I have no clue at all what you are saying about the factual existence of god and neither do you. — Rank Amateur

I do, but you're unfortunately proving incapable of comprehending the vital distinction between, on the one hand, what counts as a matter of fact, and on the other hand, the actual status of whether something is a fact.

This issue is rightly classed a matter of fact, as opposed to, say, a matter of preference or opinion, whether I can tell you what the fact is or otherwise. That's irrelevant. What's relevant is what kind of issue it's rightly categorised as, and it's rightly categorised as a factual matter. The proposition and its negation are truth-apt, and they pertain to the world. Hence, it is a matter of fact whether God does or doesn't exist, and the fact corresponds accordingly, in line with what's the case.

This is where you seem to go wrong again and again and again and again...

Maybe one day you'll finally grasp the distinction, adjust your use of language accordingly, and stop causing such confusion all around.

Furthermore, internal consistency in mathematics may not refer to anything in reality. M theory may be mathematical fantasy.

No. They are unprovable, untestable hypotheses. There are no CONCEIVABLE experiments to test their validity. This was not the case with the Higgs Boson. — Noah Te Stroete

Can you see into the future? Do you know that humanity will never be able to prove them? Isn't that an assumption that demands you to know a lot of the scientific history of the future? Also, your example about string theory counter argues nothing of what I said about science and religion. The big difference is that those who have less to no insight into the world of science generally misunderstand theories and hypotheses as nothing more than guesses when they are far more than that since they have a foundation in established science. Religious arguments get into childish logic at best.

Furthermore, internal consistency in mathematics may not refer to anything in reality. M theory may be mathematical fantasy. — Noah Te Stroete

As I said, nothing of what you say about the topic of string theory and m-theory counter argues what I previously said.

What I am saying about String “Theory” and M “Theory” is that they are no better than me saying there is a universe where I am king of the world. My language of English makes this possible. The language of mathematics (which is pure tautology) makes it possible for physicists to say there are 11 dimensions.

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:

What I am saying about String “Theory” and M “Theory” is that they are no better than me saying there is a universe where I am king of the world. My language of English makes this possible. The language of mathematics (which is pure tautology) makes it possible for physicists to say there are 11 dimensions. — Noah Te Stroete

The difference is that no scientist is saying that they are the truth. Because they are only hypotheses. Popular media have distorted these ideas into being something they are not. But in religion assumptions and guesses equal proof or logical reasonable arguments for God. That's why religious apologists arguments are childish at best. String theory and M-theory are only a path towards a unification theory, nothing more, nothing less, so using it as a counter-argument to what I have said becomes weak as a counter argument. There's been a lot of hypotheses from the days of Einstein that have been considered unprovable and impossible to use as scientific theories, only to later be proven and become solid facts. But you assume that to mean that String theory as it's proposed now to be proven in the future, but not even within the scientific community is string theory considered true or anything other than a stepping stone of scientific reasoning based on established facts towards a unification theory.

You are still just saying the same thing over and over, but it's still not in support of the Kalam argument proving anything at all or any religious argument to be at anywhere near the level of a scientific hypotheses since those are based on a lot of facts and established science while religious arguments assume way too much in order to reach their conclusions. I don't see religious arguments being anywhere near scientific ones because the foundation of the two is like comparing child play with a lab. Saying that some scientific hypotheses to be impossible or close to impossible to prove does not lead to religious arguments becoming more logical or reasonable, they are still weak. It's like a desperate attempt to put flawed arguments at the level of unproven science in order to argue that therefore the religious flawed argument "could be true". This is a very flawed way of trying to push flawed arguments into being more reasonable without actually making the argument reasonable.

Whoah! Whoa! I NEVER argued that there were sound God proofs or irrefutable religious arguments. I hold that religious belief is a matter of faith, but it cannot be falsified. I also hold that internally consistent mathematical “theories” may not refer to anything in reality either, and believing in them is just misplaced faith in tautological mathematics.

Then say “why” you are unconvinced that it is sound. Then Rank Amateur, AJJ, and you can have something consequential to argue about. — Noah Te Stroete

It's a very long and complex argument. I don't even know where to begin. Overall, I'm just not convinced and would need to think it over way more for any chance of a different outcome.

I’ve always argued that certain things are a matter of faith. I’m just showing that most if not all of us have faith in something. — Noah Te Stroete

Which, in itself, is trivial, but which is, more likely for your purpose, a false equivalence. See my earlier distinction.

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

"Based on reason" is a weakness I pointed out from the very beginning. Plenty of fallacies are based on reason.

I have yet to pin you down on any belief, as you refuse to give one. If or once you do, then I’m sure I can show it is a matter of faith. If the jury’s out for you, then I’m afraid you will be waiting till after the day you die, as we must all remain ignorant of the cause of the Big Bang, assuming even that remains true. I believe in God because this belief guides my life into a better, happier one. I know this from having experienced being a staunch atheist for 13+ years.

I have yet to pin you down on any belief, as you refuse to give one. If or once you do, then I’m sure I can show it is a matter of faith. If the jury’s out for you, then I’m afraid you will be waiting till after the day you die, as we must all remain ignorant of the cause of the Big Bang, assuming even that remains true. I believe in God because this belief guides my life into a better, happier one. I know this from having experienced being a staunch atheist for 13+ years. — Noah Te Stroete

I have plenty of beliefs, some of which I've revealed. But beliefs in the sense that you really seem to mean are weakly supported beliefs. You're assuming that I have weakly supported beliefs like yours, and you expect me to hand them to you on a silver platter, for you to pick them apart, or so that you can declare, "Ah ha! Gotcha! You have weakly supported beliefs just like me! So now we're both idiots!"? :lol:

Sorry to disappoint, but it's more reasonable to be a sceptic than to believe whatever takes your fancy.

It depends what you mean by “reasonable”. I believe it is reasonable to believe something that improves your life. If being a skeptic improves your life, then I say it is reasonable for you. However, you seem like a miserable lout.

It depends what you mean by “reasonable”. I believe it is reasonable to believe something that improves your life. If being a skeptic improves your life, then I say it is reasonable for you. However, you seem like a miserable lout. — Noah Te Stroete

It's not even a choice. I can't choose what to believe. Beliefs are involuntary, and I'm reasonable by disposition. What you're talking about is fallacious, and I know that it's fallacious. I couldn't believe it if I tried.

Look up the term, "appeal to consequences", for more information on this fallacy.

You refuse to try. You can always try. I’m not asking you to try, though. I couldn’t care less about assholes, God bless them! Lol

You refuse to try. You can always try. I’m not asking you to try, though. I couldn’t care less about assholes, God bless them! Lol — Noah Te Stroete

I can't choose what to believe. I can take steps which might or might not lead to delusion. But I don't agree with your mindless happy delusion anyway. I wouldn't opt for the pleasure machine. Would you?

I don’t have to opt for the pleasure machine. I’m not a miserable lout. Lol

I don’t have to opt for the pleasure machine. I’m not a miserable lout. Lol — Noah Te Stroete

You already have your pleasure machine, figuratively speaking. It may as well be one. Who cares for the truth when you have your pleasure, right? :vomit:

And what do you know about truth?

And what do you know about truth? — Noah Te Stroete

That it doesn't depend on what you wish were the case. And if you don't believe me, then try wishing yourself a teleportation device and use it to meet me in my living room in five minutes time.

I won't hold my breath.

I don’t believe it because I wish it. I believe it because I can’t imagine why matter should form into life and become conscious without God. And I don’t wish to meet you. You are quite enough in this medium. Lol

I don’t believe it because I wish it. I believe it because I can’t imagine why matter should form into life and become conscious without God. — Noah Te Stroete

You said that it's reasonable to believe what improves your life. If so, and if your aim is to be reasonable, then none of those pesky details matter. None of the details about anything would matter. What matters would only be whether or not believing something will improve your life. That means that anything goes, so long as it improves your life. You could believe that you're a butterfly, or that you're the reincarnation of Hitler, or that flying pink unicorns are about to invade Switzerland, so long as it meets that one condition.

As an epistemic standard, that's ridiculous.

And I don’t wish to meet you. You are quite enough in this medium. Lol — Noah Te Stroete

But you would if meeting me would improve your life, which it certainly would. I just have that effect on everyone around me. I think I might be a god, actually.

I fail to see how any of those things would improve my life (and I should include the caveat that it shouldn’t harm others as well). Believing things that would get me committed if I acted on them wouldn’t improve my life. And believe me, I would know, as someone who has spent time on several psych wards. Lol

Furthermore, it’s not an epistemic standard in that it is a source of knowledge. Justified true belief is knowledge, and having that is one way to be rational. I’m proposing another way.

Nicely done. — S

Thanks. Don't you sometimes get the feeling you've checkmated someone, only to realise your opponent isn't even playing chess?

I fail to see how any of those things would improve my life (and I should include the caveat that it shouldn’t harm others as well). Believing things that would get me committed if I acted on them wouldn’t improve my life. And believe me, I would know, as someone who has spent time on several psych wards. Lol — Noah Te Stroete

It was just a hypothetical. I wasn't saying that they actually would improve your life.

Furthermore, it’s not an epistemic standard in that it is a source of knowledge. Justified true belief is knowledge, and having that is one way to be rational. I’m proposing another way. — Noah Te Stroete

That's not another way to be rational with regards to truth or knowledge. That's just a way to be rational with regards to achieving the goal of an improved 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.

Argument with S

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs

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

I could've sworn that you've been trying to argue that theism is a reasonable belief. And if so, I think it's implied that you're effectively "asking" us to find theism reasonable.

But whatever.

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

It's not clear to me how one would "respect the belief that theism is a reasonable belief" while finding theism to not be a reasonable belief.

Maybe you mean something like tolerate or "leave people alone in what you take to be their unreasonableness"?

Ah--I just saw above that you're referring to logical validity? I wouldn't say that a belief is reasonable just because it's the conclusion of a valid argument. Remember that, for one, in traditional bivalent logic, anything validly follows a contradiction. So you'd have to say that all beliefs are reasonable, just in case we frame them as conclusions to arguments whose premises are a contradiction. (If you're saying instead that reasonableness is soundness, then we're back to how one would respect that theism is a reasonable belief while not finding theism reasonable, because someone who doesn't find theism reasonable isn't going to think that an valid argument that concludes with theism has true premises.)

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