I could not pin you down in an entire day on what a fact was. — Rank Amateur

Well that's disingenuous. I've defined what a fact is, I've explained what a fact is, multiple times, as the evidence of this discussion shows, and I'm going by a standard philosophical understanding, as opposed to an idiosyncratic one.

I'm confident that plenty of the other, more experienced, members of this forum would understand. I think that it's just you.

I won't respond to your do-loop nonsense and personal attacks where you blame me for everything. It's beneath me.

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.

So how would I respect the belief that a religious conclusion is reasonable when I don't think that religious conclusions/beliefs are reasonable?

Person A: "Hey, here's a reasonable argument".

*presents argument*

Person B: "So, do you think that I should find this argument to be reasonable?".

Person A: "Oh gosh, no! I would never ask such a thing of you. Where the heavens did you get that idea from?".

It does seem like a peculiar performative contradiction.

That's not my view, actually. It's just that I think that religious beliefs are absurd. — Terrapin Station

opinions are your right -

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.

and all your opinions are fine - however if you wish to make it a general point that either theism is absurd, or unreasonable - i await your argument.

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

He didn't actually answer the question in his last reply, did he? I suspect that you were right with the, "Leave Britney alone!", sort of meaning. An appeal to our sensibilities, rather than having anything to do with our capacity to reasonably assess an argument.

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"?

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.

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 mean just because you find it unreasonable - does not mean it is unreasonable.

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

this may help -

do you believe it is possible for there to be competing reasonable arguments both for and against a specific point?

i mean just because you find it unreasonable - does not mean it is unreasonable. — 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.

do you believe it is possible for there to be competing reasonable arguments both for and against a specific point? — Rank Amateur

Yes, for some things. But not for just any arbitrary thing. It depends on the subject matter, how it's approached, etc.

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

Completely objective reasonableness may be an unreachable standard. However the concept of reasonableness being nothing more than an individual judgement makes the entire concept of reasoned arguments useless.

party a - I believe this - because 1, 2, 3 etc)
party b - You are unreasonable
party a - why
party b - because I say so, and i am the sole arbiter of reasonableness

and I think i need a bridge between

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

and

Yes, for some things. But not for just any arbitrary thing. It depends on the subject matter, how it's approached, etc. — Terrapin Station

they seem a little at odds

how about we try it out in specific - here is my full argument -

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 - Fact 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 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.

Please tell me which propositions are false, or that the conclusion does not matter

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."

Re the other comment, I also don't know why those seem at odds to you. You can see how something makes sense in some context but not agree with a conclusion.

On my view P3, P5 and P6 are false.

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, then P5 and P6 would be okay, but it would be odd to use especially "reasonable" that way.

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

maybe we are having a semantic argument:

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.

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

I am using reasonable as based on reason. - not sure what you mean by " that is not evaluative" - can you explain.

and not sure what any of that has to do with P3 which you claim is false

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.

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

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

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

Those statements are inconsistent.

that may be the heart of our disagreement - I do not find that inconsistent at all. I think there can be competing reasonable arguments for the same point -

I think somewhere in our chat yesterday you made the same point - that just because an argument is reasonable ( based on reason) it may not be true. If memory serves

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

Yes, it helps clarify that you and I use the phrase "matter of fact" differently. But then, I knew that from the start. By my book, you're breaking the rules of correct usage, which makes it more difficult than it would otherwise be to interpret your meaning.

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.

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.

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 ?

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

No, I find that confusing.

Given that, 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, 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 statements fall under the category of factual matters. Matters of fact, as opposed to matters of taste, etc. It's the right category.

I am using reasonable as based on reason. - not sure what you mean by " that is not evaluative" - can you explain. — Rank Amateur

In other words, someone might say, "I believe I'm Napoleon, because I ate a taco last night." "Because I ate a taco last night" is a reason they gave for why they believe they're Napoleon. In that sense, their argument is based on (a) reason, and we could say that if "reasonable" simply refers to "being based on (a) reason," then their argument is reasonable. We're simply being descriptive. They had a reason motivating their conclusion.

This is different than us evaluating the merit of their reason, which is usually what "reasonable" connotes--that we've evaluated their reasons/their reasoning, and we've found it satisfactory (otherwise, if we reach a negative evaluation, we say it's unreasonable). "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.

and not sure what any of that has to do with P3 which you claim is false — Rank Amateur

Nothing. I brought up the above re P5 and P6 instead.

P3 is false because I think it's pretty clear empirically that it's a fact that there are no gods.

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

so using YOUR own understanding of MATTER OF FACT - you cant say either God is or is not a matter of fact ??

because:

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

I have no idea at all what any of that means - not being a jerk - I have no clue at all what you are trying to say here.

can you give me an example ?? try another explanation ?

P3 is false because I think it's pretty clear empirically that it's a fact that there are no gods. — Terrapin Station

unsupported - that is just opinion -

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

fine - than using that definition i still say P4 - P7 stand unless you can make an argument they "unreasonable" as you define it above. Just saying they are not - does not make it so.

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

I don't really think that the "argument from evil" is reasonable, because it parses evil as if it refers to something objective and not vague.

"Evil" is just a judgment, a negative assessment that individuals make about behavior. Basically, on a continuum, it's all the way to the extreme end of the negative assessment dial.

For me to say that the argument is reasonable, it would have to rest on a more accurate account of what evil is.

unsupported - that is just opinion - — Rank Amateur

I don't think so though. I think it's as clear as anything can be.

I don't think so though. I think it's as clear as anything can be. — Terrapin Station

do you have an argument to support ??

It's primarily an empirical matter. There's a complete lack of empirical evidence for it.

I say "primarily," because there's also the problem that the claims being made are incoherent, in that they posit things like nonphysical existents, things that "transcend" time, etc.