• If there was an objective meaning of life.
    ↪Mww
    agree completely
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    Because it's incoherent. The only way to defeat that is to attempt to make it coherent. — Terrapin Station

    you just continue to make declarative statements without support. I understand what you think about the matter - but your opinion is not an argument -
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    No, I would just say that it's either a fact that God is, or it's a fact that God is not. And the issue as a whole, i.e. whether or not God exists, is a matter of fact, meaning a factual matter, or a matter pertaining to what's the case, or about the current state of affairs, which are just different ways of saying the same thing.

    I agree 100 % - now useing your words if you say -

    " I would just say that it's either a fact that God is, or it's a fact that God is not. "
    if both possibilities exist - that is exactly the same thing as saying
    it is not a fact that god is or it is not a fact that god is
    which are my propositions     — S
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    Basically, it's just ridiculous nonsense. — Terrapin Station

    un basically - that is again - just opinion - which is fine - but one can not defeat a proposition in an argument simply because it is your opinion it is wrong. Make an argument, or allow it.
  • What is true
    ↪DingoJones
    yea can see that - agree - back to the drawing board -
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    ↪Terrapin Station


    back to the original argument - I challenge your objection to P3 - due to lack of empirical evidence in support of P3.

    There was not empirical evidence about bacteria until there was.
    There was not empirical evidence for atoms until there was.

    Lack of empirical evidence is a claim of reason - not of fact.
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    But it's not "just about definitions." It's a matter of what we're claiming to be the case ontologically. The argument as it stands wouldn't make much sense if we're talking about subjective assessments that individuals make. — Terrapin Station

    your point is just where exactly on the good - evil continuum you want to draw the line - meaningless. If memory serves, statement in the AFE is - Evil exists - would you say evil ( however you wish to define it) does not exist ?
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    It's primarily an empirical matter. There's a complete lack of empirical evidence for it. — Terrapin Station

    Lack of empirical evidence is a reasonable argument that God is not. It does not elevate the proposition God is not to the level of fact.
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    For me to say that the argument is reasonable, it would have to rest on a more accurate account of what evil is. — Terrapin Station

    this is an aside - this is just the same old - lets argue about definitions and not the concept in question. Very very tiresome and unproductive. Especially on a board like this where we don't do pages of argument. Both you and I and most anyone else has a good enough and consistent enough common understanding of evil to argue the concept in the well worn AFE. We use the word truth here all the time - you can take a 2 semester course on the meaning of the word truth. If your objective is just to never constructively answer anything - these definition arguments are a winning tactic -

    end of aside
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    I don't think so though. I think it's as clear as anything can be. — Terrapin Station

    do you have an argument to support ??
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    P3 is false because I think it's pretty clear empirically that it's a fact that there are no gods. — Terrapin Station

    unsupported - that is just opinion -

    This is different than us evaluating the merit of their reason, which is usually what "reasonable" connotates--that we've evaluated their reasons/their reasoning, and we've found it satisfactory. "I ate a taco last night" is a reason the person gave for believing that they're Napoleon, but most of us would say that it's not a good reason, that it's not reasonable in an evaluative sense. — Terrapin Station

    fine - than using that definition i still say P4 - P7 stand unless you can make an argument they "unreasonable" as you define it above. Just saying they are not - does not make it so.
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    using your understanding of "matter of fact" can you say either god is a matter of fact, or can you say God is not a matter of fact ?
    — Rank Amateur

    No, I find that confusing.     — S

    so using YOUR own understanding of MATTER OF FACT - you cant say either God is or is not a matter of fact ??

    because:

    You can say it is a fact that the result will be a head, or it is a fact that God is not. You can say that because, as per the above, these are factual matters. Matters of fact, as opposed to matters of taste, etc. It's the right category. — S

    I have no idea at all what any of that means - not being a jerk - I have no clue at all what you are trying to say here.

    can you give me an example ?? try another explanation ?
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    Whether the result will be a head or a tail is a matter of fact, and whether God is or God is not is a matter of fact. — S

    i agree with that - go on don't stop there -

    using your understanding of "matter of fact" can you say either god is a matter of fact, or can you say God is not a matter of fact ?
  • What is true
    ↪tim wood
    wondering what you think of this as a workable definition of truth -

    truth is something one believes and tries to act in accordance with.

    I want to link truth to what we do, or at least try to do
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    ↪S
    that may be the heart of our disagreement - I do not find that inconsistent at all. I think there can be competing reasonable arguments for the same point -

    I think somewhere in our chat yesterday you made the same point - that just because an argument is reasonable ( based on reason) it may not be true. If memory serves
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    What do you think of my take on the argument? P2 and P3 cannot both be true unless an additional premise stating that whether or not God exists is not a matter of fact, is also true. That additional premise is false. Therefore the argument is unsound. — S

    let me see if this helps -

    I am about to flip a fair coin

    It is a matter of fact that the result will be a head or a tail
    It is not a matter of fact the result will be a head
    it is not a matter of fact the result will be a tail

    It is a matter of fact that God is or God is not
    It is not a matter of fact that God is
    It is not a matter of fact that God is not
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    I yield. I'm not a fan of these, mainly because of the company they kept. Mattis and Powell I know of no bad news about. The rest - but where are they while Trump does his damage both to their country and their party? — tim wood

    agree -
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    I cannot think of even a single Republican that I can feel right in thinking of as an American. — tim wood

    Condolezza Rice, Colin Powell, John Kasich, Will Hurd, Rex Tillerson, General Mttis, John Kelly -
    more probably if I though more-

    But the more important question to me is why aren't these - what I think are good men and women leading the charge against this disgrace we have as president of the US - We need strong and respected moral voices from the Republican party - but so far have very little.
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    You seem to be using "reasonable" as "based on reasons" though. In the sense of "based on reasons" where we're looking at that purely descriptively, though, and not evaluatively — Terrapin Station

    I am using reasonable as based on reason. - not sure what you mean by " that is not evaluative" - can you explain.

    and not sure what any of that has to do with P3 which you claim is false
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    I don't know why you'd think something is useless just because it's an individual judgment. And whether it's an individual judgment or not, simply telling someone that their argument is unreasonable isn't going to make them say, "Oh. Well I guess I'm wrong then." — Terrapin Station

    maybe we are having a semantic argument:

    let me try an example - I find the argument from evil a reasonable argument. the logic is good, the preemies are true, the conclusion follows. I am also aware of the counter arguments to the argument from evil, which I also find reasonable. I chose to believe the counter arguments have more weight and defeat the argument. I do not believe the argument from evil is true. That does not mean it is not a reasonable argument. It also does not mean that my judgement of what I chose to believe is true is or is not correct.
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    ↪Terrapin Station


    how about we try it out in specific - here is my full argument -

    P1. There exist such things as Theists – defined as human beings who believe in some form of supernatural being or entity - for this argument we will label as “God”
    P2. God exists is not a fact - Fact defined as, in the space time plane we exist in, and assuming reality is as our senses perceive it, the item being tested as “fact” conforms to the reality.
    P3. God does not exist is not a fact
    P4. There are arguments – based on reason – that God does not exist
    P5. The arguments in P4 – have reasonable counter arguments
    P6. There are arguments – based on reason – an “un-created – creator” existed
    P7. The arguments if P6 – have reasonable counter arguments

    Conclusion:
    Therefore - Theism, as defined, is not in direct conflict with fact. Theism, as defined is not in
    direct conflict with reason, since by reason alone there are positions both for an against.

    Please tell me which propositions are false, or that the conclusion does not matter
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    and I think i need a bridge between

    Oh . . . I don't agree with that. "Reasonable/unreasonable" is a judgment that individuals make, and it's nothing more than that. There is no objective reasonableness that we can get wrong. — Terrapin Station

    and

    Yes, for some things. But not for just any arbitrary thing. It depends on the subject matter, how it's approached, etc. — Terrapin Station

    they seem a little at odds
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    Oh . . . I don't agree with that. "Reasonable/unreasonable" is a judgment that individuals make, and it's nothing more than that. There is no objective reasonableness that we can get wrong. — Terrapin Station

    Completely objective reasonableness may be an unreachable standard. However the concept of reasonableness being nothing more than an individual judgement makes the entire concept of reasoned arguments useless.

    party a - I believe this - because 1, 2, 3 etc)
    party b - You are unreasonable
    party a - why
    party b - because I say so, and i am the sole arbiter of reasonableness
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    I'm not wanting to argue against theism. I just don't think it's clear that it would make sense for any arbitrary view to respect the belief that it's reasonable while not actually finding the view reasonable — Terrapin Station

    this may help -

    do you believe it is possible for there to be competing reasonable arguments both for and against a specific point?
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    I don't understand this comment. What does it mean for a belief to be "unreasonable in general" versus a "belief in specific that a position is unreasonable"? — Terrapin Station

    i mean just because you find it unreasonable - does not mean it is unreasonable.
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    That's not my view, actually. It's just that I think that religious beliefs are absurd. — Terrapin Station

    opinions are your right -
    So how would I respect the belief that a religious conclusion is reasonable when I don't think that religious conclusions/beliefs are reasonable? — Terrapin Station

    your belief in specific that a position is unreasonable - does not make the belief unreasonable in the general.

    and all your opinions are fine - however if you wish to make it a general point that either theism is absurd, or unreasonable - i await your argument.
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    Maybe you mean something like tolerate or "leave people alone in what you take to be their unreasonableness"? — Terrapin Station

    Not really i believe it is possible to have reasonable arguments on both sides of an issue. And if one feels compelled to take a position on the issue they are forced to chose between reasonable alternatives. Your point, if i understand it correctly is that for any issue - there is only one reasonable argument. Or if you disagree with an argument it is therefor unreasonable -

    I wouldn't say that a belief is reasonable just because it's the conclusion of a valid argument — Terrapin Station

    and i would agree - but that point must be made and argued in the specific - not the general.

    All valid arguments are true - is not a true statement
    All valid arguments are false - is not a true statement

    but valid arguments is a good place to start though
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    Argument with S

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    How do you determine that an argument is reasonable?
    — Isaac

    I find the premises true and the conclusion follows.
    — Rank Amateur

    But you're asking other people to agree that theism is reasonable. They can't be expected to hold that belief on the basis that you find the premises true and the conclusion follows.
    — Isaac

    You've got him there. Nicely done. :ok:     — S

    You left out my answer back here

    823
    ↪Isaac no - I am asking others to respect the belief that theism is a reasonable belief. I am not asking that they find theism reasonable.     — Rank Amateur

    Which as far as I know Isaac has not responded to.

    It is systematic of you entire argument, variable, illogical, and disingenuous. I could not pin you down in en entire day on what a fact was.

    It was just the "S" do loop. You make an objection, I defeat it, you say that wasn't what you meant, I ask, you say something else, I defeat that, you say that's not what you meant on and on.

    What I did know going in, and what was confirmed, was you just like to fight. I don't. So if want to pick this back up, start with making a clear, specific, logical, and complete objection.
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    ↪S
    I have no clue at all what you are saying about the factual existence of god and neither do you.
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    ↪S


    To recap the latest

    I say it is not a matter of fact that either God is or god is not
    You say no it is about a state of affairs
    I say what are the state of affairs about the existence of God
    You say neither you or I know
    I say what is the difference
    You get mad

    Please
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    I can of course only justifiably tell you about my knowledge of the current state of affairs, and that knowledge leads me to conclude that it's either the case that neither of us know whether or not God exists, or you know more than I do on this one . — S

    And this is different from my point that is is not a fact that God is or God is not how exactly
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    My P6 only says
    P6. There are arguments – based on reason – an “un-created – creator” existed
    And I grant as below
    P7. The arguments if P6 – have reasonable counter arguments     — Rank Amateur
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    When I'm saying that whether or not God exists is a matter of fact, I'm saying that it's the sort of issue that's about what is the case or the present state of affairs — S

    What is the current state of affairs as to the existence of God then ? Please complete the thought so some one as challenged as myself can understand
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    ↪S
    you gave me a dichotomous choice either a is or a is not. It is a fact that a is or a is not. That does not make a fact that we know which is true. This is not that hard.
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    ↪S
    we are up to like 10 times now where you are trying to turn the argument into me saying that god is, so you can say prove it. It is not the argument and the tactic is getting tiresome
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    ↪S
    if your point is, that either god is or god is not is a fact. I say yes it is one or the other. If you say god is not is a fact I say no. And I do not say god is is a fact. I say I believe god is. And I say that belief is reasonable.

    My proposition was and is whether god is or is not is not a matter of fact.
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    If theism is not outside of what's factual, then it must be within the domain of what's factual, meaning that it's a matter of fact. But this is what you've denied. — S

    Theism is a fact. It was my P1. Theism is I have never denied theism is a fact. No clue what you are trying to say.
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    Either you think that theism is the "most" reasonable or you're being unreasonable by not withholding judgement. — S

    I do think it is most reasonable, and I think that position is reasonable. I also respect the counter position. I know of no way at all to measure in any meaningful way if my belief or your belief is objectively more reasonable. We are left what we both believe - i am just asking for respect for the position -

    enjoy the rest of your day - things to do
  • If there was an objective meaning of life.
    ↪AJJ
    i like this way of looking at it. It is an act of faith when an action requires 100 % commitment and the consequences are a matter of some probability.

    when you drive home - driving the car requires 100% commitment - you either drive home or you don't. There is some chance you could die in a crash on the way home. Driving the car home is an act of faith. It is reasonable you will make it home, you always have before - but it is not a fact you will make it home - it is a matter of probability.
Home » Rank Amateur