Nope.
Using the future is offlimits pretty much to anyone in this way. Just as a theist saying in the future God will reveal himself. But it is even more verboten when it comes from an antirealist. You've used the analogy of the star possibly not being there now, it's just light from the past travelling to earth. Here we have merely your guess about the future. FDP criticism was not stupid, it was directly on point.
The earth could get hit by an asteroid before the future supposedly will confirm your current claims.As stated above, regardless of whether it is now or future;
the principle of my moral FSRC is fundamentally intersubjective, i.e. grounded on a collective of subjects [so, it is objective] and not dependent on one subject.
Same problemThe moral potential is already inherent within all humans and unfolding slowly.
The purpose of my FSRC is [inherently intersubjective] will facilitate to expedite the unfoldment where then more people will be conscious of it, thus accept it with conscious awareness.
Popper does not solve the problems in this 'argument'.Popper highlighted the 'polishing' point, regardless, there is a continual improvement in every aspects of human activities.
And there you go, appealing to the existence of something that no mind can directly contact.Whether it is now or future, the principle and basis of the theory is intersubjective - via a collective of subjects [even a minority but at least more than one subject within a FSRC], not from God nor somewhere absolutely independent of humans.
The future. The future does not exist now. You're an antirealist but you use a future you cannot sense as evidence. And you don't even realize even if it is pointed out several times, here and before in other threads, that this is a problem. Have you ever considered that many of the disagreements people have with you is that they actually read what you claim and apply it? Whereas you just use things as temporary fixes and ignore the implications. You don't even take your own ideas seriously as in apply them to each and see if they fit.What nonsense are you talking about.
LOL, those minds and that contact may exist at some point or they may not. I shouldn't have to point this out.I have defined my FSRC as contingent upon an embodied human based Framework and System.
If it is human-based, how it 'something that no mind can directly contact'.