"You make a lot of claims that I am not sure can be demonstrated to be true."

I emphatically agree. I have said this myself, and more than once.

"But if you want discussion, you should let me know how you conclude that. Essentially, 'How do you know that?'"

Not necessarily. I have already said that my point of view is unprovable. Why would I try to prove an unprovable?

"The axions are unprovable. Yes. But we don’t say they have been proven. We accept them because they are self-evident."

There is no such thing as self-evident truth at the rational level. Reason takes the form of propositions, and inherent in every proposition is the possibility of its negative.

"Can spiritual things be comparable to mathematical axioms? To me, they clearly can’t. Spiritual things are not self-evident like 1 + 1 = 2."

Again, there is no such thing as self-evident truth at the rational level. The statement, "1 + 1 = 2," relies upon definitions that are, ultimately, circular. If this proposition seems self-evident to you, then I don't think you're looking closely enough.

A mathematician named Riemann once speculated that an alternate geometry might be constructed by rejecting the Euclidean postulate that parallel lines cannot intersect, something that defied both logic and experience. His geometry had no practical value -- that is, until Einstein came along. Things that seem rationally self-evident are always exercises in self-deception. There are reasons for this.

"“Discernment is strictly individual”. No. If something can only be received individually and each person experience it differently, it is not called knowledge. You can call it “experience” or whatever, but when something is called knowledge, it means it can be independently examined by anyone and they would come to the same conclusion. You are confusing terms or changing the meaning of words."

That is your understanding of knowledge; but it doesn't work, because it's self-referential. I tried to set this out in my last reply.

"To say that spiritual things transcends rationality is to avoid the dilemma that results from people expressing their religious experiences and finding out that they contradict each other."

Why is this a dilemma?

I'm sorry; I think we've reached an impasse. I'll go ahead and post these responses, but I don't think continuing this would be a good idea.