I could not pin you down in an entire day on what a fact was. — Rank Amateur
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 - — Rank Amateur
That's not my view, actually. It's just that I think that religious beliefs are absurd. — Terrapin Station
So how would I respect the belief that a religious conclusion is reasonable when I don't think that religious conclusions/beliefs are reasonable? — Terrapin Station
So how would I respect the belief that a religious conclusion is reasonable when I don't think that religious conclusions/beliefs are reasonable? — Terrapin Station
your belief in specific that a position is unreasonable - does not make the belief unreasonable in the general. — Rank Amateur
I don't understand this comment. What does it mean for a belief to be "unreasonable in general" versus a "belief in specific that a position is unreasonable"? — Terrapin Station
I'm not wanting to argue against theism. I just don't think it's clear that it would make sense for any arbitrary view to respect the belief that it's reasonable while not actually finding the view reasonable — Terrapin Station
i mean just because you find it unreasonable - does not mean it is unreasonable. — Rank Amateur
do you believe it is possible for there to be competing reasonable arguments both for and against a specific point? — Rank Amateur
Oh . . . I don't agree with that. "Reasonable/unreasonable" is a judgment that individuals make, and it's nothing more than that. There is no objective reasonableness that we can get wrong. — Terrapin Station
Oh . . . I don't agree with that. "Reasonable/unreasonable" is a judgment that individuals make, and it's nothing more than that. There is no objective reasonableness that we can get wrong. — Terrapin Station
Yes, for some things. But not for just any arbitrary thing. It depends on the subject matter, how it's approached, etc. — Terrapin Station
I don't know why you'd think something is useless just because it's an individual judgment. And whether it's an individual judgment or not, simply telling someone that their argument is unreasonable isn't going to make them say, "Oh. Well I guess I'm wrong then." — Terrapin Station
You seem to be using "reasonable" as "based on reasons" though. In the sense of "based on reasons" where we're looking at that purely descriptively, though, and not evaluatively — Terrapin Station
On my view P3, P5 and P6 are false. — Terrapin Station
What do you think of my take on the argument? P2 and P3 cannot both be true unless an additional premise stating that whether or not God exists is not a matter of fact, is also true. That additional premise is false. Therefore the argument is unsound. — S
I find the argument from evil a reasonable argument. the logic is good, the preemies are true, the conclusion follows. — Rank Amateur
I do not believe the argument from evil is true. — Rank Amateur
let me see if this helps -
I am about to flip a fair coin
It is a matter of fact that the result will be a head or a tail
It is not a matter of fact the result will be a head
it is not a matter of fact the result will be a tail
It is a matter of fact that God is or God is not
It is not a matter of fact that God is
It is not a matter of fact that God is not — Rank Amateur
Whether the result will be a head or a tail is a matter of fact, and whether God is or God is not is a matter of fact. — S
i agree with that - go on don't stop there -
using your understanding of "matter of fact" can you say either god is a matter of fact, or can you say God is not a matter of fact ? — Rank Amateur
I am using reasonable as based on reason. - not sure what you mean by " that is not evaluative" - can you explain. — Rank Amateur
and not sure what any of that has to do with P3 which you claim is false — Rank Amateur
using your understanding of "matter of fact" can you say either god is a matter of fact, or can you say God is not a matter of fact ?
— Rank Amateur
No, I find that confusing. — S
You can say it is a fact that the result will be a head, or it is a fact that God is not. You can say that because, as per the above, these are factual matters. Matters of fact, as opposed to matters of taste, etc. It's the right category. — S
P3 is false because I think it's pretty clear empirically that it's a fact that there are no gods. — Terrapin Station
This is different than us evaluating the merit of their reason, which is usually what "reasonable" connotates--that we've evaluated their reasons/their reasoning, and we've found it satisfactory. "I ate a taco last night" is a reason the person gave for believing that they're Napoleon, but most of us would say that it's not a good reason, that it's not reasonable in an evaluative sense. — Terrapin Station
let me try an example - I find the argument from evil a reasonable argument. the logic is good, the preemies are true, the conclusion follows. I am also aware of the counter arguments to the argument from evil, which I also find reasonable. I chose to believe the counter arguments have more weight and defeat the argument. I do not believe the argument from evil is true. That does not mean it is not a reasonable argument. It also does not mean that my judgement of what I chose to believe is true is or is not correct. — Rank Amateur
unsupported - that is just opinion - — Rank Amateur
I don't think so though. I think it's as clear as anything can be. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.