p4. The arguments in P3 have counter arguments based on reason

Agree

Yes, I agree. But this still has zero relation to reasonable/unreasonable, so you still need to account for that if that's what your conclusion is about. Otherwise you'll end up with a non sequitur.

would you like to accept as true the rest of the propositions and get right to the conclusion?

would you like to accept as true the rest of the propositions and get right to the conclusion? — Rank Amateur

Let's just move on to the conclusion. You don't need my acceptance of your premises, we can just assume that for argument's sake.

Now, setting facts and scientific facts aside for the time being, you can either say something about theism not being in conflict with "reason", which is trivial given your meaning of "reason" as distinguished from reasonable, and which misses the point; or you can say that it's reasonable, which doesn't follow from your argument. So it's lose-lose.

Conclusion:

Therefore theism as defined, is not in direct conflict with scientific fact. Theism, as defined is not in
direct conflict with reason, since by reason alone there are positions both for an against.

Accept?

Conclusion:

Therefore theism as defined, is not in direct conflict with scientific fact. Theism, as defined is not in
direct conflict with reason, since by reason alone there are positions both for an against.

Accept? — Rank Amateur

I accept it (with the addition of some minor qualifications). Now, are you going to address the problems with it?

Then I am missing something as well, because I don’t agree that an atheist is forced to think the Universe exists just because. Only the rationally deficient thinks a thing without a reason for it. — Mww

The reason is that on atheism there is nothing beyond the universe to account for its existence, so it has to account for itself, and for no reason.

Do you see that upon any examination by anybody on anything whatsoever, such examination automatically and necessarily subsumes its object under the concept of time?

“...intuitions without concepts are empty; concepts without intuitions are blind...” — Mww

Does it? God’s timelessness necessarily means he has no beginning, no end and does not change. By describing him this way God is not “subsumed under the concept of time”, and such a description seems perfectly intuitive to me.

happy to, make an argument please that theism is unreasonable.

happy to, make an argument please that theism is unreasonable. — Rank Amateur

No, you don't seem to understand. I asked whether you are going to address the problems with it:

Now, setting facts and scientific facts aside for the time being, you can either say something about theism not being in conflict with "reason", which is trivial given your meaning of "reason" as distinguished from reasonable, and which misses the point, or you can say that it's reasonable, which doesn't follow from your argument. So it's lose-lose. — S

If you're happy to, then please go ahead.

In a nutshell, your argument seems to rely on tricking people through equivocation of "based on a reason" and "reasonable", which would be sophistry. And you also try to shift the burden or change the subject. I won't fall for these tricks.

Terrapin has also made that first point, more or less.

S and Terrapin Station are right. You haven’t made your case, and I’m afraid there is no rational argument based case to be made on matters of faith. It just makes us happier people and it doesn’t harm anyone. It doesn’t work for everyone.

i think the life don’t have any complex meaning. Firstly, what is meaning? meaning is given by human, if you would like to find the meaning in human society, it is very easy. we have different meaning in the human society, for family, for work, for school, for every relationship. secondly, we don’t have any meaning in the world or we merely live in the world. human beings are animals thatpursue desires, and human behavior can be attributed to ‘I want to do’. the most primitive human desire is to live. Human is meaning for world, only living. In the end,human life don’t have any meaning for universe. I don’t deny that there may be some connection between the existence of human beings and the universe. but what if one day the universe disappears? in the world as far as we know there is no life and no trace of it? What if the whole world wasn’t real? is there any meaning in our human life? Wake up, our lives are only a little meaningful to us and the life around us, and for a country, for a race, and the meaning is fleeting. The meaning of life is likely to be short desires and long desires.

I have no problem, you have agreed with all the premises and the conclusion

If you have an issue with the difference between a position based on reason, and reasonable. Do some work, state your position clearly and make an argument.

I believe I can clear up some confusion. S is saying that “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist” are metaphysical issues. You are making them epistemic issues.

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 don't read anyone here not respecting that you believe theism is a reasonable belief. They're arguing that theism is not a reasonable belief, not that you're not allowed to believe it is.

I have no problem, you have agreed with all the premises and the conclusion. — Rank Amateur

You do have a problem. I have agreed with an argument which misses the point, also known as irrelevant conclusion or by the Latin ignoratio elenchi.

If you have an issue with the difference between a position based on reason, and reasonable. Do some work, state your position clearly and make an argument. — Rank Amateur

It has been made by myself multiple times, and it has been made by Terrapin. Why should it be repeated? Argument from repetition? That's an informal fallacy, you know.

At the gym. B back u

The reason is that on atheism there is nothing beyond the universe to account for its existence... — AJJ

A position which rejects a contradiction in terms is somehow less reasonable than a position which entertains and accepts it. Good argument.

What next? Square circles?

Other universes could be outside our universe. Angels are just inter dimensional beings. God is a programmer(s) who created our simulated universe to evolve into the culmination of the universe, S, god among men. Lol

A position which rejects a contradiction in terms is somehow less reasonable than a position which entertains and accepts it. Good argument.

What next? Square circles? — S

It’s only a contradiction in terms if you’re using your question-begging definition of the universe.

It’s only a contradiction in terms if you’re using your question-begging definition of the universe. — AJJ

You're suggesting that we should make a special exception so that a word means something completely different just so you can avoid a contradiction in terms and make your argument which concludes that God exists. That's unreasonable and clearly driven by your motive.

I’m confused. What is the contradiction? That something can exist outside the universe? Obviously you never saw “Rick and Morty”. Rick created a mini-universe to power his space car.

Obviously you never saw “Rick and Morty”. Rick created a mini-universe to power his space car. — Noah Te Stroete

Correct, I've never seen "Rick and Morty". I've been too busy refuting arguments for theism and getting shwifty.

Shit on the floor! Lol

Wubba lubba dub-dub!

You're suggesting that we should make a special exception so that a word means something completely different just so you can avoid a contradiction in terms and make your argument which concludes that God exists. That's unreasonable and clearly driven by your motive. — S

I’m suggesting that you shouldn’t use a question-begging definition in your argument. It’s unreasonable and clearly driven by your motive.

there have been pages and pages of objections, mostly just statements absent support. To barrow a phrase, me parsing them all together would be like nailing jello to a wall

And highly likely that what ever I chose to address would be the wrong one, or there was more to it, or or or

So how about in one place, you make a succinct and complete argument with support and I will be happy to address

I’m suggesting that you shouldn’t use a question-begging definition in your argument. It’s unreasonable and clearly driven by your motive. — AJJ

You're suggesting that we should make a special exception so that a word means something completely different just so you can avoid a contradiction in terms and make your argument which concludes that God exists. That's unreasonable and clearly driven by your motive.

Your turn.

barrow — Rank Amateur

A two-wheeled handcart used especially by street vendors, an ancient burial mound, or a male pig castrated before maturity.

You're suggesting that we should make a special exception so that a word means something completely different just so you can avoid a contradiction in terms and make your argument which concludes that God exists. — S

Look. Here’s the first definition of “universe” from my Dictionary app: “the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space”. This definition does not assume or preclude the existence or non-existence of God.

Here’s your definition: “everything”. This definition assumes there is no God (because God is necessarily beyond the universe), and also precludes the possibility that He exists. It is a question-begging definition, and not even in my dictionary app.