[snowden719]

here is why I think that txaq is still on solid ground, it is the fact that the second premise is that there is not 100% proof he can give to you. Think of the following example.

Imagine you are in a room that is painted blue with a blind person, you tell the blind person that you are 100% certain the room is blue, but due to the fact that he is blind you cannot offer him 100% proof. I think we would say that there is nothing about your claim that the room is blue and that you are 100% certain of that belief even though you cannot give any proof to your blind friend.

Similarly, txaq's argument is that the proof he has is epistemically inaccessable to you, as you cannot access his personal experience that counts as proof for him. In this way txaq can be open minded, be 100% certain, and unable to give 100% proof, the reason is that the possible proof he could give you is epistemically inaccesable to you.