprehensive of the work involved; that is understandable because humans naturally shirk from serious work, they would rather repeat words from socalled established authorities i.e. writers who succeeded to get their writings published.

Okay, do you have now my personal answer to you of what certainty I have of God existing, namely, as certain as I have inferential thinking, and therefore inferential certainty.

Here again, let me repeat for you my division of certainty:

Human certainty:

A. direct human certainty
INDENTof an object existing outside man
(ii) of an object inside man, in his mind, heart, soul, self, whatever, but not outside in the universe independent of his mind
B. inferential human certainty which is founded upon intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
​

[/indent]

Here, read my earlier post that answers to your question about how I am sure on inferential certainty of God existing.

Apr 19, '14, 3:41 pm #101​

Well. let’s go back to the topic of this thread.

Here are the snapshots of my division of human certainty and my argument for the inferential certainty of God’s existence.

Part 1 division of human certainty

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11893837&postcount=25
http://i62.tinypic.com/20rmph0.jpg

Part 2 argument for God

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11900782&postcount=55
http://i61.tinypic.com/vdmn15.jpg

 

[KingCoil]

Hmmm…ok, after further reflection, my current understanding of human certainty without consideration of God is:
A firm belief directly proportional to the perceived alignment of an object in question and reasonable analysis of one’s environment.
Examples: God, the Creator of Everything, is partly certain because you and I are the creators of everything we will create, therefore we are in the least, gods, and all earthly lives appear to have a creative origin, but not all universal things necessarily appear to have a creative origin.
God, the Causer of the Universe, is very certain because all universal events have a single causal origin.

Please consider that I am a little uncomfortable with this exercise because it is limited thinking, which ends in a limited understanding of God. For example, limiting the definition of God as the Causer of the Universe, although satisfies the certainty of God’s existence, declares nothing of God’s livelihood. Within context of the example, God could be a non-living cause, which is what many atheistic thinkers believe.

As for your definition:
Certain means that a piece of information like there is a nose in our face can be verified again and again if we doubt it, by applying our senses like sight to experience its presence.

I would suggest the following adjustments:
Certain means that a piece of information like there is a nose on one’s face can be verified by everyone in existence by experiencing its presence.

I look forward to seeing how this discussion continues to develop!

Dear Jochoa, thanks for your post, I have not come to your definition yet, so now I will give attention to your definition.

Here are again the four definitions of certain, certainty, from four posters:

#178 from KingCoil
Certain means that a piece of information like there is a nose in our face can be verified again and again if we doubt it, by applying our senses like sight to experience its presence.

#186 from Ypopp
The level of certainty of the existence of something depends on probability of the existence of a possible alternative. The lower the probability of the possible alternative, the higher the level of certainty. Absolute certainty means that the something to which it refers has no alternative, 2+2=4 for example.

#208 from Sapien
A state of having a feeling of confidence for an idea/proposition or feeling of trustworthiness for an object or person.

#214 from Jochoa
a firm belief directly proportional to the perceived alignment of the reasonable analysis of one’s environment and an object in question.

You are concerned with my missing the other attributes of God in his dealings with mankind, for you say:

For example, limiting the definition of God as the Causer of the Universe, although satisfies the certainty of God’s existence, declares nothing of God’s livelihood.

You remember, I have been telling you and you have not been listening or reading and keeping it in your mind, namely, that God is first and foremost the creator of the universe, so that if you attend to all the other winsome attributes of God which God’s believers ascribe to God, what is the use to God if He is not the creator of the universe?

And I have been telling the whole mankind that my emphasis on God as creator of the universe is not meant to exclude the other attributes of God ascribed to Him by His believers, namely, like God is most good, God is most just, God is most merciful, etc.

What does it avail to God and to His believers if He is not the creator of the universe?

That is what atheists who are not into genuine sincere total search for facts and walk the walk of logic want to trap you guys, telling you that God is not most good, nor most just, nor most merciful, for He does not heal any guy with amputated legs, at least today no more when He can do it if He is all good, all just, all merciful; so there is no God or your God is worth nothing.

See? What does it profit God to gain the whole mankind if He loses His credit in achieving the creation of the universe.

So, let us we two take time out to think over your concern on the other attributes of God, while I want you to think about what does it profit you and God if He loses His credit as having achieved the creation of the universe?

Okay, everyone even without a definition of certain, certainty, let us discuss what does it profit God to gain the whole of mankind but loses His credit as the creator of the universe.

KingCoil

 

[jochoa]

You remember, I have been telling you and you have not been listening or reading and keeping it in your mind, namely, that God is first and foremost the creator of the universe, so that if you attend to all the other winsome attributes of God which God’s believers ascribe to God, what is the use to God if He is not the creator of the universe?

Perhaps for you the first and foremost definition of God is the Creator of the Universe, however, for me the first and foremost definition of God is the Only Being to Exist. Primarily because before God creates anything, God is the only being to exist. Most importantly because I can grow in feelings, spirit, knowledge, and will with God, given an understanding of His Existence. I can also place the proper value on God in my life – God is the only being that matters.

What does it avail to God and to His believers if He is not the creator of the universe?

This question can be equally turned on itself: What does it avail to God and to His believers if He is not all-good or all-just or all-merciful or all-powerful? Because each all-loving definition of God is equally ranked with the definition the Creator of the Universe.

See? What does it profit God to gain the whole mankind if He loses His credit in achieving the creation of the universe.

Either the exact same profit or perhaps even less, if He loses His credit in being all-good, all-just, all-merciful, all-powerful.

Perhaps consider it in this context:
If someone recognizes God is just, yet does not recognize God as the Creator of the Universe, there will be no harm to God or His people during this time.
However, if someone recognizes God is the Creator of Universe, yet believes the Creator of the Universe is unjust, most likely the someone will try to harm God through harm to His people during this time.

To conclude, I now perceive great evidence which indicates recognizing God as Love (all-just, all-merciful, all-good) is first and foremost, to God as the Creator of the Universe.

Can you see the connection I am perceiving?

 

[opusAquinas]

regarding certainty - I think you might as well ask - “How do you know something is True?” or as Pontius Pilot asked “What is truth?”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

regarding certainty - I think you might as well ask - “How do you know something is True?” or as Pontius Pilot asked “What is truth?”

I agree with you. I think what may be sought for here is veridicality and assignment of truth value. Certainty isn’t the same as correctness; people were certain the sun went around a flat earth that sat on pillars or some other structure at some point in time.

 

[ynotzap]

Because I was asked not to leave the thread, and somehow part of my posts were deleted, I can’t give my full experience for certainty.

Posted by King Coil:
l. Direct certainty: Based upon the experience of an external object outside the mind accessible to sense contact (sense experience) of every person, so its based on an object in the factual world external to man
2. Inferential certainty: Based on the experience of an internal object within the person like his brain or mind so it is not based on an object external to man but only internal to man.

You have just described subjective thinking, the internal object is an idea, which is not based on the real object sensed, but ones’ own thoughts and not the external object revealed by the senses If this is the case, you lost contact with reality and your logic will be not lead you to the truth. The idea must always be in contact with the objective world , the world that is sensed

 

[ynotzap]

P.S. I might add, God is otherness,not subjected to man’s thinking.

 

[KingCoil]

Welcome to this thread, please read post 1 and post 101, for a proper orientation to the thread. Thanks. * See below for the reproduction of posts 1 and 101. ]*

I plan to put this notice at the top of every post I write, so that folks can get to know what the thread is all about; please be guided accordingly.

KingCoil

ANNEX

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=101
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11889096&postcount=1
Part 1
http://i60.tinypic.com/28ipxme.jpg

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=101
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11889096&postcount=1
Part 2
http://i58.tinypic.com/2qu53s9.jpg

Apr 19, '14, 3:41 pm #101
​

Well. let’s go back to the topic of this thread.

Here are the snapshots of my division of human certainty and my argument for the inferential certainty of God’s existence.

Part 1 division of human certainty
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11893837&postcount=25
http://i62.tinypic.com/20rmph0.jpg

Part 2 argument for God
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11900782&postcount=55
http://i61.tinypic.com/vdmn15.jpg

 

[KingCoil]

Welcome to this thread, please read post 1 and post 101, for a proper orientation to the thread. Thanks. * See below for the reproduction of posts 1 and 101. ]*

I plan to put this notice at the top of every post I write, so that folks can get to know what the thread is all about; please be guided accordingly.

===========================

Perhaps for you the first and foremost definition of God is the Creator of the Universe, however, for me the first and foremost definition of God is the Only Being to Exist. Primarily because before God creates anything, God is the only being to exist. Most importantly because I can grow in feelings, spirit, knowledge, and will with God, given an understanding of His Existence. I can also place the proper value on God in my life – God is the only being that matters.

This question can be equally turned on itself: What does it avail to God and to His believers if He is not all-good or all-just or all-merciful or all-powerful? Because each all-loving definition of God is equally ranked with the definition the Creator of the Universe.

Either the exact same profit or perhaps even less, if He loses His credit in being all-good, all-just, all-merciful, all-powerful.

Perhaps consider it in this context:
If someone recognizes God is just, yet does not recognize God as the Creator of the Universe, there will be no harm to God or His people during this time.
However, if someone recognizes God is the Creator of Universe, yet believes the Creator of the Universe is unjust, most likely the someone will try to harm God through harm to His people during this time.

To conclude, I now perceive great evidence which indicates recognizing God as Love (all-just, all-merciful, all-good) is first and foremost, to God as the Creator of the Universe.

Can you see the connection I am perceiving?

Just keep to the existence of God first and foremost in regard to the universe and to man (whatever else you feel like how much you have to make of God insofar as you are concerned), that He is the creator of the universe, and if you are not around and also His human fans are not around, He is still the creator of the universe.

So, just focus on this thread, “How certain are we that God exists?”

No need to go into how much it means to you even if God is not the creator of the universe, but He is all good, all just, all merciful, etc.

We are humans and we want to rationally come to the certainty that God exists and of course He is the creator of the universe, that is the thrust of this thread; and it is not about even though He is not creator of the universe He means to you etc. etc. etc.

You can of course start your own thread to convince yourself and your fellow kind of thinkers, that even though God is not the creator of the universe He means the whole universe to you – even though to you it is not of any crucial importance that He is the creator of the universe.

Now, let us all go back to working on the definitions of certain, certainty, to forge one that is acceptable to all us four who have the courage and resourcefulness to have come forth and from our own thinking and writing, produced a definition of certain, certainty.

KingCoil

ANNEX

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=101
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11889096&postcount=1
Part 1
http://i60.tinypic.com/28ipxme.jpg

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=101
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11889096&postcount=1
Part 2
http://i58.tinypic.com/2qu53s9.jpg

Apr 19, '14, 3:41 pm #101
​

Well. let’s go back to the topic of this thread.

Here are the snapshots of my division of human certainty and my argument for the inferential certainty of God’s existence.

Part 1 division of human certainty
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11893837&postcount=25
http://i62.tinypic.com/20rmph0.jpg

Part 2 argument for God
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11900782&postcount=55
http://i61.tinypic.com/vdmn15.jpg

 

[KingCoil]

Welcome to this thread, please read post 1 and post 101, for a proper orientation to the thread. Thanks. * See below for the reproduction of posts 1 and 101. ]*

===============================

regarding certainty - I think you might as well ask - “How do you know something is True?” or as Pontius Pilot asked “What is truth?”

That is a very good question, what is truth?

As usual I will state that we must consider what is for man truth, and next what is truth in the universe, and then also is there truth in the universe so that even though there is no mankind there is truth, or it is only in the mind of man?

Now, as usual I will state that we humans must not talk any further if we posit the conditional situation that there is no mankind.

And we must no longer talk any further if we posit the conditional situation that the universe does not exist, for then man does not exist either, so no more talking from man.

The fact of the matter is that man exists and the universe exists, or the universe exists and man a part of the universe exists.

So, dear posters here, please abstain from talking like atheists do, making all kinds of foolish conditional or hypothetical situations like atheists in order to not have to think on logic and facts, namely, that there are parallel universes or multiverse, or that nothing is the origin of the universe; all such nonsense should not be given any attention whatsoever by any sane and actively reasoning human, who proceeds in everything always using his reason and binding himself to logic and facts.

Okay, for myself I always abstain from using the words: true, truth.

Search this thread and see whether I have used the terms: true, truth.

I want to look at things to get acquainted with facts and with human certainty in regard to his information, grounding myself on facts and on logical principles in my search for knowledge.

Don’t talk truth, don’t talk conditional situations, talk about facts and human certainties.

This thread is about “How certain are we that God exists?”

Do you notice that I don’t put the title thus: “How true is it that God exists?”

KingCoil

ANNEX

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=101
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11889096&postcount=1
Part 1
http://i60.tinypic.com/28ipxme.jpg

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=101
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11889096&postcount=1
Part 2
http://i58.tinypic.com/2qu53s9.jpg

Apr 19, '14, 3:41 pm #101
​

Well. let’s go back to the topic of this thread.

Here are the snapshots of my division of human certainty and my argument for the inferential certainty of God’s existence.

Part 1 division of human certainty
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11893837&postcount=25
http://i62.tinypic.com/20rmph0.jpg

Part 2 argument for God
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11900782&postcount=55
http://i61.tinypic.com/vdmn15.jpg

 

[ynotzap]

Posted by King Coil:

Inferential thinking; based on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts (facts make it external)-objective thinking)

Direct certainty
B. Based on the experience of an internal object within a person like his mind, so its not based on an object external to man, but only internal to man (internal to man makes it subjective thinking , not subjected to external objects which make it facts)

From my fallible mind you have contradicted yourself