Is there objective Truth?

[Soldat Du Christ]

I already did, and we've already had this discussion.  Obviously, repeating myself won't stop you from repeating yourself..or you'd have stopped repeating yourself by now. You realize that your reponse above is simply another form of the same fallacy I just described..right? It will never be anything else, it will never turn into a "good argument" no matter how many different ways you say it, no matter how many times you say it...it will forever remain the failure it was at the outset.

Is it so hard to remind me the page where it was answered, or a link? Your venting is unnececary

Further, it wouldn't matter if it -were- true, because no amount of someone else being wrong will make you right. That's just not how it works.

I understand this, that's not the position i'm comming from. I'm suggesting all world views boil down to either two options. Two completely different and contradictory ways to view the world. They both can't co exist. So if this is to be true, one has to be right, the other wrong. Wether or not you disagree is fine, but don't blur my position. If you took me seriously you would understand my side at least.

If a naturalist -doesn't- have an explanation for something, that doesn't mean that the "correct" answer defaults to your own. You have to make your own case.

Epistemology isn't a mish mash of a bunch of different beliefs, it's structured. Just like arguments, they start with axioms, and then go from there. You can't have 2 contradictory beliefs.

Your entire line of "reasoning" is fundamentally unproductive, and uninformative.