a fine note to end on

no - I am asking others to respect the belief that theism is a reasonable belief. I am not asking that they find theism reasonable.

Well, this is kind of silly, because none of us can step outside of ourselves, can we? — S

of course we can - i can see, appreciate and find all kinds of arguments reasonable that I don't agree with.

That certainly doesn't mean that I must be at fault, or that anything goes, or anything of the sort. — S

as above - there is no fault whatsoever in believing what one want to believe ( within some level of reason) - I have never taken a position that atheism if wrong or unreasonable - and until I can make such a case I won't.

How do you determine that an argument is reasonable? — Isaac

i find the premises true and the conclusion follows

What has any of that got to do with whether or not the issue of whether or not God exists is a matter of fact? It looks like a giant red herring. — S

just go back to the original argument - it is quite simple and clear. If you have a another reasoned and logical objection - i am happy to address - but we have now entered into some meaningless do loop -

see above.

A is false because, as defined by you, God is some form of supernatural being or entity, and whether or not there exists some form of supernatural being or entity is a matter of fact. You seemed to suggest that God could be outside of the space time plane we exist in - but that's nonsense. You also seemed to conflate reality with our perception of reality - an error. Matters of fact do not depend on our perception. Or, if you think otherwise, I'm alright with retracting that claim for a weaker claim and allowing you to present an argument. — S

No no no Mate - You really really want this to be an argument that GOD is and want me to support it.

I HAVE NOT MADE THAT ARGUMENT - I have stated in P1 that theism exists - and defined it, you are arguing my definition or theism as is believed by theists. I did not say the definition was true - i just said that it is believed by theists.

The only truth claim in that whole P that I am making is " Theism exists" do you feel that is untrue ?

You cant just go to a pile of words - pick some you want to argue - and make a whole new argument that you want to have instead of the one that was made.

Of course it's a big ask! If I thought that it was reasonable, as distinguished from being based on reason, then I might be a theist. A reasonable argument, by my meaning, is a sound argument. And I am not aware of any argument that I'm convinced is sound. That rules out theism for me, and leaves scepticism or strong atheism. — S

ah here is something I can build on. The fact that you do not find it reasonable is absolutely fine with me - quite you prerogative - and I respect your position as above. Expanding your belief into the general is maybe where we come apart. and requires support.

simple because S does not find an argument reasonable is not in anyway proof is not reasonable.

seems we are arguing more about the definition of reasonable than theism

2. It is a matter of fact that God is or God is not - then God is not as fact refutes my argument - make the case, or God is and theism is not in conflict with fact
— Rank Amateur

And this is your argument from ignorance where you attempt to shift the burden from you to me.

The possibility alone refutes your argument. You would have to demonstrate that God exists, otherwise your claim that there isn't a conflict with fact is completely unwarranted. Unless you do so, it's either 1) possible that there's a conflict, and if it's possible, then you can't justifiably say that there isn't one, or 2) there definitely is a conflict, as the only other alternative left unaddressed is that God doesn't exist.

I don't think I can make it any clearer than that. It's on you now. — S

this i answered with:

no - I gave you all the options of YOUR logic you need to treat all of the as a whole.

If as YOU state it is a matter of fact that God is there are only 2 possibilies

1 - god is ( if that is the case theism is not in conflict with fact)
2. god is not ( if that is the case theism is in conflict with fact)

This is YOUR case - not mine - mine is it is not a matter of fact that you have dismissed without reason and which I have generously let you.

so decide in YOUR case is it 1 or 2 there are no other options in YOUR case - make the argument — Rank Amateur

you continue to move goal posts and make the argument you want - or ignore or dismiss without argument my counters and go back and make the same point again and again. This seems your style

1. It is not a matter of fact that God is, or is not - Theism can not be in conflict with fact if it is not a matter of fact
— Rank Amateur

Yes, I agree with that logic. However, I reject the premise as false. — S

what did i miss that supports this last sentence ??

Listen S The are hundreds of years of argument on the reasonably of theism and none have defeated the assertion in any broad sense what so ever. My agenda that started this flurry and hijacked the thread is a simple a request for mutual respect for differing opinions - I have always acknowledged atheism as a reasonable belief - just asking the same in return. Often seems a big ask.

where you absent in philosophy class when they talked about logical arguments ? It is my proposition as true - it stands as true unless you can show it is not - how this stuff works

Yes, I agree with that logic. However, I reject the premise as false. — S

because .... you can not just dismiss a premise because you don' t like it - make a case

And this is your argument from ignorance where you attempt to shift the burden from you to me. — S

no - I gave you all the options of YOUR logic you need to treat all of the as a whole.

If as YOU state it is a matter of fact that God is there are only 2 possibilies

1 - god is ( if that is the case theism is not in conflict with fact)
2. god is not ( if that is the case theism is in conflict with fact)

This is YOUR case - not mine - mine is it is not a matter of fact that you have dismissed without reason and which I have generously let you.

so decide in YOUR case is it 1 or 2 there are no other options in YOUR case - make the argument

No, it's not the mere presence of these arguments that sustains yours though is it? It's the conclusion that they are reasonable arguments. I'm asking you why you have not felt the need justify your belief that these arguments themselves are reasonable. You obviously feel the need to justify the conclusion that your argument for theism is reasonable, you don't merely state that it is. — Isaac

I make argument A - say the cosmological argument - i pro-port this argument is based on propositions that are true and a conclusion that follows - I say this makes the argument reasonable. If one does not believe this argument is reasonable - the burden is theirs to make the case it is not.

It seems if I understand you correctly you want me to defend that an argument is reasonable without using the argument is reasonable in the argument - I feel I am badly missing your point - can you try another path ??

just gish gallup - you are wasting my time again -

Either that, or you are being very unclear with your wording, as that's what it looks like you're saying. — S

there is no way on earth I could be more clear on any of these points - which you either willfully fail to understand and directly argue - or you are incapable of comprehending which i do not thing is the case.

Even if you don't see it all your objections above have been answered - continued repetition of them does not make them any more valid.

further to above - my original argument was 1. above that it is not a matter of fact. I have been generous with you for a few exchanges now to entertain your case that it is a matter of fact that god is or is not. Which you have in no way at all supported.

So there is all the reason and logic of the path you have taken to challenge the original argument. Which I have clearly shown to be without any basis whatsoever.

ok - now using your definition of fact, here are all the options

1. It is not a matter of fact that God is, or is not - Theism can not be in conflict with fact if it is not a matter of fact

2. It is a matter of fact that God is or God is not - then God is not as fact refutes my argument - make the case, or God is and theism is not in conflict with fact

that is all the cases of your logic - if you want to go down this road the only option that causes my proposition to fail is: god is or is not a matter of fact, and in fact God is not - feel free to make the case.

So, if we agree that A is false, and we agree that we do not know either way, then your argument is refuted — S

how is that ?? How is my claim that theism is not it conflict with fact, if in fact we do not know what the fact is ??

And if we agree that A is false, but we don't agree that we do not know either way, implying that you know otherwise, then the burden is on you — S

disagree - in this case to refute my argument that it is not in conflict with fact - it would have to be shown that God is not - that burden is on you,

what you want this to be is a case I am not making - namely It is a matter of fact that God is or is not, and you want me to say "God is" - for now at lest the 5th time that is not the case I am making - nor need to make to argue theism is reasonable

more twitter - all your points have been answered - i remain unconvinced you have made any reasonable challenge to my argument - when you have something new, or meaningful to say - please do so

How about we take this step by step? Do you agree that A is false? Yes or no? That still isn't clear to me. — S

just did that - in detail show that you actually take 2 minutes to understand the points made back to you before arguing them -

it seems your only tactic is argument ad nauseam -

I was referring to the one that you've evaded addressing, and deny is an argument. I know that you know what I'm talking about, and the issue is whether or not you're going to do what would be fair and actually address it, or whether you're going to continue to play dumb and be evasive. — S

I have addressed this point at least 3 times in this latest exchange - you are now just trying an argument ad nauseam -

I put the argument in form to avoid a twitter argument and exchange honest ideas - you seem to resist this -

but will address for one more time. I am NOT NOT NOT making any argument that God is. You seem not to be able to separate the argument " God is" from " it is reasonable to believe God is"

If it is necessary to justify, with argument, the claim "x is reasonable", then why have you not done so for the subsumed arguments? If, on the other hand, you find it satisfactory to simply declare that an argument is reasonable, then why have you provided justification at all for the claim that "theism is reasonable"? — Isaac

are you asking for me to make a specific reasonable argument for theism - to support my position there are such things ??

If so sure - but jumped to the assumption most on here know the classic theist arguments. - didn't feel i needed to state them. Can if I need to.

Okay - your original point was

A. God's existence is not a matter of fact or

If that is false, then God's existence is a matter of fact

and either
B. not a fact that God exists or
C. not a fact than god does not exist

I am making no claim that as a matter of fact that b or c are true, in fact my original proposition was
that we can not say either a or b are true.

You in you challenge to this proposition are now claiming A is false and take you pick b or c are true to defeat my proposition - which if you can make either case would defeat it.;

So I ask you to make the case - and then we go back into your no need to make any case do loop

thanks Isaac - to be more precise my conclusion was

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.

And that is what I mean -

Otherwise you might just as well say "theism is reasonable because it's reasonable". — Isaac

What I am in fact saying is theism is not in conflict with reason - because there is no evidence it is unreasonable. If there is some relatively objective preponderance of reasoned evidence either for or against theism - I am un-aware or it. Unless some such evidence exists it is impossible to be in conflict with it.

Another attempt to shift the burden. — S

is this tactic or are you just missing the point -

I say theism is reasonable
you highlight - sort of that in the case where a is false and b is true - my proposition fails
i ask you to then make that case
than you duck behind the " i dont need to make that case dodge "

Even though you do not grant me the same courtesy in relation to my argument, which you deny is even an argument. Here's some more Latin for you: quid pro quo. — S

I have not seen you make an argument yet. Please do

A. is false, and B. & C. together is not logically possible. — S

that is just pure nonsense - let me help

A is either True or False - if A is True - neither B or C have meaning
If A is False - Either B or C but not both are true

So for theism to be in conflict with your definition A would need to be false and B would have to be true. Please feel free to make that argument

There you go again, trying to goad me into making an argument to that effect when the burden doesn't lie with me. — S

there you go again looking for the argument you want - instead of the one I am making. You want an argument where I am forced to prove God is, I have never made such an declaration. In fact I most specifically said when starting this engagement that is not the case I was making.

Yet again - I made an argument with premises i state are true and a conclusion that follows - and await your reasoned objections.

Your reply is too hasty and dismissive. That was actually a reductio ad absurdum, which is a form of argument. — S

that is as much an opinion as the first, only in latin

1. You misuse the word "fact". A fact is what's the case or a state of affairs. You seem to mean something else, like knowledge. Based on the correct usage, whether or not God exists is a matter of fact. That is, it is a matter relating to what's the case or the current state of affairs. If we don't know either way, then that doesn't mean that it's a) not a matter of fact, b) not a fact that God exists, c) not a fact that God doesn't exist. Moreover, if we don't know either way, then your conclusion that theism isn't in conflict with fact is unwarranted, as it may well be, and it is if God doesn't in fact exist, unbeknownst to us — S

Beautifully written - However if:

A. God's existence is not a matter of fact or
B. not a fact that God exists or
C. not a fact than god does not exist

than allow me correctly finish you point .... it may well be, and it is if God doesn't in fact exist, OR DOES EXIST which you conveniently, and IMO quite dishonestly omitted.

Therefor if I allow your A, B, and C as I do - there is no way any belief at all about God can be in conflict with that position since it encompasses all possible positions -

. Arguments based on reason aren't necessarily reasonable. Even fallacious arguments are based on reason, but they're obviously not reasonable. I accept that there are arguments for theism which are based on reason. Whether any of them are reasonable is open to debate. — S

again - thank you the lesson - and agree - if your point is they are unreasonable - as i have on many occasions please make the argument -

thank you for the opinion - I made an argument - please again feel free to show which premise is false or the conclusion does not follow - or again if you wish to support your position with argument I would be happy to address.

Rank Amateur has an agenda. — S

You are correct, I do have an agenda. And I am more than happy to restate it. My agenda is that theism is a reasonable world view, and when dismissed or degraded as such - those arguments should be challenged - so once again – here is the formal argument. Please note, this is NOT I repeat NOT an argument that God is, it is an argument that theism is not outside fact or reason.

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 - as 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 apparent 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.

That is it the whole agenda. I continue to welcome arguments that either the propositions are false or the conclusion does not follow. I also welcome any counter arguments supported by propositions proposed as true, that ends in a conclusion “ therefor theism is not reasonable “

What if one experiences meaning? Would that still be considered a leap of faith? — Tzeentch

well according to Camus yes - him speaking not me, would say that "experience" you are elevating to a meaning for existence is as faith based as the theist. His logic is based on his belief that there is no meaning - I think he is wrong. But if you like his position that there is no meaning to life - everything we call meaning is a leap of faith.

Maybe I am nitpicking here, but knowing the "truth" in this context sounds naive. — Tzeentch

That was his "truth" truth is a tricky thing

No one I can think of knows if there is an objective meaning for life, so all the one's we pro-port as meaning are subjective - maybe even unique to the individual. Like every other no-seeum argument ever we are left to argue that if we don't see one, or maybe better yet, if we don't agree on one being objective - is that in anyway a proof there is no objective reason.

As most have caught on - i think Camus in the myth of Sisyphus - outlines this issue best.

His proposition is that there is no meaning - yet we feel a need to find one - this he feels is absurd.

So like Sisyphus rolling the bolder up the hill, only to have it roll back down, just to roll it back up the hill again for all eternity - why would we live a purposeless life?

So Camus says most all take a leap of faith into something we call meaning - and thereby commit a type of philosophic suicide.

Many take a leap of faith into some form of theism or mysticism - to find meaning
Many take a leap of faith into some form of hedonism - " i find meaning in sunsets, chocolate ice cream, helping other's etc etc.
or the Existentialists who say we are all in charge of our own meaning

What Camus says is he is looking for the absurd hero - who knows there is no meaning, but who challenges the absurdity and at the same time accepts it ( not sure how one is supposed to do that). That in the absence of meaning they finds contentment in knowing the truth that there is no meaning.

that is pretty much what it says -

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

there is about a 100 Pct chance that I may not be best person to explain Quantum Entanglement - but before you dismiss it - I would highly recommend a little independent research.

just to get a little wielder - If nothing is what it is, or can be anything until it is observed. That could mean our entire reality is best explained as a movie screen - set in an infinity of space and time, with what we see as real only one possible projection.

this whole thread is turning into an acid test !!!! Call the house band.

"exist" as I used it above may be as precise as I need it to be. The electron my be "something" that can exist in all states and with all possible properties, can be some type of "wave" or "energy" - until observed, than it is what it is with some set of specific properties. The really weird thing is there can be two of them - acting in exactly the same way. That was the Eisenstein paradox that disproved QM, right up until the point it was shown by experiment - that Eisenstein was wrong.

This is weird stuff. The stuff being worked on now is this. A cat acts like a cat, and a sub atomic particle acts like they act by QM, where is the line where they cross. Think they have done some work where they have shown entanglement on some small but observable with a microscope diamonds.

then you should love this stuff. Leaving the real world for a second. Or better said maybe leaving the time line we are observing for a "second" . QM can make something like block time possible - If such a thing as block time is possible. Every argument becomes metaphysical, unless one describes the physics in use in the argument or limits it to a particular time-space plane, the science is as variable and possible as any other metaphysical argument.

Crazy stuff for sure.

The bottom line take away for me in all these possibilities around QM is that it is reminder of how little we may really know about - well anything really. We are so full of hubris and enamored with our "big" brains we are so darn sure what we know is real. And if history is any gauge we are probable wrong about a great deal of what we think we know.

reasonable reply - not being snide - but there is a ton of stuff on the internet about it written for laymen like me. Worth an hour or two - also a pretty good NOVA special on it - maybe on you tube.

according to entanglement - and as shown be experiments - no it does not . Entanglement would even say the electron does not even exist before it is "seen" .

It is a wild world we live in

In Eisenstein's world of general relativity - yes, in the world of Quantum Mechanics - no.

Pardon the slack language - there have been many experiments done that show entanglement happened, as predicted by the tested hypothesis -

You also don't seem to be using the term "metaphysical" in the standard (at least modern) philosophical sense there — Terrapin Station

was not sure there was such an agreed philosophical sense - In the sense I meant in the quote - and in the sense Dr. Hudson meant - was it becomes a question outside physics - out side science - if block time is deemed as only a mere possibility.