What if one experiences meaning? Would that still be considered a leap of faith? — Tzeentch

It shouldn't be, but bear in mind that Rank Amateur has an agenda. He pushes the faith rhetoric because of his faith-based theism. If he takes a leap of faith, then so must everyone else! That way he can retort that we're all in the same boat.

There's no real comparison to be made, since an objective meaning to life is a chimaera. The subjective meaning is all we have — S

I don't see how you know objective meaning doesn't exist yet you know subjective meaning exists.

I think when people say they find meaning in X they are referring to an emotional state they have and likewise some people find no meaning in anything.

I don't think that an emotion or belief that Xis meaning equals meaning. I enjoy certain foods but do not have a meaningful experience when eating food. It is verging on solipsism to rely solely on your own feelings and perceptions.

I don't see how you know objective meaning doesn't exist yet you know subjective meaning exists. — Andrew4Handel

Like I said in a subsequent post, regarding objective meaning, there either is none, or there may as well be none, so in that sense it's trivial. We either know that this ever illusive objective meaning doesn't exist, along with fairies, goblins, unicorns and the like, or we don't know, strictly speaking, though we do know that there's no real difference between their existence or nonexistence.

And as for subjective meaning, surely you're not questioning my knowledge of that, are you? What reason would you have to doubt that I get meaning from things like socialising, listening to music, watching a film, and the like?

I think when people say they find meaning in X they are referring to an emotional state they have and likewise some people find no meaning in anything. — Andrew4Handel

Only dead people find no meaning in this sense. Either that, or you set the bar impossibly high for these people. Either consequence indicates that your approach is the wrong way of looking at it.

I don't think that an emotion or belief that X is meaning equals meaning. I enjoy certain foods but do not have a meaningful experience when eating food. It is verging on solipsism to rely solely on your own feelings and perceptions. — Andrew4Handel

I'm sure that some sensible balance can be found between the utterly trivial and the extraordinarily profound, and that this can be used to gauge meaning. It's not all or nothing.

Rank Amateur has an agenda. — S

You are correct, I do have an agenda. And I am more than happy to restate it. My agenda is that theism is a reasonable world view, and when dismissed or degraded as such - those arguments should be challenged - so once again – here is the formal argument. Please note, this is NOT I repeat NOT an argument that God is, it is an argument that theism is not outside fact or reason.

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 - as 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 apparent 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.

That is it the whole agenda. I continue to welcome arguments that either the propositions are false or the conclusion does not follow. I also welcome any counter arguments supported by propositions proposed as true, that ends in a conclusion “ therefor theism is not reasonable “

If theism were reasonable, then there would be no need for the faith that you like to harp on about. You can't have your cake and eat it, so you need to make your mind up and pick just one.

And if you repeat that stupid slogan again...

How can a society be based on subjective meaning?

How can a society be based on subjective meaning? — Andrew4Handel

Well it's either based on that or what seems to be nothing other than a fiction. Much of society is based on fiction actually.

thank you for the opinion - I made an argument - please again feel free to show which premise is false or the conclusion does not follow - or again if you wish to support your position with argument I would be happy to address.

If there was an Objective meaning of life,

What would it be? — Andrew4Handel

It doesn't matter, because we wouldn't know what it was. At the least, we would/could not know it was Objective. So, if there is such a thing, we can't know what it is. The most obvious response to this is to ignore Objectivity entirely, as we don't have Objective access to the Objective Reality, and carry on with the approximations and understandings that we do have, and that we can work with. Objectivity is nothing more than an intellectual curiosity to us humans, as we can't verify or refute it.

thank you for the opinion - I made an argument - please again feel free to show which premise is false or the conclusion does not follow - or again if you wish to support your position with argument I would be happy to address. — Rank Amateur

Your reply is too hasty and dismissive. That was actually a reductio ad absurdum, which is a form of argument. And you've evaded it completely. :ok:

Your argument doesn't support the part of your stated agenda where you say that theism is a reasonable world view, and it contains a number of errors, at least some of which I've addressed before, and will do so here yet again.

1. You misuse the terms "fact" and "matter of fact". A fact is what's the case or a state of affairs. You seem to mean something else, like knowledge. Based on the correct usage, whether or not God exists is a matter of fact. That is, it is a matter relating to what's the case or the current state of affairs. If we don't know either way, then that doesn't mean that it's a) not a matter of fact, b) not a fact that God exists, c) not a fact that God doesn't exist.

2. If we don't know either way, then your conclusion that theism isn't in conflict with fact is unwarranted, as it may well be, and it is if God doesn't in fact exist, unbeknownst to us. The conflict would be that you believe in the existence of something which doesn't in fact exist. If you believe it, then you believe it to be true, but it can't be true without contradiction. That's definitely a conflict.

3. Arguments based on reason aren't necessarily reasonable. Even fallacious arguments are based on reason, but they're obviously not reasonable. I accept that there are arguments for theism which are based on reason. Whether any of them are reasonable is open to debate.

Your reply is too hasty and dismissive. That was actually a reductio ad absurdum, which is a form of argument. — S

that is as much an opinion as the first, only in latin

1. You misuse the word "fact". A fact is what's the case or a state of affairs. You seem to mean something else, like knowledge. Based on the correct usage, whether or not God exists is a matter of fact. That is, it is a matter relating to what's the case or the current state of affairs. If we don't know either way, then that doesn't mean that it's a) not a matter of fact, b) not a fact that God exists, c) not a fact that God doesn't exist. Moreover, if we don't know either way, then your conclusion that theism isn't in conflict with fact is unwarranted, as it may well be, and it is if God doesn't in fact exist, unbeknownst to us — S

Beautifully written - However if:

A. God's existence is not a matter of fact or
B. not a fact that God exists or
C. not a fact than god does not exist

than allow me correctly finish you point .... it may well be, and it is if God doesn't in fact exist, OR DOES EXIST which you conveniently, and IMO quite dishonestly omitted.

Therefor if I allow your A, B, and C as I do - there is no way any belief at all about God can be in conflict with that position since it encompasses all possible positions -

. Arguments based on reason aren't necessarily reasonable. Even fallacious arguments are based on reason, but they're obviously not reasonable. I accept that there are arguments for theism which are based on reason. Whether any of them are reasonable is open to debate. — S

again - thank you the lesson - and agree - if your point is they are unreasonable - as i have on many occasions please make the argument -

That is as much an opinion as the first, only in latin. — Rank Amateur

That's rather childish, although it did give me a bit of a laugh. You could of course just respond that way to every comment I make. Alternatively, you could look up the argument form I referenced and use your noggin to match them up. You could also maybe tell me which parts of my argument you disagree with, although we'd probably end up going back over well trodden ground.

Beautifully written. — Rank Amateur

Thank you, I thought so too. The final edit makes it even more so.

However if:

A. God's existence is not a matter of fact or
B. not a fact that God exists or
C. not a fact than god does not exist — Rank Amateur

A. is false, and B. & C. together is not logically possible.

again - thank you the lesson - and agree - if your point is they are unreasonable - as i have on many occasions please make the argument - — Rank Amateur

There you go again, trying to goad me into making an argument to that effect when the burden doesn't lie with me.

I have actually spent some time recently thinking about the cosmological argument, and specifically the Kalam version of it. It's a shame that the old forum no longer exists, because it had a really long thread about it.

A. is false, and B. & C. together is not logically possible. — S

that is just pure nonsense - let me help

A is either True or False - if A is True - neither B or C have meaning
If A is False - Either B or C but not both are true

So for theism to be in conflict with your definition A would need to be false and B would have to be true. Please feel free to make that argument

There you go again, trying to goad me into making an argument to that effect when the burden doesn't lie with me. — S

there you go again looking for the argument you want - instead of the one I am making. You want an argument where I am forced to prove God is, I have never made such an declaration. In fact I most specifically said when starting this engagement that is not the case I was making.

Yet again - I made an argument with premises i state are true and a conclusion that follows - and await your reasoned objections.

A is either True or False - if A is True - neither B or C have meaning — Rank Amateur

I agree that A is either true or false. It is false, so the logical consequences of it being true are irrelevant.

If A is False - Either B or C but not both are true — Rank Amateur

I agree. That's what I said.

So for theism to be in conflict with your definition A would need to be false and B would have to be true. Please feel free to make that argument — Rank Amateur

Another attempt by you to shift the burden. It would indeed be in conflict in the scenario described above, and that's potentially the scenario right now as we speak, hence you aren't warranted in claiming that it's not in conflict, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

there you go again looking for the argument you want - instead of the one I am making. You want an argument where I am forced to prove God is, I have never made such an declaration. In fact I most specifically said when starting this engagement that is not the case I was making. — Rank Amateur

I'm just telling you what would be required for your argument here to work.

Yet again - I made an argument with premises i state are true and a conclusion that follows - and await your reasoned objections. — Rank Amateur

Even though you do not grant me the same courtesy in relation to my argument, which you deny is even an argument. Here's some more Latin for you: quid pro quo.

Can I just interject to ask you to what criteria you're using to judge "reason" and "reasonable" in P4-7. I ask because you've forwarded this collection of propositions as a means of demonstrating that theism is "reasonable", so you're obviously of the opinion that to be reasonable a proposition requires justification. So it follows that to be classed as reasonable, the propositions P4-7 must also be justified by a set of propositions, yet you've not included such a set in your justification, making it, by your own process, unsatisfactory.

Otherwise you might just as well say "theism is reasonable because it's reasonable".

Another attempt to shift the burden. — S

is this tactic or are you just missing the point -

I say theism is reasonable
you highlight - sort of that in the case where a is false and b is true - my proposition fails
i ask you to then make that case
than you duck behind the " i dont need to make that case dodge "

Even though you do not grant me the same courtesy in relation to my argument, which you deny is even an argument. Here's some more Latin for you: quid pro quo. — S

I have not seen you make an argument yet. Please do

thanks Isaac - to be more precise my conclusion was

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.

And that is what I mean -

Otherwise you might just as well say "theism is reasonable because it's reasonable". — Isaac

What I am in fact saying is theism is not in conflict with reason - because there is no evidence it is unreasonable. If there is some relatively objective preponderance of reasoned evidence either for or against theism - I am un-aware or it. Unless some such evidence exists it is impossible to be in conflict with it.

Let's get this straight. If you accept that A is false, then I am charging you with attempting to shift the burden.

I have a burden for making the case that A is false, as I have claimed. I do not have a burden for making the case that B is true, as the possibility alone is sufficient.

A is false because, as defined by you, God is some form of supernatural being or entity, and whether or not there exists some form of supernatural being or entity is a matter of fact. You seemed to suggest that God could be outside of the space time plane we exist in - but that's nonsense. You also seemed to conflate reality with our perception of reality - an error. Matters of fact do not depend on our perception. Or, if you think otherwise, I'm alright with retracting that claim for a weaker claim and allowing you to present an argument.

You've not really answered my question at all though. Your proposition, no mater how you phrase it, is that theism is reasonable (or not in conflict with reason) and you present an argument to justify this (indicating that you feel one is required for such a claim)

Yet within that argument is the claim that other subsumed arguments are themselves reasonable (or not in conflict with reason).

If it is necessary to justify, with argument, the claim "x is reasonable", then why have you not done so for the subsumed arguments? If, on the other hand, you find it satisfactory to simply declare that an argument is reasonable, then why have you provided justification at all for the claim that "theism is reasonable"?

Okay - your original point was

A. God's existence is not a matter of fact or

If that is false, then God's existence is a matter of fact

and either
B. not a fact that God exists or
C. not a fact than god does not exist

I am making no claim that as a matter of fact that b or c are true, in fact my original proposition was
that we can not say either a or b are true.

You in you challenge to this proposition are now claiming A is false and take you pick b or c are true to defeat my proposition - which if you can make either case would defeat it.;

So I ask you to make the case - and then we go back into your no need to make any case do loop

I forgot to address the last part:

I have not seen you make an argument yet. Please do. — Rank Amateur

I was specifically referring to the one that you've evaded addressing, and deny is an argument. I know that you know what I'm talking about, and the issue is whether or not you're going to do what would be fair and actually address it, or whether you're going to continue to play dumb and be evasive.

If it is necessary to justify, with argument, the claim "x is reasonable", then why have you not done so for the subsumed arguments? If, on the other hand, you find it satisfactory to simply declare that an argument is reasonable, then why have you provided justification at all for the claim that "theism is reasonable"? — Isaac

are you asking for me to make a specific reasonable argument for theism - to support my position there are such things ??

If so sure - but jumped to the assumption most on here know the classic theist arguments. - didn't feel i needed to state them. Can if I need to.

Okay - your original point was

A. God's existence is not a matter of fact or

If that is false, then God's existence is a matter of fact

and either
B. not a fact that God exists or
C. not a fact than god does not exist

I am making no claim that as a matter of fact that b or c are true, in fact my original proposition was
that we can not say either a or b are true.

You in you challenge to this proposition are now claiming A is false and take you pick b or c are true to defeat my proposition - which if you can make either case would defeat it.;

So I ask you to make the case - and then we go back into your no need to make any case do loop — Rank Amateur

How about we take this step by step? Do you agree that A is false? In other words, do you agree that whether or not God exists a matter of fact? Yes or no? That isn't clear to me from the above.

I was referring to the one that you've evaded addressing, and deny is an argument. I know that you know what I'm talking about, and the issue is whether or not you're going to do what would be fair and actually address it, or whether you're going to continue to play dumb and be evasive. — S

I have addressed this point at least 3 times in this latest exchange - you are now just trying an argument ad nauseam -

I put the argument in form to avoid a twitter argument and exchange honest ideas - you seem to resist this -

but will address for one more time. I am NOT NOT NOT making any argument that God is. You seem not to be able to separate the argument " God is" from " it is reasonable to believe God is"

How about we take this step by step? Do you agree that A is false? Yes or no? That still isn't clear to me. — S

just did that - in detail show that you actually take 2 minutes to understand the points made back to you before arguing them -

it seems your only tactic is argument ad nauseam -

I have addressed this point at least 3 times in this latest exchange - you are now just trying an argument ad nauseam -

I put the argument in form to avoid a twitter argument and exchange honest ideas - you seem to resist this - — Rank Amateur

If you believe that you've properly addressed it even once in this discussion, then you are truly deluded. (But then we already knew that). And no, calling it opinion or denying that it's an argument or playing dumb is not properly addressing it.

Here it is again:

If theism were reasonable, then there would be no need for the faith that you like to harp on about. You can't have your cake and eat it, so you need to make your mind up and pick just one.

And if you repeat that stupid slogan again... — S

I've had to go right back to the start for that. And no, I'm not going to spend time needlessly making it look more formal for you. You obviously disagree, so simply tell me what you disagree with and why. Why is that so bloody difficult for you? Once you've done that, we can take it from there.

just did that - in detail show that you actually take 2 minutes to understand the points made back to you before arguing them -

it seems your only tactic is argument ad nauseam - — Rank Amateur

Okay, you're being a dick. I told you that it's unclear to me, and I could have also been a dick by blaming that on your incompetence in expressing yourself clearly, but I did the decent thing instead.

You can't even manage a simple yes or no? Jesus.

more twitter - all your points have been answered - i remain unconvinced you have made any reasonable challenge to my argument - when you have something new, or meaningful to say - please do so

If theism were reasonable, then there would be no need for the faith that you like to harp on about. You can't have your cake and eat it, so you need to make your mind up and pick just one. — S

Faith is venturing something on a belief you don’t definitively know to be true. If you skydive, you don’t definitively know your parachute has been packed correctly; you make the jump because you both reason, and have faith, that it has been.

@Rank Amateur

I can't believe that you're being so childish as to stubbornly refuse to help me to help you in the simplest of ways.

I'll skip past the part which wasn't entirely clear to me, due at least in part to your phrasing, and work on conditional reasoning.

If we agree that A is false, then we agree that whether or not God exists is a matter of fact.

That would bring us to the possible truth of either B or C, which is sufficient grounds for your claim that theism is not in conflict with fact to be unwarranted in the case that we do not know either way.

So, if we agree that A is false, and we agree that we do not know either way, then your argument is refuted. And if we agree that A is false, but we don't agree that we do not know either way, implying that you know otherwise, then the burden is on you. And if you refuse to clarify your answers upon request in the simplest of ways, then you basically lose the debate by default.