>>513158865
if we're stuck in kantian subjectivity, if "das Ding an sich" is forever out of reach, then yeah, we're left with "what generally feels correct."
but that doesn't mean all options are equally shaky.
some worldviews collapse under their own weight when we live them out, (nihilism's despair, materialism's robotic determinism).
others hold up, even if they're not "proven" in a lab.
you say your belief is "built on a variety things, not a general principle," okay, but is that variety coherent? or is it just a pile of doubts holding up a "meh" atheism?
does it work? not just intellectually, but existentially. does it sustain meaning, hope, or moral clarity? if not, why treat it as default?
you're right that we're birds with bird theories. but some birds fly, and some birds just flap against the glass.
the unmoved mover might not be a geometric proof, but if Christianity fits, if it answers the despair your intuitions screams about, why dismiss it if it's not a syllogism?
at some point "i'm not convinced" stops being epistemic humility and starts being evasion.