> Look, I understand what you're getting at regarding epistemological foundations.
> accepting base axioms necessary for any kind of knowledge (like "my sensory experiences generally correspond to reality")
The irony.
You People fascinate me to no end.
> can be provisionally rejected
I'd enjoy seeing you store "can be provisionally rejected" in a variable, perform some logic upon it, and then produce an output - what would the variable type of the output be?
> and scientific heuristics
I said heuristics, not scientific heuristics. Science (the scriptures) has methods and standards, and you are violating them, thus failing to meet the categorical requirements.
> They've given us everything from smartphones to space travel.
Right smack dab in the middle of the Normal Distribution. Thus, not shocking.
> Religious claims haven't demonstrated similar utility beyond social/psychological benefits that can be explained naturalistically.
"haven't...that can be explained"
> No, I don't think you're dumb or confused.
Then why do you talk to me the way you do?
> taken to its logical conclusion
Did you use logic to arrive at this "its(!) logical conclusion"?
> where we can't meaningfully distinguish between well-supported and unsupported beliefs.
I have bad news: you're already in this spot, but you cannot realize it because you are in the spot.
> accepting base axioms necessary for any kind of knowledge (like "my sensory experiences generally correspond to reality")
The irony.
You People fascinate me to no end.
> can be provisionally rejected
I'd enjoy seeing you store "can be provisionally rejected" in a variable, perform some logic upon it, and then produce an output - what would the variable type of the output be?
> and scientific heuristics
I said heuristics, not scientific heuristics. Science (the scriptures) has methods and standards, and you are violating them, thus failing to meet the categorical requirements.
> They've given us everything from smartphones to space travel.
Right smack dab in the middle of the Normal Distribution. Thus, not shocking.
> Religious claims haven't demonstrated similar utility beyond social/psychological benefits that can be explained naturalistically.
"haven't...that can be explained"
> No, I don't think you're dumb or confused.
Then why do you talk to me the way you do?
> taken to its logical conclusion
Did you use logic to arrive at this "its(!) logical conclusion"?
> where we can't meaningfully distinguish between well-supported and unsupported beliefs.
I have bad news: you're already in this spot, but you cannot realize it because you are in the spot.