Which is?The way that anybody knows things.
So your strawman would undoubtedly argue.IOW, give me something that I'm prepared to accept.
But this doesn't speak to the actual veracity of what they say. Care to try a different answer?How do you recognise something that is relevant to you? It is natural for us to relate to others experience, on an actual level. I believe it called empathy.
So your strawman would undoubtedly argue. Care to actually discuss, or are you simply here to assert what you think your strawman will say?Already you have made assumptions. You only seem to accept one way of acquiring knowledge. To have evidence, satisfactory to your level of acceptance.
That's an assumption on your part, I'm afraid. It simply does not logically follow that there is necessarily an outside, nor that the room was intelligently designed. Since you have an a priori assumption that there is something beyond, it is not surprising that you would think otherwise, though.Because we are intelligent enough to realise that the room was intelligently designed and built.
So you continue upon your notion that God is a subjective matter. Ah, well.From their perspective, yes. Because for them there is no God.
So you keep saying, based on what you think your strawman would undoubtedly argue.It would be weird if they didn't think that, because for them, there is no God.
You would certainly like them to be, Jan. But they aren't. An unwillingness to address the issue, to explore the question, is no justification for calling them fundamental.From an atheist perspective, there is no God. From a theist perspective, God just Is. Those are fundamental positions.
The fundamental position is the one that remains when you do away with all a priori assumptions. Are you capable of doing that?
So you keep saying, based on what you think your strawman would undoubtedly argue.You think like this because there is currently no God. You cannot get around that.
There is failure, Jan. It is demonstrably true that practical matters can not account for all intellectual positions, and instead necessarily groups intellectual positions into binary forms.There's no failure involved Sarkus. Thought and practice are bedfellows. The whole marketing industry relies purely on that.
Whether it is a made up concept or not, the point remains."X" being a made up concept. While we can work with "X", the reality is "X" does not mean anything, other than a label you attach to a concept, and act as though, it is real, or even a possibility.
And how does this address the point? Answer: it doesn't. You are sidetracking, Jan. That is dishonest of you.There is actually no way of knowing what does not exist, because the moment we think something does not exist, then it exists in some aspect or other. Like I said before a unicorn is an amalgamation of things that do exist, operating in a dimension(s) we can comprehend, because of some aspect of our experience. Both collectively, and individually.
One can not recognise what one does not know.What makes you think you require knowledge for God to be revealed?
It has occurred to me that God does exist, and I accept it as a possibility that I am unable to recognise it, yes. It is the agnostic position, Jan.As it not occurred to you that God Is, but due to your accepted, fundamental position, you are currently unable to access God?
Because the theory "God Is" looks identical in practice to the theory that does not include God.Why is it?
"Natural" theism or atheism, as you call it, is simply the result of not thinking too much about what you believe but just go with the flow... i.e. you do not seek to override the superstitious bent that humans have developed through evolution. If you honestly think people "just know" through such "natural" means then your argument is itself self-defeating... as both the "natural theist and atheist" would both know mutually exclusive things (God exists v. God does not exist). Thus being natural is no arbiter of reality.That is not the way to conclude that God exists. You can always introduce "X" factors, and drag it out.
If it was necessary to know God Is, via this method. There would be no natural theism, or atheism. Because most people aren't logicians, or knowledgeable of logical analysis.
Seriously?? You honestly think that because you think it is "natural" for people to believe in God that God exists? The only reality is that they believe in God. Similarly you think it is "natural" for people to believe that God does not exist - and therefore this, too, is reality??? Please try to think through your arguments first, Jan.Being natural means it is reality.
No, Jan, it does NOT imply that God IS. This is your a priori assumption. Nothing more.There is a reason why accept God, or not.
This implies that God IS, but there are who don't accept that.
From now on I will simply ignore anything I perceive to be dripping in that a priori assumption, Jan, because until you let it go, just hypothetically for the purposes of discussion, then I may as well be talking to a brick wall.
Ignored.In that way, the situation is balanced, and both parties are fundamentally correct in acceptance and denial. There is God, and there is without God.
God can be comprehended without believing in God, Jan. Comprehension does not equate to existence. Can you separate the ability to comprehend with the belief of existence?Already addressed. You only need to require a theist to produce suitable evidence, or an argument which can defeat any "X" factor you care to throw up, in order to show God Is. The irony is that, that is not the to comprehend God.
I hope there's an actual point lurking in here, Jan. Care to actually spell it out?Murder is natural to humans. It doesn't mean we have to engage in it, or accept that because it is natural, it is a good and worthwhile activity.
You can critically examine it as much as you like. You can even prsent a fantastic argument to highlight the advantage of cold-blooded murder. But it won't change the fact that it is wrong. That fact is fundamental.
Yes, murder could be said to be natural to humans. But it doesn't work as a counter-example to the point raised. The issue is how a belief being natural in any way supports the veracity of what is believed in. Or do you think superstitions are actually true?
Care to address that issue now?
I don't claim that. But you do claim that God Is is a fact. Yet you don't know that. You can't know that (as argued above), and all you can do is cycle your a priori assumption in the big ol' wheel of believing to believe.I no more need to claim God Is, is a fact, than you need to claim that evidence is a requirement of comprehension of God is a fact.
No - the lack of an a priori assumption.You argue there is no evidence that support the existence of God. Why do you think this to be the case. An a priori assumptions perhaps?