When it comes to truth, Christianity is no different from any other belief system.

Interesting, looks like the first comment rung true - I start a debate intended to reduce gnosis to faith and I end up arguing someone else's concept of truth to the same end. Even though the details have reversed the method of debating my point is virtually the same, so I'll happily continue the debate. I would argue that any system can be an open ended system and a closed system to any person depending on what they believe, once again, returning to faith. Example: I believe that Jesus walked on water and resurrected after his crucifixion because the bible says so, and I accept everything the bible says as truth. The structure is: I believe in X and Y because I believe Z to be true. I believe oompas and loompas exist because I believe existence exists. The structure is: I believe in X and Y because I believe Z to be true. You could write the statements as: I know that the bible is truth because I believe I've experienced it, therefore all things that I believe to be sourced from the bible are true. -and- I know existence exists because I believe I've experienced it, therefore all things that I believe to exist must exist. Second half of both statements: 'all things that I believe to be sourced from the bible are true' 'all things that I believe to exist must exist.' Both beliefs are based off of a supposed truth (the bible and existence) and share the exact same relationship. The belief that I know what the bible says and that I can know that oompa/loompas exist are both subjective. They both rely on the first statement in order to be true, so they themselves are not statements that can bear any truth. They are definitely 'open', not 'closed'. First half of both statements: 'I know that the bible is truth because I believe I've experienced it' 'I know existence exists because I believe I've experienced it' The basis for knowing that the bible is truth is that I believe it says that it is true. So in other words, I believe it to be true because I believe it claims to be. It is me experiencing something (in this case the bible) and believing that it (and what I believe it to say) is true because I believe it has been experienced-in-itself and claims truth. I know the bible is true because I believe it comes from an objective source different and outside of our sense-experience. Even though the bible itself can only be experienced, the source of the bible actually exists. That is where my hypothetical faith comes in, to bridge the gap between our subjective universe to the kingdom of God that is true objectively. My point is that no matter what words you fill into 'I know Z because I believe X to be true' you'll find it relies on exactly the same conditions that the Christian statement's conditions rely on. The faith that you know something to be true, in your case existence, that we exist in some knowable form in this universe and aren't some empty emanation without form whirling in a tempestuous vortex of images and apparent patterns is something you believe. That there exists any thing and that this thing can be known doesn't have any more proof than an objective truth from a written text. We believe oompas, dogs and ourselves exist because we believe that some things can exist. We believe in hell, evil and various commandments because we believe that some things can exist, in this case objective laws and truths from a specific higher source. I will not deny that the belief in existence is certainly more widespread than the belief in a body of sacred texts known as the bible, but regardless of the popularity of any system of belief it still relies on faith in the same manner. These are my attempts to defend the second assertion. I guess you attempt to counter now?