“Do you believe there is something inherent to the way in which the third umpire experiences ‘reality’ which negates the existence of “the Intrinsic Nature of Reality”, or is it possible to believe that such a Platonic Ideal exists while still believing that it is impossible to experience that ideal directly?”

No, I don’t believe there is anything inherent in the way in which the 3rd ump experiences ‘reality.’ I would say that the ‘reality’ he experiences is in large part a matter of the presuppositions that underlay those experiences, and that enable him to say I had THIS experience and not THAT experience. The third ump makes a different set of presuppositions than the first or second umps. So, I think that yes you could believe in Platonic Forms and also believe that you will never experience them.

But I hesitate to make the analogy that God is akin to a Platonic Form.

The notion behind the piece I wrote was a matter of reformulating the role of evidence for faith. I would like to move away from the empiricist tradition that dominates Christian discussions of evidence.