I never suggested that God was angry with Gideon or Thomas. Yes, I am familiar with the History of Western Thought.
There is no evidence that Gideon actually lacked faith in God. My statement that God was not angry with him was a sidenote, but still the only thing you adressed.
Rational Skepticism is just another term for Scientific Skepticism or Modern Empiricism. But if you think that Rational Skepticism has something to do with Descartes, then perhaps it is you who fails the criterion of understanding other schools of thought.
Of course, but no one had suggested such a method of inquiry, and I was poking fun at your bringing it up. Plus the side implication of your statement, if you re-read what you wrote, was that skepticism was reasonable in the first place.
I have made no claim that Christianity is Unreasonable.
Other than, you know, the love of God being irrational, miracles being de-facto irrational, and faith being de-facto irrational... The first alone is a core foundation of Christianity which you've deemed unreasonable.
It is precisely because Unconditional Love is irrespective of the necessity of reason that I believe in it.
Well you've rephrased, earlier you said that it was unreasonable. I assume this is closer to what you actually believe though.
I am commanded to Love my Neighbor as myself, insofar as I acknowledge that everyone is my neighbor, the command remains unconditional.
Yes.
I do not need to formulate a reason to love my neighbor, rather my relationship with my neighbor as a practicing Christian is one of unconditional love. This corresponds to my relationship with God, for whatever I've done to the least of these I have done unto Him.
You do not need to formulate a reason only because God has given you many. Foremost because he has commanded it, and as a Christian you agree to serve him. Also because you know he loves them, so you should love them too, because you know that how you behave reflects how He will judge you, because you seek to promote His Kingdom and that is a means too it.
There are many reasons for unconditional love, they are painted all over scripture. How could you see otherwise.
Similarly Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. To claim that my Faith was contingent upon the Verification of my hope and the visibility of what I cannot see, is to place a criteria between my belief and the action that my belief requires of me.
Yes, we may have faith because he is faithful. Where he treacherous would faith in him be good?
When I test God, whether for reassurance of His authority or to verify the validity of His sovereignty, I do so out of Doubt. Not so that I can better execute His Command.
But he shows his faithfulness freely and abundantly without asking or testing. Such is the nature of a faithful God.
Consider Gideon and Thomas if you will. Gideon asked God for a sign when he was called, before he had reason to believe he would save his people, and he is a great man of Faith. Thomas asked God for another sign after walking with him for years and seeing many signs, and so is called having little faith.
My earlier attempts at establishing a dialogue concerning the reasonable proposition that Doubt is a default setting which is to be overcome by Faith (X=0),
Yes, and I asserted that doubt is neutral, as you said X=0. Disbeleif is the opposite of faith, X<-1 while faith is faith X>1. Though that oversimplifies, as one can have a mixture of faith and doubt, indeed one can have a mix of faith and doubt and outright disbelief.
seemed to backfire into being called a Naturalist.
Your stances on rationality are why I called you a naturalist. You wrote a paragraph on how Observation (you capitalized it even, so clearly it was an important word for you) allows us to rationally understand things. You went further to state how excluding observation and the conventions based solely on observation also excludes reasonable inquiry. Therefore things not based on observation are irrational.
This is what you wrote.
This is what epistamological naturalism is.
This is why I called you a naturalist.
If I must make it clear one more time. I called you a naturalist because you explained your philosophy of reason and it lines up cleanly with naturalism, and only naturalism.
I was merely hoping to illustrate using material means that which is immaterial. If we could prove God’s existence through evidence or reason, then Faith would be unnecessary. That is what makes the Day of the Lord such a frightening concept.
Apologists, and those brought to salvation by them stand testament against that...
When I was talking about Epistemological positions, I was referring to your idea about where I was coming from.
The idea you gave me when you stated where you where coming from...
That any further explanation I would have would be simply interpreted as an extension of Naturalism.
Because it in fact would be.
To this I can't say that you will necessarily even now think that I am not a naturalist, but frankly its irrelevant to this discussion or my position, or your interpretation of my position.
Did you just say your underlying approach to handling information and understanding the universe is irrelevant to this discussion?
But to be clear, I assert that you hold contradictory positions: Naturalism is the king of your mind and reason, but you hold to Christianity secondarily, and so you must exempt Christianity from reasonable scrutiny.
I understand where you are coming from. God is Lord of nature and a Miracle is simply God being God. I don't disagree with you in this respect. I do disagree with what can be infered by the implication that miracles exist. but that is a discussion for another day.
Yes, I'm trying to deal with that, but you're evading the few plain and straightforward questions I'm posting...
I don't care if you call me a Fideist, just don't call me an Evidentialist or a Foundationalist. Contextualism is key in everything.
Not 'Chinese Room' contextualism surely? That would just lead to another ugh... But you could mean something entirely different.
Anyway, to get back to plain as day questions...
Using your terms, is it therefore Rational assume that X will equal anything other than 0? No. Hence my position. Its really not hard.
For God's sakes! If God says he'll intervene then its rational to assume he will intervene. His intervention is still a miracle.
Can you at least admit to that? How much plainer can I say it?