Proof of creation.

[idav]

Originally Posted by Acim

Exactly (what scientific materialism is).

It's also about the answers to the things we can't see which the mind is also part of, all material.

[tumbleweed41]

Originally Posted by Acim

Supposed?
It is definitely reveled.
It's as reveled as the Big Bang.

Even more reveling.

Cool.

What chapter and verse of the revealed revelation known as Genesis is the Big Bang referenced in?

[Acim]

Originally Posted by Falvlun

Okay. Regardless, I still think the comparison is unreasonable. It would be like saying "You can't prove that my purple is the same color as your purple. Therefore, mermaids exist."

I disagree. Because objective evidence may not (actually) exist on either count, does mean we rely on faith on both accounts. That is the proposition I said before, and I think it follows based on reason. It is only connotation of faith that makes some people uneasy with the proposition. It doesn't really take anything away from resulting ideas, unless one of resulting ideas is, "our way is inherently better because we do not rely on faith." It does take that erroneous perception away.

Believing the Earth is flat in this day and age is unreasonable. It may not have always been an unreasonable belief, but there is increasing evidence that it really was never as popular as claimed to be.

The reason I think 'flat earth' is reasonable is that it does appear this way in many locations (I would say vast majority) that we find ourselves in. I recognize that how it appears, is not how it is, but I still think based on appearance that is predominant, it is reasonable. It also strikes me as reasonable as when I hear whole lot of people on this site make the claim about "sun rising is certain." If we are being technical and accurate on that claim, it is not possible that anyone reading this has actually seen the sun rise. But the appearance of 'sun rising' and using that as common phrase for what we (think we) see everyday, does make for somewhat reasonable claim, that the sun does rise.

But I digress. The point is, unreasonable beliefs can exist. Which means there must be some criteria in play that aids in distinguishing reasonable from unreasonable beliefs.

Agreed.

I disagree. We could never have a working criteria for determining reasonable vs unreasonable beliefs unless we can rely upon what our senses are telling us.

If you mean only physical senses, and specifically the 5 common senses, then I most certainly disagree. IMO, you are utilizing an aspect of the argument to make the same larger point I am making, but your aspect is a subset for me. I am saying 'all physical perception' is based on faith, and not on anything that so far has been provided via objective evidence. The fundamental faith is not an unreasonable belief, at least not to me. I understand how it emerged, and how it is perpetuated. It is reasonable considering the sponsoring thought, the fundamental idea. That idea, does get overlooked, and in many ways is meant to stay as hidden within consciousness as humanly possible. Hence, the realization that the fundamental idea rests entirely on faith is usually denied, especially by those who rather leave external world as unexplored proposition. Our physical senses are perpetuating the fundamental idea, and are not real, not objectively existing.

If you call into question the idea that we exist (ie, are able to sense) and that the universe exists (ie, that there is something to sense), then you destroy any basis upon which that criteria could be founded.

I call into question that we exist as physical selves, not that we exist. I know we exist (as Thought). I have no doubts about this. I know that is our reality. I believe I exist as a physical entity in a physical universe. I have ongoing doubt that this world is real, even though there are times where I will show up and act as if the existence is very real. Mostly because my physical self can feel physical responses to the physical stimuli. And if the awareness of this stimuli is acute (as in pain or pleasure), I may be tempted to conclude, 'this external experience (or thing) is real.'

Define real. And what reason could you have to believe that the physical world which you can feel is less real than the existence of a God which you can't feel?

Better be a good one. Otherwise, I'm afraid it falls under the category of an Unreasonable Belief.

Real is eternal. One may reasonably ask, "how do you know anything is eternal." And IMO, this is where reason comes squarely into play. I will admit that I do not know (currently) that anything is eternal, though I reason that there are things I have experienced (we all have experienced) that are eternal. Three items come to mind:

1 - Existence as thought. This is more simple than I think analytical mind wishes to make it. I usually just say "existence is real (or eternal)." But within context of this thread, at this juncture, I would add existence as thought. It is how I understand we exist, at all. While it may lead to connotation that our existence is fleeting or whimsical, I think instead, if explored with contemplation (applied reasoning), it leads to deeper realization that thought is permanent. There are a few things that can aid in this understanding, not the least of which is having grasp on idea of 'sponsoring thoughts.' A way to understand this would be akin to how biological evolution relies on common ancestor for all resulting forms. Sponsoring thought is common ancestor for resulting forms of thinking. Ultimately, existence as thought leads to knowledge.

2 - I would note that last item and this item are ones I noted in 2nd post on this thread in response to what OP was originally asking. This 2nd one is (existence of) now. Reason continues to tell me that now is eternal. What I am choosing to see in this moment of now, may not be eternal. That I am seeing / thinking now, has never not been true in my life, or in every instance of an intelligent living organism that I am aware of (including ones I dream about).

3 - (Perfect) Love is eternal. Can't explain this one without proselytizing, and so I won't say much, other than to say I find this to be perfectly reasonable. When first hearing this, a couple decades ago, I would've interpreted the assertion of "love is eternal / real' as airy fairy nonsense, not worth my time to consider as reasonable. Now, I can't imagine leaving it out, and still do the thing called 'be reasonable.' Love is how I interpret God, and the terms are interchangeable, especially if Love is given respect of understanding beyond physical connotations.

Essentially, if something can be threatened and made vulnerable, that is unreal. What is not real, does not exist (except as illusion, or dream). Understanding what is real (eternal) and unreal (not actually existing) leads to reasonable peace (of mind). Ignoring this awareness, leads (me) to confusion within perception.

Hope this helps.