All perceived knowledge derives from human experience and/or human reason. I use the word "perceived" because I believe that human knowledge is not true knowledge. In fact, it is quite fallible and partly determined on the basis of pragmatic application. We may attempt to establish the truth through pragmatism, coherence, correspondence, etc., but absolute knowledge can never be attained.

We, as humans, can not distinguish our perceived knowledge from absolute knowledge. Our knowledge fails to transcend into the realm of the absolute. Because human knowledge is relative and often conditional, it can not exceed mere conjecture.

A dog views the sky through dichromatic vision. It can not see colors as we can, and only sees part of the range of colors in spectrum of light wavelengths. Humans, however, may see the sky as blue, orange, gray, or a variety of other colors depending on the weather. But who is to say that human perception is true perception? Perhaps there are being in another system that can see ultraviolet rays with their naked eye. Perhaps they can even see more colors than we even knew existed?

How can we be so arrogant to determine that we are the definitive source of knowledge. I will assert that there are at least two branches of knowledge.

The first being practical knowledge (or human knowledge), which is relative and not absolute. The second being true knowledge (or God knowledge), which is not relative and is absolute.I use the word "God" for reasons of coherrence, but this word is interchangeable with the definition "supreme reality", for I am not acknowledging or denying the existence of God or God(s).