Hello, again, Anti-Stupidity here, I have not posted too much on this forum and i'm not accustomed to posting on threads but it did occur to me that I have knowledgeable (Hopefully knowledgeable) people at my disposal to give thought or critiques to my own thoughts. So here goes nothing. Lately I've found myself in a rut when it comes to knowledgeable and grounded positions upon which to quickly dismiss or philosophically attack (I'm a extreme layman in terms of philosophical knowledge) religious arguments or positions. At least while still keeping my own presumptions in tact after using the same said tools to assess my own beliefs. Specifically it is answering the problem of skepticism by not coming to the conclusion that absolute knowledge is attainable or it isn't but rather rejecting the problem itself. Take a look. This paper was throughly convincing and such a different perspective to any other answer to it that it brings about new questions which generally shake my belief in any philosophical ontology that i hold currently or would wish to hold. On what basis can I affirm something like materialism, idealism, dualism, or any form of pluralism that is different from asserting the universe was created five minutes ago. We have no reason to except a reality beyond our senses nor the supremacy of said senses or even the conclusion of any ontologist on how many substances their are (Pluralist, Dualist, or Monist). Can I still hold an ontology with the conclusions of the paper in hand or are their other problems with his conclusion? Or am I just confused and ignorant?