The Legendary Dragon Alephwyr, named Alephwyr, BA

the points you're making don't prove what you seem to think they prove, and perhaps if you merely acquainted yourself with the perspectives of others it would be easier for you to recognize that your idea of adversarial (falsifying) examples don't apply to their system

I've read a lot of religious texts and listened to a moderate amount of people talking about them, I just don't think I know anything about theology because there's nothing there to know. If you want to present a "perspective" please do so concretely.

and that's not what I mean by adversarial example. I mean brain hacks. Just like AI recognizes upside down trashcans as gibbons or whatever, humans see God everywhere.

the distinction between legitimate knowledge and brain hackery is a theological one. what exactly is the difference between hearing words and being hit on the head with a hammer? Don't they both simply modify the configuration of the central nervous system?

"the distinction between legitimate knowledge and brain hackery is a theological one." why?

because it poses the question of what text is to be accepted as authoritative. of course one text is direct experience and one text is brain injury but you still have to put some hermeneutic gloss on them to give them sense. (some people regard Philip K Dick as a spiritual guru)

"because it poses the question of what text is to be accepted as authoritative." why is this always a theological activity though?

My image of all theological problems is that of a small child who asks "why?" and every time you give an answer he just asks "why?" again. The problem is how to provide the child with an answer. Questions like what kind of argument to accept are part of that complex.