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. — AJJ

I accept that people have faith in ordinary contexts. We can distinguish that from reasoned belief. I might slip into the habit of having faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, but, if I am in agreement with Hume, then I won't attempt to justify that. I only slip into that faith by habit, not by conscious choice, and that's a key difference. Those who consciously choose to have faith in such things aren't being reasonable, they're being unreasonable, and they're consciously choosing to be so.

So, if we agree that A is false, and we agree that we do not know either way, then your argument is refuted — S

how is that ?? How is my claim that theism is not it conflict with fact, if in fact we do not know what the fact is ??

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 — S

disagree - in this case to refute my argument that it is not in conflict with fact - it would have to be shown that God is not - that burden is on you,

what you want this to be is a case I am not making - namely It is a matter of fact that God is or is not, and you want me to say "God is" - for now at lest the 5th time that is not the case I am making - nor need to make to argue theism is reasonable

ok - now using your definition of fact, here are all the options

1. It is not a matter of fact that God is, or is not - Theism can not be in conflict with fact if it is not a matter of fact

2. It is a matter of fact that God is or God is not - then God is not as fact refutes my argument - make the case, or God is and theism is not in conflict with fact

that is all the cases of your logic - if you want to go down this road the only option that causes my proposition to fail is: god is or is not a matter of fact, and in fact God is not - feel free to make the case.

further to above - my original argument was 1. above that it is not a matter of fact. I have been generous with you for a few exchanges now to entertain your case that it is a matter of fact that god is or is not. Which you have in no way at all supported.

So there is all the reason and logic of the path you have taken to challenge the original argument. Which I have clearly shown to be without any basis whatsoever.

how is that ?? How is my claim that theism is not it conflict with fact, if in fact we do not know what the fact is ?? — Rank Amateur

Oh my goodness. Where on earth are you getting that from? Certainly not from what you quoted. Anyway, taken straight from the conclusion of your argument:

Theism, as defined is not in direct conflict with fact. — Rank Amateur

Other than your qualifications ("as defined", "directly"), that's what you claimed. And I wasn't saying that you claimed that we don't know either way - what I said was intentionally worded in a conditional manner, there being an "if", precisely so as to avoid you kicking off about what you have or haven't claimed (which you refused to clarify!).

disagree - in this case to refute my argument that it is not in conflict with fact - it would have to be shown that God is not - that burden is on you, — Rank Amateur

You can disagree all you like, but you're wrong. Regarding the burden, if, as I said in the quote you were responding to, you think that you know otherwise, i.e. that you obtain knowledge that God exists, then the burden is on you to demonstrate that supposed knowledge, not on me to demonstrate otherwise. It's a well known fallacy to attempt to shift the burden on to me in this context, it's known as an argument from ignorance. That's the only way you can justify your claim - it's your claim, not mine - that theism isn't in conflict with fact. Otherwise, it stands to reason that it may well be in conflict with fact.

I haven't claimed that God doesn't exist, and I don't need to.

what you want this to be is a case I am not making - namely It is a matter of fact that God is or is not, and you want me to say "God is" - for now at lest the 5th time that is not the case I am making - nor need to make to argue theism is reasonable — Rank Amateur

So you don't even agree that A is false. You don't agree that whether or not God exists is a matter of fact. And you've been making this more difficult than it needed to be.

Either that, or you are being very unclear with your wording, as that's what it looks like you're saying. If this is the case, I urge you to be more careful in your wording.

But if so, that is, if you don't believe that it's even a matter of fact, that is, if you don't believe that whether B is true or whether C is true is a factual matter determined by what is the case, the question remains, why not? I don't believe you've answered that, or answered that satisfactorily.

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. — Rank Amateur

No, it's not the mere presence of these arguments that sustains yours though is it? It's the conclusion that they are reasonable arguments. I'm asking you why you have not felt the need justify your belief that these arguments themselves are reasonable. You obviously feel the need to justify the conclusion that your argument for theism is reasonable, you don't merely state that it is.

At least Rank Amateur has the balls to say what he believes. His belief isn’t in conflict with known facts. You won’t even make a metaphysical claim for the genesis of reality because you’re afraid to put up your beliefs to scrutiny. Most cosmologists have beliefs as to the genesis of the universe, but you are either afraid or ignorant. I think it’s both.

just gish gallup - you are wasting my time again -

Either that, or you are being very unclear with your wording, as that's what it looks like you're saying. — S

there is no way on earth I could be more clear on any of these points - which you either willfully fail to understand and directly argue - or you are incapable of comprehending which i do not thing is the case.

Even if you don't see it all your objections above have been answered - continued repetition of them does not make them any more valid.

No, it's not the mere presence of these arguments that sustains yours though is it? It's the conclusion that they are reasonable arguments. I'm asking you why you have not felt the need justify your belief that these arguments themselves are reasonable. You obviously feel the need to justify the conclusion that your argument for theism is reasonable, you don't merely state that it is. — Isaac

I make argument A - say the cosmological argument - i pro-port this argument is based on propositions that are true and a conclusion that follows - I say this makes the argument reasonable. If one does not believe this argument is reasonable - the burden is theirs to make the case it is not.

It seems if I understand you correctly you want me to defend that an argument is reasonable without using the argument is reasonable in the argument - I feel I am badly missing your point - can you try another path ??

ok - now using your definition of fact, here are all the options

1. It is not a matter of fact that God is, or is not - Theism can not be in conflict with fact if it is not a matter of fact — Rank Amateur

Yes, I agree with that logic. However, I reject the premise as false.

2. It is a matter of fact that God is or God is not - then God is not as fact refutes my argument - make the case, or God is and theism is not in conflict with fact — Rank Amateur

And this is your argument from ignorance where you attempt to shift the burden from you to me.

The possibility alone refutes your argument. You would have to demonstrate that God exists, otherwise your claim that there isn't a conflict with fact is completely unwarranted. Unless you do so, it's either 1) possible that there's a conflict, and if it's possible, then you can't justifiably say that there isn't one, or 2) there definitely is a conflict, as the only other alternative left unaddressed is that God doesn't exist.

I don't think I can make it any clearer than that. It's on you now.

that is all the cases of your logic - if you want to go down this road the only option that causes my proposition to fail is: god is or is not a matter of fact, and in fact God is not - feel free to make the case. — Rank Amateur

This is faulty logic from you.

In my skydiving example you would be choosing to have faith that your parachute was packed correctly. Would that necessarily be unreasonable?

Yes, I agree with that logic. However, I reject the premise as false. — S

because .... you can not just dismiss a premise because you don' t like it - make a case

And this is your argument from ignorance where you attempt to shift the burden from you to me. — S

no - I gave you all the options of YOUR logic you need to treat all of the as a whole.

If as YOU state it is a matter of fact that God is there are only 2 possibilies

1 - god is ( if that is the case theism is not in conflict with fact)
2. god is not ( if that is the case theism is in conflict with fact)

This is YOUR case - not mine - mine is it is not a matter of fact that you have dismissed without reason and which I have generously let you.

so decide in YOUR case is it 1 or 2 there are no other options in YOUR case - make the argument

further to above - my original argument was 1. above that it is not a matter of fact. — Rank Amateur

If that's your claim, then that requires a big explanation from you. Where is this explanation?

In my skydiving example you would be choosing to have faith that your parachute was packed correctly. Would that necessarily be unreasonable? — AJJ

No, it could be based on reasoned belief as opposed to faith. I reject your criteria for what counts as faith. Reasoned belief is based on sufficient reason, and sufficient reason doesn't have to be definitive reason, i.e. certainty.

But otherwise, yes, if you choose to have faith where something can't be justified through reason, then that's unreasonable. That's different to habit-based beliefs which are practically unavoidable.

where you absent in philosophy class when they talked about logical arguments ? It is my proposition as true - it stands as true unless you can show it is not - how this stuff works

where you absent in philosophy class when they talked about logical arguments ? It is my proposition as true - it stands as true unless you can show it is not - how this stuff works — Rank Amateur

Wow, you really are a rank amateur. You don't even understand how the burden of proof works and you interpret it in a fallacious way. That's a textbook argument from ignorance, practically word for word.

Who are you again? :lol:

I believe you called me your “sworn enemy”. Lol

because .... you can not just dismiss a premise because you don' t like it - make a case — Rank Amateur

I did. You didn't address it, if I recall correctly. So go back and find it, then get back to me. I'm certainly not going to find it for you.

Listen S The are hundreds of years of argument on the reasonably of theism and none have defeated the assertion in any broad sense what so ever. My agenda that started this flurry and hijacked the thread is a simple a request for mutual respect for differing opinions - I have always acknowledged atheism as a reasonable belief - just asking the same in return. Often seems a big ask.

1. It is not a matter of fact that God is, or is not - Theism can not be in conflict with fact if it is not a matter of fact
— Rank Amateur

Yes, I agree with that logic. However, I reject the premise as false. — S

what did i miss that supports this last sentence ??

Of course it's a big ask! If I thought that it was reasonable, as distinguished from being based on reason, then I might be a theist. A reasonable argument, by my meaning, is a sound argument. And I am not aware of any argument that I'm convinced is sound. That rules out theism for me, and leaves scepticism or strong atheism.

2. It is a matter of fact that God is or God is not - then God is not as fact refutes my argument - make the case, or God is and theism is not in conflict with fact
— Rank Amateur

And this is your argument from ignorance where you attempt to shift the burden from you to me.

The possibility alone refutes your argument. You would have to demonstrate that God exists, otherwise your claim that there isn't a conflict with fact is completely unwarranted. Unless you do so, it's either 1) possible that there's a conflict, and if it's possible, then you can't justifiably say that there isn't one, or 2) there definitely is a conflict, as the only other alternative left unaddressed is that God doesn't exist.

I don't think I can make it any clearer than that. It's on you now. — S

this i answered with:

no - I gave you all the options of YOUR logic you need to treat all of the as a whole.

If as YOU state it is a matter of fact that God is there are only 2 possibilies

1 - god is ( if that is the case theism is not in conflict with fact)
2. god is not ( if that is the case theism is in conflict with fact)

This is YOUR case - not mine - mine is it is not a matter of fact that you have dismissed without reason and which I have generously let you.

so decide in YOUR case is it 1 or 2 there are no other options in YOUR case - make the argument — Rank Amateur

you continue to move goal posts and make the argument you want - or ignore or dismiss without argument my counters and go back and make the same point again and again. This seems your style

what did i miss that supports this last sentence ?? — Rank Amateur

Sigh. You're a pain. You owe me for this one, so less of the attitude would be nice, although I know that I'm hardly the most amenable of chaps. I went back and found it, then I looked at your reply, and that confirms that you didn't address it.

Here:

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. — S

Of course it's a big ask! If I thought that it was reasonable, as distinguished from being based on reason, then I might be a theist. A reasonable argument, by my meaning, is a sound argument. And I am not aware of any argument that I'm convinced is sound. That rules out theism for me, and leaves scepticism or strong atheism. — S

ah here is something I can build on. The fact that you do not find it reasonable is absolutely fine with me - quite you prerogative - and I respect your position as above. Expanding your belief into the general is maybe where we come apart. and requires support.

simple because S does not find an argument reasonable is not in anyway proof is not reasonable.

seems we are arguing more about the definition of reasonable than theism

no - I gave you all the options of YOUR logic you need to treat all of the as a whole.

If as YOU state it is a matter of fact that God is there are only 2 possibilies

1 - god is ( if that is the case theism is not in conflict with fact)
2. god is not ( if that is the case theism is in conflict with fact)

This is YOUR case - not mine - mine is it is not a matter of fact that you have dismissed without reason and which I have generously let you.

so decide in YOUR case is it 1 or 2 there are no other options in YOUR case - make the argument — Rank Amateur

And this I answered with my explanation of why it is a matter of fact, which you ignored. And then I explained that, under the assumption for arguments sake that it is indeed a matter of fact, the burden would then lie with you to demonstrate option 1, as otherwise the other options - A) "I don't have a clue either way, but believe nevertheless" or B) God doesn't exist, yet you believe God exists - result in conflict.

That's a reduction to the absurd, and it refutes your argument, but it all depends on that premise of it being a matter of fact.

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. — S

No no no Mate - You really really want this to be an argument that GOD is and want me to support it.

I HAVE NOT MADE THAT ARGUMENT - I have stated in P1 that theism exists - and defined it, you are arguing my definition or theism as is believed by theists. I did not say the definition was true - i just said that it is believed by theists.

The only truth claim in that whole P that I am making is " Theism exists" do you feel that is untrue ?

You cant just go to a pile of words - pick some you want to argue - and make a whole new argument that you want to have instead of the one that was made.

Beliefs can be consistent but not coherent. That doesn’t make them false. However, the belief that the universe started by a quantum fluctuation that inflated into the universe is consistent with known facts, and it may or may not be coherent, but you would have to make that case. In this cosmology I would ask, “Who is doing the observing that caused the quantum to come into existence before it inflated into a universe?”

Another possibility: the universe was caused by a 4-dimensional black hole. The burden would have to be on the person making this claim to argue that this is a reasonable position.

Rank Amateur feels the cosmological argument is a good argument. S does not. Now, S should give an argument why one of the premises of this argument is false, or why the conclusion doesn’t follow. That’s how you critique arguments.

Personally, I think Rank Amateur is the more noble of you two, not because I agree with him (because I would have to hear the argument and counter-argument before I would decide, and I have my own reasons for my beliefs), but because he is brave enough to put forth a claim.

see above.

No no no Mate - You really really want this to be an argument that GOD is and want me to support it.

I HAVE NOT MADE THAT ARGUMENT - I have stated in P1 that theism exists - and defined it, you are arguing my definition or theism as is believed by theists. I did not say the definition was true - i just said that it is believed by theists.

The only truth claim in that whole P that I am making is " Theism exists" do you feel that is untrue ?

You cant just go to a pile of words - pick some you want to argue - and make a whole new argument that you want to have instead of the one that was made. — Rank Amateur

What has any of that got to do with whether or not the issue of whether or not God exists is a matter of fact? It looks like a giant red herring.

This was indeed part of what you've been arguing. I hope you don't deny it or try to make me go back and quote you as evidence.