I'm dissatisfied with the explanation on point 12 from my prior post, so I want to use this post to organize my thoughts on the topic, restate the problem, and rethink whether that point is necessary as I delivered it, or if it needs some adjustment.

The reason we're generating this list at all is: there is a certain set of information operating in the mind of every individual, upon which every thought depends. That information includes, and enables such assumptions as, the uniformity in nature, induction (knowing tha the future will be like the past, from moment to moment), laws of logic (and their universality), etc..

The problem is: we don't know where that information came from, and if we credit the wrong source then we undermine the credibility of the information, or we contradict the information itself. If the information is not reliable, then we are unable to ascertain truth. Therefore, in any worldview which claims to be true, there must be a proper source for that information, and worldviews may be defeated on the grounds that they do not include a source capable of providing the information.

So, in working out a solution to the problem, we've established a set of criteria which a source must meet in order to function as a source. Having thus determined, we suppose, that a singular creator god must exist, we now have two sets of information at hand. We have the information which is intrinsic to our thinking process, which we are attempting to justify, and then we have the justification itself, which is not required for thought, but is required for justification of the thought process. (We called them "general revelation" and "special revelation" respectively. Please note, if you're already Christian, that I'm using these terms in a way different from their common use in theological conversation).

While general revelation is held by everyone, the content of special revelation is hereby derived as a set of necessities, and so special revelation must be something which we can learn by means of our faculties with the support of general revelation. The question which must be answered for #12, though, is this: Are our internal (reasoning) faculties able to produce sufficient grounds for the full acceptance of the proposed criteria as contents of general revelation, or should that information be corroborated with data collected by means of our extrinsic (sensing) faculties?

Certainly, I hold that it is not sufficient for us to derive the information blindly. Rather, information about the source must be made available to us by the source. So, in order to answer that question, we have to first determine if the special revelation is, in fact, contained within the general revelation. If it is, then everyone already has the special revelation, and we should probably come up with another name for it. Given that the general revelation is unique in that it is given to us without the use of our faculties, we can say that if the special revelation is not contained in the general revelation, then it is not issued to us without the use of our faculties, and therefore must be delivered to us from an external source by means of our sense perceptions, specifically the source to which it pertains. It is fortunate, then, that the general revelation enables us to rely on our faculties to some extent, so that we can examine the external source.

Here's the reason for my dissatisfaction: if what I have called "special revelation" is not contained in the general revelation, then my intentions have not been aligned with a proper method of executing my proposed means for deriving the information contained in special revelation, and so that proposition needs to be clarified in a way which broadens the scope of things considered by this study. Where I proposed to derive the information by simple examination of the human condition, I meant internally to derive the information by means of reason alone, but examination of the human condition must include consideration of sensory input, meaning that external sources of evidence used in conjunction with reason are allowable, given that the prior points in my list are true.

However, if the special revelation is contained in the general revelation, then it may be the case that I am very nearly done with my list, and that I should remove the word "verifiably" from point 12. This would seem to be the path of least resistance, but it doesn't make sense for that to be the case since I derived the information by means of my reasoning faculty. Information obtained by reason alone is theoretical, and a theoretical particle is quite a different thing from an observed particle. If reason alone were sufficient to discover the truth of the universe, then we would have no need of sensory data. After much deliberation, I am forced to conclude that a theoretical source is not sufficient grounds for a worldview. At the very minimum, the source or some relatable communication from it must be have been observed by at least one person who lived to tell about it, and that person must have been the same as, or able to communicate with, the first human being to ever live, and the story which that person told must have been passed down so that it is available to mankind today, for anyone desirous to learn about it. (With some refining, these will likely be points 13+)

This means a shift in the way that I am accustomed to thinking. In order to argue with atheists, I spend so much time attempting to reduce the validity of our internally facilitated information in order to demonstrate to them that sensory data and reasoning itself is not sufficient grounds on which to build a functional worldview. Now it is time to take a cue from the humanists; the sensory data is, indeed, valid, because the worldview we're building supports it by means of the ultimate source and its special revelation.

So, future bullets might (or might not, I'm not sure yet) make use of physical phenomena for support.

"They have no speech, they use no words;
    no sound is heard from them."