see above. — Rank Amateur

See above.

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. — S

just go back to the original argument - it is quite simple and clear. If you have a another reasoned and logical objection - i am happy to address - but we have now entered into some meaningless do loop -

can you try another path ?? — Rank Amateur

Sure, but you seem to have your hands full already. I'm in no hurry, but if you feel like it any time we can start from this. How do you determine that an argument is reasonable?

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 — Rank Amateur

Well, this is kind of silly, because none of us can step outside of ourselves, can we? There's always a subjective element, but so what? That certainly doesn't mean that I must be at fault, or that anything goes, or anything of the sort. This doesn't change anything significant. I've accepted my fallibility from the start, I just didn't think it relevant to mention. That I'm fallible is not that I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, you'll actually have to demonstrate that I'm wrong.

How do you determine that an argument is reasonable? — Isaac

i find the premises true and the conclusion follows

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.

Well, this is kind of silly, because none of us can step outside of ourselves, can we? — S

of course we can - i can see, appreciate and find all kinds of arguments reasonable that I don't agree with.

That certainly doesn't mean that I must be at fault, or that anything goes, or anything of the sort. — S

as above - there is no fault whatsoever in believing what one want to believe ( within some level of reason) - I have never taken a position that atheism if wrong or unreasonable - and until I can make such a case I won't.

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. — S

The reasoned belief is that the parachute is packed correctly. Venturing something on that belief - the jump - is an act of faith. Why is venturing something on the basis of a reasoned belief not a suitable definition of an act of faith?

just go back to the original argument - it is quite simple and clear. If you have a another reasoned and logical objection - i am happy to address - but we have now entered into some meaningless do loop - — Rank Amateur

Why the heck am I doing all the work here? You can't remember your own argument, so I must go back and quote you your own damn words? Jesus Christ.

no - I am asking others to respect the belief that theism is a reasonable belief. I am not asking that they find theism reasonable.

a fine note to end on

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.

of course we can - i can see, appreciate and find all kinds of arguments reasonable that I don't agree with. — Rank Amateur

We can't step outside of ourselves in the sense that I meant.

In cases where there are multiple arguments where the conclusions are incompatible, and which all seem reasonable, then what's reasonable is to determine which is the "most" reasonable or withhold judgement until you can. All this does is switch up the terminology a little, it doesn't change anything significantly. What I'm simply calling reasonable, you might call the "most" reasonable.

Either you think that theism is the "most" reasonable or you're being unreasonable by not withholding judgement.

as above - there is no fault whatsoever in believing what one want to believe ( within some level of reason) - I have never taken a position that atheism if wrong or unreasonable - and until I can make such a case I won't. — Rank Amateur

That's a misleading portrayal of my stance. I've seen you jump at trying to mischaracterise my stance in this sort of way before. I haven't given you any ground to do so. To be clear, I don't believe what I want to believe. Want has nothing to do with it.

It could be rational to hold a belief that guides your actions, making you a better, happier person. This was William James’ definition of the rational.

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

Yeah, and of course wholly analogous to Christian belief, where you venture living in a way you wouldn’t otherwise, on the reasoned, but not necessarily certain, belief that it’s true.

The reasoned belief is that the parachute is packed correctly. Venturing something on that belief - the jump - is an act of faith. Why is venturing something on the basis of a reasoned belief not a suitable definition of an act of faith? — AJJ

No, it would be an act of reasoned belief, not an act of faith. I would reason that if my parachute is packed correctly, then jumping won't be a problem. An act of faith can't be reasoned by virtue of the meaning of faith. An act of faith would be not having a clue about whether or not there's any reason to believe that my parachute is packed correctly, but believing that it'll all be okay anyway.

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. — Rank Amateur

If you believe anything beyond what's probable, then that's faith. But if you can't help it because of the circumstances, then importantly, that's different to a conscious decision to have faith regardless. The one is unreasonable through habit, not our fault, we can't help it. The other is unreasonable through choice, our fault, we can do otherwise.

enjoy the rest of your day - things to do — Rank Amateur

It's 10 O'clock at night. :grin:

Right, well what you’re calling “an act of reasoned belief” is what I mean by the word “faith”. So whatever your own definition of faith is will be beside the point. I can simply call being a Christian “an act of reasoned belief” and mean the same thing.

Right, well what you’re calling “an act of reasoned belief” is what I mean by the word “faith”. So whatever your own definition of faith is will be beside the point. I can simply call being a Christian “an act of reasoned belief” and mean the same thing. — AJJ

If you do call being a Christian “an act of reasoned belief” and mean the same thing as I do, then we will be in disagreement, and I base that disagreement on the absence of any sound reasoning (of which I'm aware, which goes without saying, and which Rank Amateur tries to exploit to his advantage).

Sound reasoning in support of my definition you mean?

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. — Rank Amateur

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. Theism is the belief that God exists, which implies the belief that "God exists" is true. If it can be true, then whether or not God exists is a matter of fact.

Sound reasoning in support of my definition you mean? — AJJ

Sound reasoning which concludes that God exists, which is fundamental to being a Christian. I do not know of any such reasoning. If you think that you do, then that's what distinguishes our positions. I'm sceptical at best.

Alternatively, it's possible that you in fact do not mean the same thing as I do by the phrase, "an act of reasoned belief", which I maintain is distinct from an act of faith.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument gives a sound enough rational reason for believing in God. Its premises, though rebutted, have not been refuted and so are reasonable to believe, and therefore the conclusion too.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument gives a sound enough rational reason for believing in God. Its premises, though rebutted, have not been refuted and so are reasonable to believe, and therefore the conclusion too. — AJJ

I know that that's what you believe. I remember from when you brought it up before. I'm sceptical at best on whether or not it's logically sound, which is what I mean by reasonable in this context. And no, that it hasn't been refuted is insufficient and illogical as a basis for believing it.

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.

See the edit.

No problem. But that’s it then: A reason for believing, plus faith, or “an act of reasoned belief”, and there’s your Christian.

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.