As I thought, you can 't elucidate your arguments, and have simply re-quoted yourself. You can add the phrase "epistemic foundation" (or any derivitave of..) as many times as you like, but it adds nothing to your point, and simply serves as word salad.
The phrase "at least see what kind of perspective on morality your worldview mandates" is ludicrous, the implication being that YOUR 'worldview' has a superior perpective on morality. Your worldview on morality is based on deferring to an infallible moral certainty, dictated by one who's mind we can never know; which negates any responsibility (or credit) for the evolution of morality.
Also, I note that on page 1, there was a question re transubstantiation. I'd be interested to hear your opinion on that question.
The phrase "at least see what kind of perspective on morality your worldview mandates" is ludicrous, the implication being that YOUR 'worldview' has a superior perpective on morality. Your worldview on morality is based on deferring to an infallible moral certainty, dictated by one who's mind we can never know; which negates any responsibility (or credit) for the evolution of morality.
Also, I note that on page 1, there was a question re transubstantiation. I'd be interested to hear your opinion on that question.
