> and you can demonstrate this via . . . (wait for it) . . .
> language. This whistling in the ontological dark cracks me up.
> I really see no meaningful distinction to be made between claims
> like this and the claim "God really exists". In each case, you're
> asserting something that cannot be meaningful verified.
>
The crux of your post, the last sentence, implies a verification theory of meaning. You can't make a distinction between ontology and epsitemology or between appearance and reality because such a distinction can't be empirically verified. Verificationists end up in idealism. The verification principle is itself unverifiable (more boring self-referential paradoxes.)Positing an independent reality is possible and useful because science does so and it explains and predicts quite well.
> And no, this does not mean (a) I'm a pomo enemy of the Old Man and
> (b) I'm an atheist. I just wonder how people can be so certain
> about these ontological (and theological) positions.
You can't have unshakeable certainty but you can be reasonably certain that the world exists independent of the mind.
Sam Pawlett
A man said to the universe: "Sir, I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane