Sure - The God of the christian bible is outside reason, there is no reasonable argument to support this definition of God, however it is not in conflict with reason to believe in such a being - all reasonable arguments against God, have valid counter arguments.

anything one believes to be true, and acts accordingly - that is outside fact and reason, but not in conflict with fact or reason.

It's rather that it does not fit maths (leads to a divide by zero error) rather than it fits my position. So my argument stems from a believe in logic and the axioms of arithmetic. So I have faith in the axioms of arithmetic. — Devans99

I rest my case

Faith can be in conflict with reason: people have had and do have faith in all sorts of different Gods. Some of that faith must be misplaced — Devans99

missed the point - if it is outside reason, it is not a valid faith based truth. People can believe anything - you even chose not to believe the mathematical definition of a point - because it didn't fit your position

There is no basis at all to argue against faith - one is free to believe what one wants again as long as not in conflict with faith or reason — Rank Amateur

should be fact or reason - mea culpa

I am a faithless heathen :grin: God quite probably exists sums up how I feel. — Devans99

Ha - no worries, I am not an evangelist. Just important to know from what basis the argument is coming from. It solves a lot of communication problems if this is clear.

So there are 3 ways one can believe something to be true, and act accordingly. Faith, Reason, or Fact.

Fact just is 2 + 2 = 4.
Reason - can not be in conflict with fact
Faith - can not be in conflict with fact or reason

Only a fool argues fact, and only a fool argues with him
All arguments based on reason are subject to argument
There is no basis at all to argue against faith - one is free to believe what one wants again as long as not in conflict with faith or reason

I don’t think it hangs together logically: — Devans99

I don't think it is intended to, and logic has nothing at all to do with it. At least in Catholicism - it is referred to as the mystery of the Trinity - it is outside reason, it is a matter of faith.

you have a creative mind

So it would not exist, how can something have no size and exist?. A point is purely in our minds. How many things do you know that exist and have length zero? — Devans99

you are arguing against the factual mathematical definition of a point - If you have a problem conceptualizing this I can't help you.

I would dispute that. I mathematical point is defined to have length=0. How many points in an interval length 1? 1 / 0 = UNDEFINED. — Devans99

agree - i said between any 2 points there are an infinite number of points - we are arguing facts now

a point is a specific place in space, it has no size. Between any 2 points there is only one distinct line. between any 2 points on the same line there are an infinite number of points.

There are potential points beyond all multitude between any two actual points that we mark, but a truly continuous circle or line does not consist of points at all. — aletheist

been a long time for me - but I have a memory of the formula for a line is

y = mx+b where (x,y) is a point, and m is the change in any two points on the line (x1, y1 to x2, y2) , and b is a point where the line where x = 0 - seems a lot of points in that formula

Ok - got it

A circle is not an infinite regress. Draw a circle. There are a finite number of points on the paper as a result. There is nothing infinite about it. — Devans99

just for some mathematical clarity - between any two points- whether it is on a circle or a line are an infinite number of points.

But I don't understand. — S

The concept of a singularity is no more proven than the concept of "God" or let's say a necessary being.

Both are possible answers to what is before the big bang. They are both faith based claims. One is faith in science ( or better said - faith in our ability to answer all questions) and the other is a faith in God.

Singularity - defined as

In the center of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. As the eminent American physicist Kip Thorne describes it, it is "the point where all laws of physics break down"

has no real scientific evidence to support it at this point, at least not the last time I looked. It is an idea, a possible explanation, at best a logical guess. It is not a scientific theory in the way gravity is.

I didn't look any of this up - if my understanding is outdated - happy to admit it if it is shown to be.

Repeating your as yet unsupported assertion in stronger language does not really achieve anything. Go ahead and back it up, otherwise it can just be dismissed. — S

interesting that this come after this

Lolwut? God doesn't really have a place in this discussion. There is more of scientific basis in support of an initial singularity than God. There is zero scientific basis for God. — S

Never mind S - forget I engaged

If, by faith, one believes that there is such a thing as the 3 O God, It is perfectly logical to believe that this Being could, if It so chooses to, to be such a thing as we describe as the trinity. In this case the logic would be:

there is such a thing as an omnipotent being
omnipotent meaning one can do anything
the trinity as defined is something
A being who can do anything can do something
A being such as this can be the trinity

There is no rational argument I know know off that I supports the existence of a an omnipotent being. So I do not think there is a rational argument outside faith that supports the trinity.

Walter are you interested in a theological discussion on the faith based belief in the trinity, or are you looking for a rational argument in defense of the trinity. If the former fine, if the latter it is just another form of the "prove to me "God is" to my satisfaction challenge. Rather a waste of time.

It seems to be a common misconception that the Big Bang supports, or contributes toward supporting, the cosmological argument. You would need to get past the singularity — S

Is singularity any more a proven scientific theory than God ??

Prior to the big bang, the common argument against the CA was " who created the creator" or said another way, an infinite regression. Post big bang this argument became outside scientific consensus.

A finite universe supports CA - happy to agree is does not support CA to the exclusion of all other arguments - but it most clearly supports CA

Care to elaborate on your version of how it is we humans make poor judgements? Not examples, mind you; I’ve got more than a few years experience in that, thank you very much. — Mww

I think it goes something like this. When there is conflict between what we desire and some moral belief we feel, we can often find a creative way to rationalize the moral belief away, to get what we desire.

Not sure how inherent this relative stenght is between what we want and what we feel is right. Is this just another animal vs enlighten being fight, where the animal is usually a heavy favorite?

thanks and appreciate. I think this is a difficult concept to discuss, without a consensus understanding of what definition of morality we are talking about. In general terms it matters if one feels morality is relative or absolute.

As I stated above, if one is more a believer in absolute morality, one would view the killer at the door as a choice between lesser evils, and not a choice between good or bad. Although this can seem semantic, I would propose it is not. It is an important distinction that solely based on ones judgment one can make the same act either moral or immoral or relative. In the latter case one may use ones judgment to chose a lesser of evils, but the acts themselves are still immoral.

I hold to the traditional absolute morality argument that we humans make poor judgments left to our own prejudices on what is or is not moral. History seems to support this concern.

Here is what I find most interesting about these types of arguments. The cosmological argument's conclusion of a necessary being is currently the argument that is supported best by existing scientific theory. Ever since the acceptance of the Big Bang, and a finite universe by science made the single best argument against the CA outside existing science. There have been hordes of science followers who happily abandon science and propose all kinds of pseudoscience things to avoid or find an alternative for a necessary being.

I find this paradox interesting.

This is correct. Kantian moral philosophy stipulates that a moral act is predicated solely on the premise that a person must always act according to determinations he himself deems fit. In the case at hand, lying to the murderer at the door is completely excused by the determination that any loss of human life, is his moral duty to, if not to prevent, then at least to obstruct. Which leads inexorably to the concept of an autonomous free will. — Mww

Does this change with the nature of the act in question. Is telling the killer the lie, or opening the door and shooting him in the knee equally moral actions because they share an equal motivation.

I prefer Thomas Merton’s understaning

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

I said faith based reasons - again theology not philosophy

What is it that you are doing when you say things like this? Ive observed you seldom miss a chance to make this point, isnt it the same thing? — DingoJones

I feel it is an important point to make, anytime anyone makes a claim about the nature of god. That they have no reason based support to make such a claim.

I am not sure many are aware of this, and it is relevant for them to understand such propositions are outside reason.

the only reason based claim I have ever made is the cosmological argument for a necessary being

I have not made any faith based arguments on here, because they are theology not philosophy

I have all kinds of faith based reasons why I believe in God, non of which I feel a need to defend, and non of which I feel should be attacked

I would highly encourage an end to proselytizing by both theists and atheists.

After all, if I have no basis (Hah!) on which to point out the notion of the Trinity is incoherent then the Christian has no basis to say it's coherent — MindForged

The Christian is free to believe in the trinity as long as it is acknowledged that this is a belief based on faith, not fact or reason.

You have every right to say such a thing as the trinity in incoherent with human reason

And to that I say duh.

I hold my point is both valid and important. Both theists and atheists make all kinds of propositions about the nature of god in their arguments. Yet I know of no rationale argument that supports we have the ability to make any such claim

If you know of one I would be truly interested in hearing it

As I have argued on other threads, I know of no reason based argument that says we as humans have any basis at all to say anything about the nature of such a thing as God

What seems to the normal do loop is an atheist will take a theist claim that is solely based on faith, and argue it is not supported by reason.

The theist response to this should be duh.

There is nothing in accordance with our human logic that could explain the trinity

However, if one by faith believes in a god as the creator of all we can imagine. A trinity, a few miracles and even a virgin birth seems rather easy. If one by faith does not believe in such a god. Seems a tad redundant not to believe in the trinity

Can’t see how there is very much philosophy to discuss on this

Not sure it is possible to use the word truth and trump in the same sentence. Fairly sure neither has met the other.

This is a concept of Ignatian Spirituality called the first principal and foundation - I am not evangelizing here, so feel free to discount the God parts if one wishes. But I think in these paragraphs are the keys to man's happiness - been working at this for a bunch of years, not even close yet. But always thought there were a lot of answers here.

God who loves us creates us and wants to share life with us forever. Our love response takes shape in our praise and honor and service of the God of our life.

All the things in this world are also created because of God’s love and they become a context of gifts, presented to us so that we can know God more easily and make a return of love more readily.

As a result, we show reverence for all the gifts of creation and collaborate with God in using them so that by being good stewards we develop as loving persons in our care of God’s world and its development. But if we abuse any of these gifts of creation or, on the contrary, take them as the center of our lives, we break our relationship with God and hinder our growth as loving persons.

In everyday life, then, we must hold ourselves in balance before all created gifts insofar as we have a choice and are not bound by some responsibility. We should not fix our desires on health or sickness, wealth or poverty, success or failure, a long life or a short one. For everything has the potential of calling forth in us a more loving response to our life forever with God.

Our only desire and our one choice should be this: I want and I choose what better leads to God’s deepening life in me.

I have explained it and defined it a few time on here. Just not to your satisfaction. That is why I am asking your definitions to see where we disagree.

No. You made a formal argument based on faulty prepositions. I already told you this. I questioned your first premise. — Harry Hindu

Please, using reason and not opinion what proposition is false, and why

I really have no clue what you are asking for there. If you can please define your terms, I would be happy to address what I agree or disagree with.

I don’t think I made any claim about the nature of the necessary being other than the definition of necessary being

I made you a formal argument with propositions and a conclusion. You made an emotional response. Show where the propositions are false or the conclusion does not follow

My point is that only theists make claims about the nature of god. — Harry Hindu

Theists make positive ones, atheists make negative ones

By the way I know of no reasonable theist argument that ends with a conclusion therefore there is a 3 O God. All such theist claims such as this are based on faith

Let me make one try putting this in form

P1. There is such a thing as the argument from evil

P2. This argument end with the conclusion “there is no god

P3. This argument is made by the atheist

P4. This argument contains propositions about the nature of god. Notable for sake of argument that god is the 3 O’s. Also that if so god is allowing evil

P5. The entire logic of the atheist argument from evil is based on a contradiction in the nature of god

Conclusion: Atheists base arguments on the nature of god

Harry - if you want to hold the conventional atheist claim that they make no claim. The only argument you are allowed to make against any theist is:

I don’t believe in God. That is it. And the second you refuse to justify that position with reason. It is no longer a reasoned belief. It is now a faith based belief.