You have some kind of theoretical degree that has very little practical application you wasted your time and money on studying and its showing.
How is emperical evidence not valid? If I punch you in the face will that convince you of its validity? Or will you say my punch isn't preconditioned for your face?
Everyone understands it immediately unless you have some kind of brain tumor that prohibits self preservation.
Same way the bible claims jesus was here in the flesh and performed magical acts such as resurrecting himself and other people from the dead, the global flood should have left very specific and identifiable empirical markers, not to mention exhaustive independent literature that corroborates such a historic event. We have none or at least very few questionable/partial second hand accounts. Thats like saying Bigfoot exists and all you have is I heard it from my uncles friend who says he knows a guy who knows a guy's cousin that read it in a book he found.
Why can't you accept that is not valid evidence for a magical story and dismiss the bible on lack of proof?
sensory experience =/= epistemological justification.
I am saying how do we know your worldview can justify empiricism itself. I am asking how the materialistic paradigm can justify the reliability of your senses, the uniformity of physical laws, and the existence of immaterial, invariant and universal laws of logic.
because your worldview has no answer to induction or even the possibility of intelligibility, i can appeal to my worldview to explain all of these things, but you cannot. appealing to the majority opinion is not an argument otherwise we can say the majority of people in the world are religious therefore it's true.
do you understand the problem? how do we know induction is true within your worldview, we cannot possibly hold some type of empirical standard without justifying empiricism itself otherwise it's completely ad hoc, it's like saying christiantiy is true because the bible says so