think i addressed this above - all this is for the 3 republicans - who IMO have been looking for a politically acceptable reason to vote against the conformation.

my only point above was the "call for the FBI" investigation by the democrats on the committee as a search for truth is meaningless, if as i believe, there was no chance that any democrat was voting for confirmation.

again not argument just FYI. Catholic teaching with a few exceptions (Virgin Mary, canonized saint) does not say anything definitive about anyone's salvation. Because you can not know what is in the heart of the person, or presume to know the mind of God. Also, salvation is not denied if by no fault of oneself they are not part of the body of the church. (Was trying hard to remember the exact words of the catechism, it says it better, but that is the idea.

It was a mistake for Christianity to adopt the 'believe in Jesus else eternal damnation!' message. Not well thought through; they have left 2000 years of theologians wriggling uncomfortably around the defence of the indefensible: eternal damnation for ignorance. — Devans99

Again, an aside, FYI that is not Catholic doctrine.

Further neither of those 3 reason not to confirm has nothing at all to do with Dr. Ford, Drinking or a high school yearbook. It is fear of a too conservative court and limits on or an attempt to reverse Roe

While this is all well and good - there are really only 3 people in the world that have anything to say about this Flake, Collins and Murkowski. There was not one, well maybe the possibility of one, democrat that would have voted for confirmation. Kind of makes the call for and complaints about the FBI investigation more about delay than truth. If it comes back that he actually is a choir boy and she is a liar, they still would not confirm him. And other than those 3, there is not one Republican who would vote not to confirm, again indifferent to what the FBI report says.

This whole bonfire of the vanities is at the bequest of, and for the benefit of those 3, who are IMO looking for a politically acceptable reason to vote not to confirm and for 2 of them to get reelected, and the other to have a base for a run at 2020.

sure most have read this already - but just in case

http://pdf.iwv.org/09.30.18%20Mitchell%20Memo.pdf

any inclusions or exclusions on my "being" above would be anthropomorphic, and an exercise in hubris to think I in anyway would have the tools to put limits on " a being" who was caused by nothing - and caused everything.

We, within the limits of our ability to communicate to each other about an issue like this are forced to pick some word. This very act is anthropomorphic, inadequate and incomplete - but is the only tool we have, so we press on.

Guess i need to define what I mean by non-contingent - necessary being - by that I mean.

A being whose existence is not contingent on anything, and whose existence is necessary for everything.

it would always be best when one defined all their terms when making an argument - especially when they are so "loaded" such as faith, God, A/Theist, . But thankfully these little boxes are not graded. And in general, at least to me, if I give people a charitable benefit of the doubt on them - they are expedient.

For me - I think the only definition of God that is supported by reason is that of a non-contingent or necessary being. The God of the Bible, Koran, Tohra, etc. is IMO purely a matter of faith. ( now I need to define that !!)

Im made no comment in the reasonableness of the argument, you are simply mis-applying it. It is an argument about a first cause or mover. It is a reasonable, imo, argument for first mover/cuase. Theism, take your pick, does NOT follow from it. — DingoJones

Can there be an un-moved mover, an un-created creator, a non contingent being that is would be unreasonable to call "God"

whether of not there are valid challenges to the argument are outside the point of my premise that - it is reasonable to believe that it it true.

If you, as him, think believing in the cosmological argument is an unreasonable position - i would be interested in the argument.

You and Christoffer want to argue the point you want to argue and not argue against the premise. The premise is NOT the Cosmological argument is true, the premise is that it is reasonable

all do respect, you are missing the point, your opinion on the the validity of the Cosmological argument has nothing at all to do with disproving my premise that it is reasonable to believe it. There are 2 ways, and only 2 ways to do this. 1. prove there is no God as a matter of fact. or 2. Prove that in all possible cases the conclusion is false.

no - you are missing the point - and you have issues with how argument works:

My Premise - theism is reasonable
you - why
Me - Cosmological argument
you - I/others disagree with the cosmological argument therefor you are unreasonable
me - that fails - i hold to my premise

This has not been able to be done in a few hundred years, and not from lack of effort. So you have quite a task ahead of you. — Rank Amateur

If, as you state, you are a believe in reason, this last part should give you pause.

A "first mover" is not god by any definition we have, it's only proof that there has too be something at the beginning of cause and effect... nothing more... nothing less.... any claim otherwise is not supported by logic or reason. This is why the cosmological argument hasn't been able to prove the existence of god. If it had, the argument would have been over. But theists doesn't care about this, they just demand this argument to have a valid conclusion, which is delusional — Christoffer

Thank you for your opinion above - however it in no way challenges whether or not is reasonable to believe in the Cosmological argument as Aquinas made it. In order to do so, you will need to prove with fact or reason that the premise are wrong or the conclusion does not follow. This has not been able to be done in a few hundred years, and not from lack of effort. So you have quite a task ahead of you.

My point is that we don't know the first principles of existence. We don't know how it all started. No declaration or study can give a definite answer. All there is, is speculation. Therefore, it is wrong to deny others what you ask of them in return -> a speculative endeavour. In this way, myself and others have been wrong. If science, religion, metaphysics, or other, is your way of speculating and seeking insight into the mystery of where it all began or what it all is or what it all means, then have at it. It is your right. And, with respect to that, we should conduct ourselves with greater understanding, if not empathy or sympathy. For, we are all alike in that respect.

Therefore,
1.) Does any deity/deities exist? - I don't know. I haven't any proof. However, I have my choice of whether to believe or disbelieve in their existence.

2.) Is it reasonable/unreasonable to believe or disbelieve in deity/deities? - No. The common reference to deistic belief is based on choice, not logic. And if logic were to be the basis, there is still the problem of ignorance or lack of facts. However, there is no sanction against the use of reason to justify, to a relative capacity, the basis of such belief/disbelief.

3.) Is it acceptable to question belief? - Yes. But, it is uncivil to attack a person for it, especially when you do not understand its provenance.

4.) Should we accept all beliefs? - Yes, but only if those beliefs do not contribute to harm of self or others. Every human has a right to their own beliefs.

I would greatly appreciate any contribution, so please add a comment, correction or improvement with respect to civility in the discussions. My hope is that, further on, we will take better care to respect each other and the philosophical undertaking which defines our collective commitment on this forum. — ChatteringMonkey

agree thanks for the post

The cosmological argument only points to a first cause of the line of consequences in a deterministic universe, it does not point to a god — Christoffer

Aquinas would not approve of your interpretation.

The cosmological argument, that I am referencing, has a conclusion that there is a non- contingent or necessary being - whose existence in not contingent on anything, and whose existence is necessary for everything - me and Aquinas, millions of others, call this being God.

I believe the cosmological argument is a reasonable argument.

I am passed this point - just added that as a cheap shot and little tongue in cheek

Ok - I amend to

P1 - God is, is not a fact
P2 - God is not - is not a fact
P3 - God is - is supported by reason
P4 - I reject God is - is supported by reason

Conclusion - neither God is, or I reject God is, is a superior position.

A claim demands facts, — Christoffer

I challenge this. One can claim by either reason or faith something to be true and act accordingly with only caveat that it can not be in conflict with fact.

If all that can be claimed true is that which we currently believe - presumably by science - to be true. My argument is there is an almost infinite list of things and concepts that at were at one moment in time most certainly not know to be a fact, that actually were - in fact - real.

There is a hidden proposition in your view that our current understanding of what we call "facts" is the complete state of affairs of what all facts are. I challenge that as false.

If I can summarize all your posts, you are making the noseeum argument against theism. Basically the argument goes - we have looked in a lot of places that occupy time and space, and we have not seen anything we would call "God". And since we haven't seen anything that occupies time and space, or evidence in time and space there of that we would call "God" -

traditional Atheist conclusion - There is no God
Christoffers conclusion - ????

If atheists doesn't make a claim, then there is no claim to be superior. — Christoffer

Ok I will amend the argument:

P1 - God is, is not a fact
P2 - God is not - is not a fact
P3 - Theism - a claim that God is - is supported by reason
P4 - Chrisoffer is not making any claim about anything

Conclusion - neither God is or whatever Chrisoffer believes is a superior position

Tell me which proposition is false and why , or how the conclusion does not follow.

The proposition that atheism makes a claim is false, that is what the problem is — Christoffer

I made no such proposition -

And it seems you think my argument is saying something about the truth claim of atheism - it is not. It is simply saying neither claim is superior. I gave an easily reasoned argument in support. Yet again - if you disagree and believe the atheist claim is superior tell me which proposition is false and why, or why my conclusion does not follow.

thanks - not sure any of that addresses my argument. To be clear - I am not making any point against Atheism as a reasonable belief. I am making an argument above that its claim is not superior to the theist claim. If you disagree - tell me which proposition is false, and why. or why my conclusion does not follow.

it only applies to a country with a fiat currency that there is confidence in - believe that is by definition

P1 - God is, is not a fact
P2 - God is not - is not a fact
P3 - God is - is supported by reason
P4 - God is not - is supported by reason

Conclusion - neither God is, or God is not, is a superior position.

money has value because a government says so — LD Saunders

and others have confidence in that claim

ne can only pay their federal taxes with US currency — LD Saunders

Absolutely - and as such is used to control inflation with taxes

that doesn't mean that some beliefs can't be better justified than others. I think that's even going to be true regarding religious beliefs. — yazata

Thanks yours - I struggle a little with the concept of competing ideas - one being "more reasonable" than another as a basis of any truth claim. I am aware, in real life, that we are often but in a position of having to weigh reasonable alternatives and decide which we feel is better. In a philosophic sense, on the issue of a/theism I have no idea what basis one could use to weigh the options and decide on a winner without the outcome being actually decided by a personal prejudice - and as such is just begging the question.

An appeal to reason.

if both the theist, or the atheist can make valid claims that their beliefs are reasonable, than neither can claim a superior position unless, they are willing to make an argument that the other position is unreasonable.

I would be interested if you think such an argument from either side is possible.

MMT does the best job of explaining the current economic system IMO, and I truly wish everyone would become acquainted by it. Every time I hear about we are leaving this deficit to our grandchildren it is like nails on a chalkboard. The amount of political gain each side gets out of the economic ignorance of the public is astounding.

Sometimes I think just a definition of faith from the Atheist position would be helpful. Often it seems there is some inherent belief that "faith" in these chats automatically implies faith in a God.

If it is not a fact, and if reasonable cases can be made both for and against the same position, than any belief in that position, either for or against, is by definition believed by faith.

Please point out where I ever attacked Dr. Ford.

you might get a kick out of this one

The Argument from Aesthetic Experience

There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach.
Therefore there must be a God.
You either see this one or you don't.

I, like Aquinas will call this "God". However, yet again, I have no issue at all that it is a reasonable position if you want to believe in a cosmic byproduct. My challenge was to show theism is not reasonable.

Ok, what I was saying was delaying the confirmation passed the midterms, would allow the midterms to be a defacto referendum on abortion - which they believe (I think rightly so) they win on.

not sure your point here

Besides, Congress doesn't suddenly change on November 7th. Republicans have until January 2019 to "plow through" the nomination and install Kavanaugh, which they will no doubt attempt to do, regardless of outcome on November 6th. — Maw

The democratic drive in stalling until the midterms is to make all the races a single issue election on abortion. "If you don't give us a democratic house - roe v wade is gone". If the American people respond that way, they will make the same claim as the republicans did on Obama's lame duck nomination.

use my definition as non-contingent or necessary being above

well one reason is it is less than a day old, has not produced anything, and already it is being criticized for not being long enough or wide enough in depth.

Anyone who believes that the democratic objective is anything other than to delay confirmation until after the midterms is naive.

There is way to much at stake with this particular seat.