thank you for your opinions- when you actually make an argument in defense of any of them I will be happy to respond

Reason is that standard by which you're judging the matter. And that's where you're wrong.

Reason isn't applicable to everything. Only a True-Believing Science-Worshipper thinks thinks it is.

To try to apply reason, science or logic outside its legitimate range of applicability is in conflict with reason, science or logic. — Michael Ossipoff

Some may prefer Russell to Thomas Merton on this point.


“Philosophy is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation. All definite knowledge—so I should contend—belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides; this No Man’s Land is philosophy.”

– Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (1945), Introductory, p. xiii.

What kind of person makes vague accusations of disparaging remarks, yet refuses to go into specifics? Why even bother? It's just hot air and virtue signalling. Lame. — S

The title of the thread is disparaging. It was, and is telling, that I had to point that out to you.

I mean, what kind of person thinks that leaps of faith are reasonable? Or that they wouldn't run into conflict with reason, if reason is the standard by which we're judging the matter? That's delusional. And he's not even willing to explain himself. — S

Thomas Merton
“Reason is in fact the path to faith, and faith takes over when reason can say no more.”

There are 3 ways people can believe something to be true, and act accordingly

Fact - fact just is, 2 + 2 = 4. Other than if you are the POTUS facts are not arguable.
Reason - based on facts, one can believe something to be true by reason. Reason can not be in conflict with facts. It is not a fact, that unicorns do not exist on earth. But since we have looked in a lot of places, for a really long time, and not seen a unicorn it is reasonable to believe unicorns do not exist, and act accordingly
Faith, one is free to believe by faith alone something to be true and act accordingly. As long as such beliefs are not in conflict with faith or reason.

I restate my position that it is not a matter of fact that God is, or is not.
An that both God is, and God is not have reasonable arguments

It would be helpful if your inevitable disagreement to this position was supported with an accompanying argument.

↪Rank Amateur What a waste of time engaging with you has been if that's how you reply. — S

It was all those comments of yours deserved for a reply.

What "disparaging" terms are you referring to? — S

Telling comment

Yeah it is. Why do you think otherwise? — S

Further telling comment.

It is a reasonable belief that God is or is not, as per the three fundamental laws of logic. As for whether it's a reasonable belief that God is, or whether it's a reasonable belief that God is not, that will depend on the reasoning. You can't justifiably determine that in advance. — S

That was a waste of bandwidth

But not otherwise? So what's the problem, then? Leaps of faith aren't reasonable. They are by nature in conflict with reason. If reason is the standard, then leaps of faith run into conflict with such a standard. Reason and faith are two categorically opposed ways of arriving at a belief, so, in terms of basis for belief, they would run into contradiction. All of which is, I think it's fair to say, indicative of a conflict between the one and the other. They're chalk and cheese, they're incompatible, they clash, you can't have your cake and eat it. You either use your capacity to reason to reach a conclusion or disregard reason and take a leap of faith. — S

Absolutely none of that is in anyway true.

Maybe I’m sensitive, but why is it such a common thing to use such disparaging terms to refer to someone’s beliefs.

It is not a matter of fact that God is or God is not. It is a reasonable belief that God is or God is not.

It is ignorant to disparage anyone’s beliefs that are not in conflict with fact or reason.

In any case the point stands. Trying to analyze some intelligence so large that it can create galaxies with something so small as human reason can be a fun game, but that's all it is. It's a fool's errand if we take it seriously. — Jake

I agree - all such matters are theology not philosophy. IMO the only real philosophical discussion should be " is theism in conflict with fact or reason". If it is not, than there is no philosophic argument against any faith based belief.

“Reason is in fact the path to faith, and faith takes over when reason can say no more.” Thomas Merton

The christian hypothesis of interpreting the bible literally is a simpler one than your hypothesis of interpreting it figuratively. Sure christians interpret the OT figuratively too, but this is directly from the authority of Jesus in the same bible. It is therefore more reasonable to believe in the christian interpretation, until it has been debunked. The same would go for the other books that mention the stone in a figurative way. — Samuel Lacrampe

a point of clarity - the Catholic view on this is, the Bible is inerrant in matters of faith and morals, and its purpose is for our salvation.

Any way we cut it, any reasonable definition of "free will" is being free to exercise one's will whatever that will may be. — Pilgrim

Seems your definition of free will is akin to having a personal genie

Every argument against free will, is just a construction of a sequence of acts of free will by others.

If God exists, does God have a purpose for existing? — Qurious

If God does have a purpose what makes us think we could see it, understand it, and know it as such ?

(Granted you are citing a transcendent deity are your grounds to begin with.) — Joe Salem

don't think my argument back has any supernatural grounds.

in some type of syllogism -

P1 - I am in complete possession of my unique future.
P2 - My unique future is composed of things. Experiences,
relationships, etc that I value.
P3 - without justifiable cause or permission, it is wrong to take things that others posses

proposition - it is wrong for someone to unjustly take the future of value that I posses

So a man walks into a bar and says, I bet you an elephant will appear at the door of this establishment it exactly 35 seconds. Do not bet this man !!!

That is feeling of impending doom I have taking up your challenge.

I will say that murder ( the unjustified taking of human life) is objectively wrong because:

it deprives a person of all the relationships, experiences, activities, enjoyments, projects that would make up their future life. Murder is a bad thing because it causes the loss of future experiences of value.

Faith is believing something when there is insufficient evidence for a more formal conclusion. Sometimes when there is no evidence at all. Much of the time, this is reasonable.
— Pattern-chaser

Yes, when there's also no proof or convincing evidence to the contrary.

Yes, that's what Sapientia doesn't seem to get at all, because Sapientia is using his own personal, unusual definition of "conflicts with", equating it to "is different from". — Michael Ossipoff

two of my favorite quotes on this issue, taken together they about say it all.


Reason is in fact the path to faith, and faith takes over when reason can say no more.” Thomas merton

The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. Thomas Aquinas

Seems similar to the concept of skeptical theism. Shouldn't we be skeptical of judgments on the nature of "goods or evils" based solely on our perceptions of our observations.

What is the basis of believing the statement the underlying assumption in the argument from evil

- We have looked at what we can see, and with what we can understand we do not perceive any compensating good for the evil we observe.

IMO there is a touch of human hubris in the underlying believe that if there was a compensating good - we would see it and recognize it as such - with the tools we have. We human beings have a very long history of believing completely in the knowledge of the moment, right up until we prove it wrong.

If one considers infinite realm of abstraction as as the possible state of affairs where compensating goods could exist - I am skeptical that if there was a compensating good we would be aware of it and recognize it as such.

That doubt is enough for me to not be persuaded by the argument from evil.

Agree, and probably should have qualified the post some. But in general stand by the point that each successive generation has believed in the truth of their respective science. This is not a knock on science, it is a comment on the hubris of the human condition.

And that ended well. [said the cynic] — praxis

well played

All the knowledge that "is" has always been ours, hasn't it? Who else possessed knowledge? Even when we thought that the world was made of fire, water, earth, and air, and that we were the center of the cosmos, all that knowledge was all ours. Our knowledge is much greater now than it was 2500 years ago. It is greater than it was 25 years ago. — Bitter Crank

the actual history of science is a very long line of succeeding theories - each proving the last one false, incomplete or seriously flawed. And an equally long line of people who believed as true each of those false or incomplete theories to be completely true in their time.

It’s hard to take someone who holds such a shallow and idealistic view of love seriously, not to mention the melodrama. — praxis

Sounds more like cynicism than wisdom to me.

I believe that both the cosmological and ontological arguments are the application of reason. The make a reasonable argument that there at least in one point of time there was a necessary being. Or a reasoned argument for the existence of perfection.

These arguments, among others, are tests of reason against what I may believe to be true by faith. If one could make me a reasoned argument that would make what I believe by faith to be in direct conflict with reason. I would be a fool to ignore the reason to support the faith.

The various Christian factions were--sometimes violently--opposed to each other, and it was hoped that there could be some sort of reconciliation, or at least a resolution of some kind. — Ciceronianus the White

Working from memory, but believe the major issue with the divinity of Jesus at Nicea was if He was begotten. Therefore had no beginning. Also if memory serves, the vote of the bishops was overwhelmingly in favor of being begotten. The “fight” or conflict between the bishops at Nicea on the divinity of Jesus is more driven by The Divinchi Code” type fiction than by fact

If your theism is a matter of faith, then it's not reasonable — Sapientia

Faith and reason are different, but not in conflict by definition.

You do many things by faith. Each time you ride an elevator or board a plane is an act of faith. You didn’t make a specific reasoned decision each time. You didn’t look up the records of the specific elevator inspector or the maintenance records of your specific plane.

When you were a little sapientia your parents took you on an elevator. Riding elevators was conditioned as an ok thing to do.

You may test your faith in elevators as being reasonable. You have ridden them a lot and it has worked out ok.

But none the less it is not a matter of fact that you will not get stuck between floors, and it is not a specific reasoned decision to get on a particular elevator. You have faith in elevators and that faith is reasonable.

Yes, agreed. If we declare the purpose of the God debate to be entertainment then the goal is achieved, at least in the context of Internet forums. — Jake

I think such discussions can be more than entertainment. I do however prefer to state the proposition as therefore it is reasonable to believe God is vs God is. And that is the value of such discussions. For both the theist and the atheist to test their beliefs are reasonable, and acknowledge the other belief is reasonable as well.

we, or maybe it is just me, are not communicating well. I have no clue how any of that applies to what I think.

I agree with you both, that our tools may well be inadequate to understand such a thing as God. And this point is at the heart of skeptical theism, which I believe to be true. But it seems, we as human beings have some inherent drive to understand our reason for existence. So, what are we to do? Use the tools we have, as feeble as they might be? Or throw up our hands and ignore the drive?

Personally, my theism is a matter of faith. But it is important to me that this belief is not in conflict with fact or reason, which would than make me a fool. I believe we have the tools, as weak as they are, to wrestle with the question that theism is or is not reasonable.

hope to chalk it up to that right hand left hand thing.

It is often used by atheists. It is also used by theists that reject the notion of omnipotence, and I have witnessed such people making it. Are you saying that I misheard, or that they were lying when they said they were theists? — andrewk

I am not sure I have ever heard of someone claiming theism, acknowledging omniscience, and benevolence but excluding omnipotence. Can you fill in some more on that for me.

thanks, there is no inherent conflict between science and theism. There is no inherent conflict between faith and reason.

The are conflict between religions including those elevating science to one.

the thesis, which I know nothing about. What I find interesting is the belief that it's necessary to find a way to account for the text--in this case, the belief that although the Trinity seems to make no sense, it must make sense, so we must find a way for it to make sense, and the only way to do that is to provide an explanation which is lacking in the text. This tells us something about the text and — Ciceronianus the White

My whole point on apostolic tradition was in ref to this. Your own point below on the quote from John also seems in contradiction to your point above.

No. It is an argument by anybody that does not believe that there is a god that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, that no being, created or uncreated, have all three of those properties. In no way does that require that the person making the argument is an atheist. — andrewk

Yes, despite your word smithing and personal definition of God, The Argument From Evil, is, was, and has always been an atheistic argument against the existence of God.

And what possible realistic scenario can you envision where, say, raping a baby prevents genocide? Let's keep it real. If your moral philosophy is far removed from reality and requires bending over backwards and mental gymnastics, then what value is it, rea — Sapientia

The compensating good for all the evil caused by the acts of men is free will. If you consider free willed beings to be a good, then you must accept the evil that free willed beings can do. You can not have one, without the other.

The harder issue for theists to counter are natural evils. This requires the noseeum defense of the skeptical theist.

As a point of clarity, the argument from evil, is an argument made by an atheist, as a proof God does not exist. The burden of proof is on the atheist. The skeptical theist need only show a possibility of God and evil do coexist, and they do so with the combination of compensating goods, and cognitive distance. There is no burden of proof on the theist to proof this to reject the argument of evil. The burden is on the atheist to disprove this objection if they continue to attempt to move the theist to atheism.

Yet why doesn't he do anything about it? — Horsland

Because then, it would not be free. If I give you the choice of only good, and you chose good, did you chose at all.

I personally have absolutely no idea how people can still adhere to it today with so much philosophy. A Christian in the strict sense, copying and pasting his/her life in terms of the Bible's text, is the product of an impoverished education. — Blue Lux

The issue could be your definition and understanding of what a Christian is.

There is no inherent conflict between philosophy and theism.

understand - and you are correct the trinity is generally believed by all Christians. My point was in reference to yours in it was ex scripture. Which was not a doctoral issue at Nicea, or with Catholics.

Just a quick point. The divinity of Jesus, and the trinity as a belief of the church was a product of Nicea. This was a Catholic doctrine. In Catholicism there is no difference in authority between scripture and apostolic tradition. The concept of sola scriptua is post reformation

You mistake my claim, which is that the spiritual is unreasonable. In matters of fact, truth and reason are king and queen; in matters of faith, beauty and goodness. What extraordinary folly to be reasoning whether there is one love or three or three in one - there is no love, therefore one must believe in it. — unenlightened

There are 3 ways one can believe something to be true and act accordingly

1. Fact - prior to the world of Trump anyway facts just are. 2 + 2 = 4. One can not argue facts. They just are.

2. Reason - based on facts, one can use ones ability to reason propositions one believes to be true. I believe there is no such thing as a unicorn on earth. That is not a fact, but it is reasonable to believe it is true and act accordingly. Reasoned beliefs can not be in opposition to facts

3 faith. - one can by faith alone believe something to be true, and act accordingly. Beliefs based on faith cannot be in opposition to fact, or reason

Facts are the realm of science, reason is the realm of philosophy and faith is the realm of theology. All equally valid and real in their own nature

hard to argue against such a complete and thoughtfully reasoned argument like that. Have you considered publishing?

- and this subsequent reply of yours rehashes the greater good argument, which has no persuasive power whatsoever to anyone in their right state of mind, who would rightly reject the notion that the most shockingly vile, despicable, evil acts were enacted or permitted by an all good God because they were somehow necessary for a greater good. — Sapientia

There are very many people, completely in their right mind who find the skeptical theism argument for compensating goods quite reasonable. Your point above is opinion and not argument.