if that is your question, then my answer is: i do not hold the notion, that an approach (employed by me or by anyone), is unquestionably superior -- i do think, however, and am happy to point out, that via known, reliable approaches, these perspectives do not provide anything more than just words and reasoning (perhaps more specifically, philosophical argument). nothing quantifiable, observable, measurable, reproducible; just philosophizing. therefore, i consider them equivalent in this regard and moreover think it strange for YouTube to moderate them differently (as if, because one is theological, therefore it must be regarded as a loftier, more sophisticated (?) pursuit, and untouchable).
in short, i think words are just words, and i'll continue to ask both camps to demonstrate, that their words are actually something more, via known approaches, or alternative ones.
will try to dial it back. commas have always been my kryptonite.
thanks for the feedback.
Most updated their models when science proved they are wrong. But the holy scripture which specified these models in the first place remained and many of them declare holy scripture to still be 100% truth.
That's a self-contradicting stance and you cannot defend it without hardcore mental gymnastics (which is what theology mostly does - "proving that in fact 1 can be equal to 0").
"Sufficient" (emphasis mine) for what?
If you're applying a particular approach to epistemology, I think you'll have a hard time defending it as unquestionably superior to the epistemologies held by others.