I didn't, until you explained. It is a modified view of solipsism. Nothing more. You can try to rationalize how you know nothing and live in probabilities but the worldview falls to pieces when put under any examination. That is okay. People don't need to have internally consistent worldviews. There is no magical rule that requires this. You can even continue to think that I just don't understand and that is why I don't get it.
But that doesn't change the fact that
To avoid acknowledging that you have faith that x will occur you are saying "I believe x is probable. This would require you to have faith that your assessment of probability will be correct. And to avoid this you must say that it is only probable that your probability is correct. Which means you have faith that that probability assessment is correct, ad infinitum.
This is a problem as it creates an infinite progression.
George, you still don't understand it; and this right here proves you don't understand:
"You can try to rationalize how you know nothing and live in probabilities"
That is not my position. I accept the empirical world through reason, but not through faith. Knowledge or "truth" is an approximation of absolute truth based on the available evidence. It is likely our approximation is wrong in some way, but it is the best we can do. I have said it several times, a practical rational approach; there is no need for "faith" or as you call it "certainty" in anything.
You have not given a reason why a person would need to move from an approximation of truth to a certainty of truth. Your argument fails in the say way Kierkegaard's did: an insistence for a need to make that leap of faith but never justifying that need.
