Peter wrote:
<<<"We have all been wrong before." >>>
I responded:
<<<By what means did you discover that you were wrong? Please show your work. Watch those stolen concepts!>>>
Peter huffed:
"Enough on the 'stolen concepts'." 
Oh, if only that were so! But still you commit this fallacy almost every time you make a statement. I will continue to point them out. But it's clear you're tired of being exposed.
Peter wrote:
"In order for me to steal them, you must show that they do not belong to my stated position."
You misunderstand the nature of the fallacy. I provided five or six links in response to lordbyron's request that I explain the nature of this fallacy. Did you not read the articles to which I provided links?
Indeed, since you are a theist, I think stolen concepts do belong to your stated position. And I've exposed them to boot!
Peter wrote:
"As you'll notice since you must have read the previous post, the axioms that you asserted where contained within my worldview."
Only as stolen concepts (since you reject the validity of the senses, the means by which they are known).
Peter wrote:
"There is no reason for you to assume I am stealing them from your point of view when they fit in my worldview too."
Yes, there is. You assert concepts yet deny the means by which you can be aware of them. Those are stolen concepts, by definition.
Peter wrote:
"As to how I discovered that I was wrong, it is a simple matter.  I have seen contradictory data (for instance, I answered the phone but it was still ringing unanswered) thereby forcing me to conclude that one of the two data sources was wrong."
So, an "inaccurate" perception was corrected by an "accurate" perception? Above, you mentioned that you "have seen contradictory data." By what means were you able to see these data? Suddenly, it seems you are saying that the senses are now valid after all, if sense perception is the means by which you determined that your initial inferences and conclusions were wrong.
Peter wrote:
"Since the dream data source was not valid, I was able to determine that that source was invalid."
But by what means were you able to make this determination????
Peter wrote:
"However, as I have stated, if reality is an illusion on a grand scale where we did not even know it was an illusion, it would be impossible for us to know whether or not it was real."
What is your definition of 'reality'?? How did you form it?
I wrote:
<<<Where are you getting this claim, and how was it established? Why should we accept it? Just because you state it? Do you ever argue for your premises?>>>
Peter protests:
"Now see, CertainVerdict--I have asked you the exact same questions."
And I have answered them, like a good sport.
Peter wrote:
"Why is it that you get to get away with it, but then are mad when I do the same thing?"
Get away with what? I've taken great pains to answer virtually every detail of your posts, yet you have not addressed hardly one question in my many posts. And where have I gotten mad? I have not been mad at all. Perhaps this is an inference which you made in haste from what you read?
Peter wrote:
"If you can claim to have unprovable axioms that you hold to, then why can't I?"
Because I identified the means by which I am aware of mine, and you have not.
Peter wrote:
"And again it doesn't matter "where [I am] getting this claim"--the source doesn't matter. All that matters is whether or not you can refute the claim."
It doesn't matter to me. You've already refuted yourself. You've done everyone's work for them.
I asked:
<<<What is dreaming? Dreaming as opposed to what? Where did you get these concepts? By what means do you distinguish dreaming from non-dreaming, Peter? I don't suppose you'll answer these questions. You don't answer questions, you just go merrily along on your wild goose hunt.>>>
Peter wrote:
"There you go with more ad hominum argumentation."
Where did I put forward an ad hominem argument? Nowhere have I inferred that your conclusions are unsound on the basis of your insufficient character. I simply ask questions repeatedly, and you repeatedly fail to address them. Does pointing this out constitute an ad hominem argument in your view?
Peter wrote:
"I can't help but point out that you have not actually interacted with my argument at all."
To be honest, I'm still waiting for you to put forward an argument.
Peter wrote:
"All you've done is question some definitions on common terms."
Oh, I've done much more that that, Peter. I've pointed out how habitually you commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. This is quite significant.
Peter wrote:
"Terms that everyone would think similiar (or are you a deconstructionalist who thinks that words don't mean anything anymore?)."
Whether everyone should or should not agree on definitions is irrelevant. The fact is, most people do not in philosophy. That is why I ask for clarification, and you yourself agreed that this is a wise policy. Now you're complaining about it.
Peter wrote:
"Dreaming is the state whereby while a person sleeps false sensory data is interpreted by the brain as having actual substance."
I've not heard this definition put forth for 'dreaming' before. Sensory data of what? What do you mean by "substance" in this context? (Good thing I asked what you mean by 'dreaming'; so far, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me!)
Peter wrote:
"We determine the difference by comparing it to our lives when we are awake."
By what means do we do this??????????
Peter wrote:
"However, the point that you continue to ignore is that if we cannot step outside of our senses in the so-called "real world" then there is no way to verify that what we claim for the real world is actually accurate."
What do you mean by "step outside of our senses"? Do you mean DENY them? Do you think knowledge is acquired by denying sense?
Peter wrote:
"You admit that you assume the universe is real (and even claim that you have no need to prove otherwise)."
Peter wrote:
"But that doesn't give us certain knowledge on anything."
Of what do you want certain knowledge, Peter?
Peter wrote:
"I'll be willing to be psychotics think their delusions are actually real too, and they can't tell the difference most of the time."
But somehow, you can, right? Can you tell us the means by which you make such distinctions?
I wrote:
<<<I question the validity of the notion "essence of existence" (you have not attempted to validate this dichotomy here; indeed, it was one of Aquinas' major errors). Instead of what you write here, I would suggest: "The fact that existence exists does not change.">>>
Peter wrote:
"By "essence of existence" I merely meant whatever exists is."
Then the concept 'essence' is unnecessary, since we already have the concept 'existence' for this. Again, as I stated in an earlier post, 'essence' is an epistemological concept, for it is used in isolating definitions. It does not apply to existence as such, since existence cannot be defined in terms of prior concepts. Existence is existence, i.e., something is itself, i.e., A is A.
Peter wrote:
"In other words, existence must be something, for if it is nothing then it doesn't exist."
Agreed. That which exists is itself. But this does not necessitate the concept 'essence'.
Peter wrote:
"You write "The fact that existence exists does not change."  But what is that existence that exists?"
Existence. Again, the concept 'existence' is not defined in terms of prior concepts. Remember: 'existence' is an axiomatic concept, i.e., irreducible.
Peter wrote:
"I am maintaining that whatever existence is it is unchangeable."
Does New York have a population? Does that population exist? Does that population remain constant from year to year?
Peter wrote:
"Are you going to refute that?"
Do you think I need to?