>>513956504>neither are yours regarding proofi didn't offer personal taste, i challenged your definition of proof.
you're still assuming empiricism as the only valid epistemology, which is the very thing being questioned.
>they demonstrate reliability beyond themselvesthat's a nice slogan.
now explain how you verify the senses without using the senses, or how you validate logic without relying on logic.
you're still stuck in circularity, you've just dressed it up in confidence.
>cool if Christianity works for you thoughthis isn't about what works, it's about explanatory power.
Christianity offers a coherent framework for objective morality, consciousness, and meaning.
if you think another worldview does it better, name it, defend it. coward.
>demonstrate such a thing existing.you're asking me to prove objective morality while denying any framework that could ground it.
if morality is just evolutionary conditioning or social consensus, then forced sex isn't wrong, it's just unpopular.
so again, which worldview makes sense of moral realism?
>you never asked one duderi asked which worldview best accounts for reality, morality, meaning and human experience.
you dodged it, repeatedly
still waiting for a response that isn't 90% cope and 10% typos.