I think that some folks are confused because of the mysteries of quantum physics which can lead one to believe that what we see, hear and feel is merely a form of Pragmatism to be used until true reality is revealed or is discovered. In order to function in the world as we are aware of, "existence exists" is the horse and buggy we'll ride in until someone invents the automobile.

I'll change that to +1.
I think you are somewhat hard to understand so that you are interpreted opposite of what you mean. Being a dyslexic, I struggle with that a lot, because it's not the obvious errors that get you in trouble, but subtle phrases. I am not inferring you are dyslexic, only that I have trouble digging out what you mean.

Glad to be of service.
The more you read the more you will understand what it is to truly be validated. I remember, as a young man, thinking that I must be crazy because it seemed as if everyone I read or spoke to didn't make sense. I had read the novels and they made sense, but the rest of the world...? Then I subscribed to her newsletter which led to reading all the polemics and as I read, I realized, it wasn't me who was crazy. Of course, I'm simplifying but the Gulch is a great supplement - just knowing that there are others who are not nuts.

Some things are unknowable by their nature. Does god exist? There's no evidence to prove he does and you can't prove a negative. The only way to know is if he changes his behavior and provides proof.

Being an atheist I don't expect that to happen.

I'm shocked and appalled that I have -1 points! I don't think that's happened before. Maybe I'll throw myself a little party tonight!

Nothing is unknowable, just unknown at present.

I'm pretty at this good.
By the way, I think Yoda is dyslexic.

I'll add that to all the trivia which clutters up my head.

K also says I am dyslexic

You missed: "It's something no one can be purely objective about therefore it is not the basis of being objective."

Agreed. The comment made against reason's validity in relation to omniscience is a symptom of the primacy of consciousness orientation. In this instance, as in all such instances, James would have to admit to his belief that revelation is the only source of knowledge. Peikoff has shown revelation reduces to emotionalism. Emotionalism is not a valid tool of cognition. The argument on subjectivism following from this is not at all surprising.

I am glad you posted this. It's instructive for me because I am currently reading Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, which logically - I am tempted to say - diagnoses this exact mentality.

Not getting old, just using better language. While new should be better - it isn't always.

And sometime just moronic.

Correct.
The trick is to recognize when reason is abandoned. As I walked the rocky road, I came across many statements that looked and sounded erudite until I thought about them and realized they made no sense.

Olduglycarl wrote, "then we move on to: how might it come into existence and why, what was the cause or will it continue to exist."

I disagree entirely. The questions of how and why something came into existence and whether it will continue to exist are not important to philosophy, and they aren't addressed by Objectivism anywhere that I have read. I don't claim to have read exhaustively. They can be interesting scientific questions, except for the "why" part. I suggest that "why" is unknowable without inventing supernatural boogey men.

I fully understand. I am mildly dyslexic and I get words screwed up causing me to edit most posts.

You obviously have more talent than I thought. I make a cocktail sauce that goes really well with brain.

One of james464's nonsensical comments, provided by Herb7734 above, was "you cannot reason to fundamental absolutes such as are we here by purpose or accident."

I dispute that that statement is a fundamental absolute. Knowing why humans exist is irrelevant when theorizing how we know things, how we learn, etc. In fact I declare it a big, stinky red herring because there is no evidence whatsoever that there is a "why". The best we can do is recognize that we do exist, proof of which has already been thoroughly described on this page.

"That is of course the fallacy of equivocation, where the opposition deliberately misconstrues term "stolen concept" in an attempt to overturn the discovery of his error."

^^^This is what I was ridiculing. ;)

Not a complete waste, as he stimulated discussion. We encounter Fogheads with large vocabularies like him as we go about our business, and whenever it looks like old Foggy is influencing someone, particularly a young someone, I like to intervene. So, keep in mind that even the greatest musician needs to keep in practice.

"Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" - a challenging book (for me, anyway) but it speaks to all of james464's objections. He won't read it. If he does read it he'll rail against it endlessly, but his reasoning will prove that he didn't understand a single word.

"Existence exists" is a self defining axiom. The statement does not identify the nature of existence only that there is an underlying reality and that we can observe some aspects of that reality. Inherent in that statement is the assumption that it is possible to learn more about that reality. As a result this fundamental component of Objectivism hangs on the question "Does underlying reality exist?" Whether or not we can ever come to a complete understanding of that reality is a separate issue.
Most of our understanding of reality is based on internal models that are behavioral in nature. By this I mean we understand the properties of reality in terms of how it behaves.
Even our most thoroughly validated models of reality such as Newtonian dynamics, special and general relativity, and quantum electrodynamics are behavioral in nature. They provide a description of how things behave, they do not tell us what these things ARE.
I like to think of reality as a box that contains an underlying mechanism while the outside of the box reveals how that mechanism behaves. It is possible to arrive at many different explanations for the contents of the box, which can be called "the theory of the enclosure", but unless we can open the box the true nature of the mechanism will remain unknown.

I've given him responses and he replied with claptrap, as you so eruditely described it. He even accused me of being unwilling to expand my definition of "worship", apparently objecting to my use of the word as he defined it himself.

Troll is correct, he's a waste of time.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant. Nonetheless, absolutes do exist. No new knowledge can amend the law of identity. As understanding does not come in graduated cylinders, it is difficult to say who understands "more" about "what."