And the idea is that the only world view, which can give a robust or coherent account of them, is the Orthodox Christian worldview.

Is that correct?

Yeah, that's the way I steer the argument, yeah.

Yeah, and I just want to say, like, I'm favorable also to the idea that one has to compare well-view.

So I think these people who sort of call on and they go like, oh, prove to me that you're

better than all other world views in one argument, they're kind of being silly.

So I'm favorable to that, okay?

But my question is sort of a bit more fundamental, I guess.

What is one, why is one supposed to be committed to explaining these facts?

So take, for example, knowledge.

So let's take the true classical analysis of knowledge, true justified believer, right?

Mm-hmm.

And let's say it's the case that we do a worldview comparison.

And you sort of managed to give me reasons to believe that I can't have justification in a robust terms.

Why wouldn't my move at that point be to just lower the threshold

of what I consider to be a justification? Like, why isn't the move then to just be, to lower

the conditions for the supposed fact rather than to accept a worldview which in alignment with the strong facts.

Well, I think it would just really weaken the argument as a whole.

And so, in other words, in a debate setting, if you lower the threshold of what counts as justification for your position or your worldview, then I can do the same thing.

And then we're at just an impasse.

We're basically just surrendering what it means to debate.

No, so I don't think, perhaps I wasn't speaking fully accurately.

...