Is forgiveness without a price a virtue?

[Justin108]

Is it a good thing to be able to forgive without any price?

If so, is God imperfect for being unable to forgive sin without Jesus' sacrifice?

[The Tanager]

4. Analysis of one analogy of the Christian solution

Where do these creeds come from if not the Bible? And if they do not come from the Bible, who came up with them?

You blatantly just ignored how I connected them to the Bible, cutting off the rest of the quote without responding to it. Come on.

That's because the rest of what you said contradicts your first two sentences. First you said...

Christianity is not just the Bible. There are also things like creeds.

then you say ...

But these come out of what is revealed in the Bible and do not contradict it. The Bible talks about Jesus being with God before being a human, which means he could not have had a human nature at that point. But he had to have some kind of nature. John 1:1, 14 talks about Jesus being divine and then being made human. Col. 2:9 talks of the Divine being joined with humanity.

So you tell me that the creeds are not just from the Bible, and then you tell me all the creeds are from the Bible...

Yes, they come from the Bible, but are not limited to what the Bible says. Creeds take the Bible and, without contradicting the Biblical writing, further explain what is implied by what is written in the Bible in a new way. That's not a contradiction at all.

The Bible talks about Jesus being human and being divine. It does not say "Jesus had two natures and this fits in with salvation this way and blah, blah, blah," because it was not a philosophical treatise. A creed and various other texts bring philosophy to bear upon the Bible talking about Jesus being human and being divine and tries to explore if and how it makes sense, both in itself and in relation to other doctrines and events from the Bible.

Christianity does not believe that. You believe that. The belief that Jesus has two natures is not a universal Christian belief. In fact I have never heard it before you made that claim.

I didn't say it was a universal belief, but it is the traditional Christian belief taught as orthodox throughout history and most denominations. I am very surprised you've never heard of it even once. I'm not saying you haven't, as you could have talked with people about other matters concerning Christianity. I'm just shocked it has never come up. If you've talked to many Christians, then probably the majority of those you did believe Jesus has two natures...or at least the tradition they identify with teaches it.

Regardless, you are talking to me about the incoherency of Christianity and so we must go on my Christianity. If you want to analyze a Christian who says Jesus doesn't have two natures, then I might be an ally to your conclusion that such a Christian is incoherent in their worldview.

Umm... what?

This was in response to me saying that your critique assumes the two natures belief. You are making an ab reductio argument where you say Christianity believes A and B and that you will assume they are true, for the sake of argument. You then show how these beliefs lead to contradicting conclusions, which both cannot be true. And, if this is the case, Christianity (as originally believed/described) cannot be true.

You originally said Christians believe A (God is perfect) and B (Jesus' sacrifice is the only way for the forgiveness of sins), but that belief B shows God to actually be imperfect. Due to the law of non-contradiction, God can't both be perfect and imperfect, so this form of Christianity is incoherent and fails.

I have responded (in part) that belief B doesn't show any imperfection in God for such-and-such reasons. Part of that involves bringing up the Christian belief that Jesus has two natures. This is still under the umbrella of 'Chrisitianity' that your critique is assuming is true in its beliefs as stated...only for the sake of argument in showing how it contradicts itself, of course.

No I have added to it. I never said Christianity is untrue because it hasn't supported its claim that Jesus had two natures. Rather, Christianity is probably untrue and this is yet another reason why.

There's a difference between changing an argument and adding another argument. None of my previous arguments have changed.

Yes, what I meant was change the argument you wanted to talk about. The shift wasn't clearly stated. One post I'm responding to the first one and the next post, quoting responses of mine that address that first argument, you raise this different critique. You need to be clearer in that shift.

- Why is it necessary for God to become Jesus in order to do (2)?

As a reminder:
(1) telling us what to do and leaving the actual doing of it to us
(2) helping us to actually do it (what you call Jesus helping us)

For God to do (2) God must be able to perform the action we need to perform to help us actually perform the action. In post 187, in your thoughts about Luke, you seemed to agree with that. But God can't perform the action of surrendering in His divine nature. So, God incarnates, taking on a human nature so that He can now perform the action of surrendering.

- Why can't we substitute "what you call Jesus helping us" with "what you call God helping us"?

Because what you call God helping us...God's help (pre-Jesus)...is (1). (2) is useless if it's just a restatement of (1).

Why can't God help us actually do it?

Help us actually do what? (1)? He did when He created us and gave us the law. (2)? He did in incarnating as Jesus.

Yes but God only told us what to do in (1). Why didn't God help us actually do it as he does in (2) without first becoming Jesus?

Help how? By forcing us to choose (I know you aren't saying that)? Or by just performing the action with us? In order to do that, God must incarnate. But incarnating is becoming Jesus.

The process you describe looks like this
1) God tells us what to do. We fail
2) God becomes Jesus
3) Jesus helps us actually do it

The process I am suggesting looks like this
1) God tells us what to do. We fail
2) God helps us actually do it

Why would my process not work as well as your process?

It's the same process. God helping us actually do it is Jesus helping us actually do it. Because God must incarnate to help us actually do it.

And in every one of these examples, I have demonstrated that God would be able to do the exact same thing without needing to become Jesus first.

No you haven't been demonstrating that. God can't help us do it without incarnating. We can either:

(1) Be told how to surrender and then try to do it ourselves.
(2) Be told how to surrender and then have someone else do it for us.
(3) Be told how to surrender and then have someone do it with us.

God helping us do it is (3). But God can't help us in (3) without having that ability first. You can't do something with someone if you can't do the something being done.

It of course depends on how exactly we help the homeless drunk. If we were to help him by giving him money (a simplified example), then the actions we perform are
- move hand to pocket
- take out wallet
- take out money
- give money to homeless drunk

Does God do these things for us? Does he literally take control of our body, move our hand, take out our wallet, take out money and give it to the homeless drunk? Is this what you mean when you say "God's movement in us"?

We do those things by an act of our will. We won't do those things perfectly unless God is willing that alongside with us. We are listening and following God's will and not just our own selfish, self-reliant will. God moves in our will. We have a free will desire that we don't follow up on, given our own steam. We need God to move our will to follow up on our free will intention to help the homeless (or surrender in every different situation).

[Justin108]

Confused about what exactly? There are only 3 logical options
1. I cannot choose belief
2. I do not know how to choose belief
3. I am a liar

If either 1 or 2 is true, then God is essentially damning me either for my inability (1) or lack of knowledge (2). This leaves option 3 - that I am a liar. Which is it?

(3) I can choose belief, I know how to choose belief (and do it), but I don't think I do.

So you think I know how to do something, but I don't know that I know...? The point is I do not know how to change my belief. I do not believe in God. I need to believe in God to be saved. Therefore, I need to change my belief. If I do not know how, or if I know how but don't know that I know how (however that works), I am still not able to change my belief because I need to know how first. I am unable to change my belief because I do not know how to change my belief.

(4) I can choose belief, I know how to choose belief, but I'm saying that I don't.

This is no different from "I am a liar"

I think (3) is probably the case. So, just because (1) and (2) are eliminated, that doesn't mean (4) [your option 3] is the right answer. You think that reason determines your belief mechanistically. I don't think that is the case. I think there are beliefs out there that have multiple reasonable alternatives. Yet you believe one alternative over the other. Thus you are making a choice between two reasonable alternatives.

Please explain how belief in YHWH is a reasonable choice

I have no actual reason to believe in the Christian God. So with that logic, I am unable to. Just as you are unable to believe in fairies.

No, you do have actual (supposed) rational reasons to believe in the Christian God: the philosophical, scientific and historical reasons we are trying to get at in section 2. You may think they are weak, but at least you are aware that they are there.

Hopefully you'll finally give me these rational reasons. I'll see when I get to section 2.

You may think they are weak, but at least you are aware that they are there.

And you think that the reasons for believing in fairies are weak. How is this any different from me thinking the reasons to believe in YHWH are weak?

What makes you think I agree with you?

Oh, so you are aware of a philosophical/scientific/historical argument people make for the existence of fairies? Great! Let's look at it/them.[/quote]
False dichotomy. Not believing a claim is not the same as believing the opposite. You said "there is no one who believes in fairies for reasons other than fideism or personal experience". I said "I do not believe your claim". This is not the same as saying "I believe there are philosophical/scientific/historical argument people make for the existence of fairies".

There are 3 options
- Yes
- No
- Maybe

I go with maybe

[Justin108]

Despite being immaterial, God has often been described as having apparently material qualities (footsteps in Genesis, a backside seen by Moses, etc.). Heaven, a place I assume to be immaterial as well, is also described in various material ways.

It was not clear that you were using it analogously or as a metaphor.

A metaphor for what? What did Moses metaphorically see?

The accounts I know of concerning fairies is that they are actually material things in a univocal sense.

Maybe you misinterpreted these accounts. Maybe fairies have "metaphorical wings".

I fully agree with you on this. Assuming these additional traits to the first cause is entirely unjustified. So just as one cannot use this argument to support fairies, one cannot use this argument to support YHWH. Ergo, fairies and YHWH appear to have the same amount of philosophical support - that is to say none.

YHWH doesn't go against what the cosmological argument tells us, but is the type of being that the argument points to, even if not directly to everything included in the idea of YHWH. The cosmological argument would, however, rule out fairies as the first cause.

How would the cosmological argument rule out fairies?

I never claimed it to be an objective standard. In post 168, I specifically said...

Justin108 wrote:

It needs to be good reason for that person. People are different. It takes less to convince some than others. If God wanted a very skeptical person to believe, he will have to provide a lot of evidence to that person.

But my main point is that even for that person there could be a difference between what they feel the argument is and what the argument actually is. Just because someone feels it is not rational to believe such-and-such, doesn't mean they are right that it is not rational.

If God truly wanted me to believe in him, he would provide proof that I "feel" are rational. If he does not, he either does not understand that people are different, or he does not care enough to make me believe.

Yes it is. I have about a 50/50 belief in a god. I have absolutely zero belief in the Christian God. If God wanted me to believe in him then he will have to provide me with more evidence

Or you need to reassess the evidence God already provided you with. I'm not saying that is the case. I'm just saying that is a logical possibility. Which means your critique isn't warranted.

I have. Over. And over. And over. God knows I was going to give up eventually. If God wanted me to believe in him, he would give me a reason to not give up.

How does the cosmological argument conclude that the first cause is personal? This is an unjustified assumption about the first cause.

Causes can be either impersonal (like scientific explanations, laws, initial conditions) or personal (like agents with wills).

First, scientific explanations, laws, initial conditions rely upon time, the natural order, physical material to make sense.

Second, the possible timeless and immaterial entities we have experience with

We have no "experience" with immaterial entities. We can conceive them, but we have no "experience" of them

But abstract objects don't stand in causal relation to anything.

Not that we know of. But knowing of no such instances is not enough to conclude that this never happens. If we do operate this way, then the entire cosmological argument falls apart as we also do not know of any examples of material things coming from immaterial things.

Lacking an example of X is not enough to conclude that X does not exist. Ergo, your lack of an example of abstract objects causing anything is not enough to conclude that abstract objects do not cause anything.

But the cosmological argument has already shown the universe is a temporal thing, with a timeless cause. The only way to account for this, then, is a personal agent, it seems to me.

Even if we assume that the first cause is timeless, I fail to see how you reach the conclusion that "the only way to account for this, then, is a personal agent"

There is absolutely zero evidence that the first cause cares about morality. This is another unjustified assumption about the first cause

So, are you saying we need to also look at the moral argument before moving onto the historicity of the Resurrection? That's why I want to know the starting point you want for this next part of our discussion.

Yes

[Justin108]

How do you explain the fact that literally no one has ever made choices that lead to them preferring surrender over self-reliance?

So, we've switched from preferences to choices now. The options are now threefold. Our choice is either:

(1) determined by our nature
(2) determined by the excercise of our free will (for whatever reason(s))
(3) chance

No!

determined by the exercise of our free will (for whatever reason(s))

We are trying to figure out what the "for whatever reasons" are!
1. Natural attraction
2. Chance

If literally everyone chose self-reliance over surrender, then this is either because self-reliance is more attractive, or it is by chance. If you can think of a third option, then name it. And if you dare say "free will" then I will end this discussion immediately because then it indicates that you are not listening to a damn thing I'm saying.

I explain it by (2). And you said you recognize it as free will and not a mechanistic process. But it seems like you are saying that within (2) our choice is what it is because of a stronger preference for self-reliance. But if our choice is free, then preferences don't determine what we choose.

I never said it determines what we choose! I said it influences what we choose! Is this so hard to understand???

Drugs are addictive by their nature. We are addictable to drugs by our nature. The reason we get addicted to drugs but not to tomatoes is because tomatoes are not addictive.

Why is self-reliance addictive but surrender isn't?

Why are you saying they aren't both equally habit-forming?

Evidence. If we all end up choosing self-reliance over surrender, then clearly self-reliance is more addictive. Either that, or we end up choosing self-reliance by chance.

Suppose there was a scientific experiment where subjects were given a choice between two drugs, Drug-A and Drug-B. They get to use one of the two drugs every day for a year. By the end of the year, everyone ended up choosing Drug-A more than Drug-B. Everyone got addicted to Drug-A and no one got addicted to Drug-B.

Any scientist would make the conclusion that Drug-A is therefore more addictive than Drug-B. Either that, or it is a massive coincidence.

But what if everyone got addicted to Drug-A because they chose Drug-A 75% or 85% or 95% or 100% of the time?

They sampled Drug-A and Drug-B. If they kept coming back for Drug-A, then evidence suggests Drug-A is more addictive. Either this, or chance.

They chose Drug-B only 1 out of every 4/5/10/20 times?

What you are describing then is chance.

That is a coincidence, but not in the sense that chance was the cause of their choice.

So you finally admit that it is a coincidence?

Is it an extraordinary coincidence that everyone on earth chose the exact same lottery numbers one day? Yes or no? Stop bringing up dice. I never said this was a mechanical process. I said it was a coincidence. So YES or NO. Is it an extraordinary coincidence that everyone on earth chose the exact same lottery numbers?

My answer doesn't change. It's still yes, but not in the sense of being the result of chance, but being the result of people exercising their free will to the same end for different reasons. I will say it is coincidence in that sense, but you earlier defined coincidence as 'chance'.

Do you then agree that everyone choosing self-reliance over surrender is a massive coincidence?

[Justin108]

Yes, they come from the Bible, but are not limited to what the Bible says. Creeds take the Bible and, without contradicting the Biblical writing, further explain what is implied by what is written in the Bible in a new way. That's not a contradiction at all.

So by "creed' what you really mean is "interpretation"?

The Bible talks about Jesus being human and being divine. It does not say "Jesus had two natures and this fits in with salvation this way and blah, blah, blah," because it was not a philosophical treatise. A creed and various other texts bring philosophy to bear upon the Bible talking about Jesus being human and being divine and tries to explore if and how it makes sense, both in itself and in relation to other doctrines and events from the Bible.

This is not a creed, this is an interpretation.

I have responded (in part) that belief B doesn't show any imperfection in God for such-and-such reasons. Part of that involves bringing up the Christian belief that Jesus has two natures.

Again, you call it the "Christian" belief. It is not the "Christian" belief, it is your belief.

- Why is it necessary for God to become Jesus in order to do (2)?

As a reminder:
(1) telling us what to do and leaving the actual doing of it to us
(2) helping us to actually do it (what you call Jesus helping us)

For God to do (2) God must be able to perform the action we need to perform to help us actually perform the action.

An omnipotent God would have no problem performing that action

But God can't perform the action of surrendering in His divine nature. So, God incarnates, taking on a human nature so that He can now perform the action of surrendering.

The claim that "God cannot surrender" falls apart when we actually take a look at the specifics of what "surrender" requires. Vaguely saying "God cannot surrender" is open to interpretation, but then you specified an example of "surrender" as us helping a homeless man. If you substitute "surrender" with "helping a homeless man" then there is no logical contradiction in God helping a homeless man.

So
- Surrender (in this instance) = helping a homeless man
- God can help a homeless man
- Ergo, God can help us surrender

There is no logical contradiction.

Help how? By forcing us to choose (I know you aren't saying that)? Or by just performing the action with us? In order to do that, God must incarnate.

I fail to see why God cannot help us to perform an action without incarnating first. God has influenced the physical realm countless times. Why does he need to incarnate in order to influence the physical realm in this instance? God can make stars fall from the sky without first becoming a star. Why can't he move humans without first becoming a human?

The process you describe looks like this
1) God tells us what to do. We fail
2) God becomes Jesus
3) Jesus helps us actually do it

The process I am suggesting looks like this
1) God tells us what to do. We fail
2) God helps us actually do it

Why would my process not work as well as your process?

It's the same process. God helping us actually do it is Jesus helping us actually do it.

It is not the same process. One requires incarnation, the other doesn't.

Because God must incarnate to help us actually do it.

You have yet to demonstrate why this is logically necessary

And in every one of these examples, I have demonstrated that God would be able to do the exact same thing without needing to become Jesus first.

No you haven't been demonstrating that. God can't help us do it without incarnating.

Repeating it is not an argument...

We can either:

(1) Be told how to surrender and then try to do it ourselves.
(2) Be told how to surrender and then have someone else do it for us.
(3) Be told how to surrender and then have someone do it with us.

Stop using vague terms like "surrender". I want specifics. What is it specifically that God cannot do without becoming Jesus first? Back to the homeless man example. In what way is Jesus' incarnation necessary to help us help this homeless man?

It of course depends on how exactly we help the homeless drunk. If we were to help him by giving him money (a simplified example), then the actions we perform are
- move hand to pocket
- take out wallet
- take out money
- give money to homeless drunk

Does God do these things for us? Does he literally take control of our body, move our hand, take out our wallet, take out money and give it to the homeless drunk? Is this what you mean when you say "God's movement in us"?

We do those things by an act of our will. We won't do those things perfectly

How does one "perfectly" give a homeless man money...?

unless God is willing that alongside with us.

Again, you are being vague. What does it mean for God to "will" it alongside with us?

We are listening and following God's will and not just our own selfish, self-reliant will. God moves in our will.

More vagueness. What does it mean for God to "move in our will"?

We need God to move our will to follow up on our free will intention to help the homeless (or surrender in every different situation).

Why can God not "move our will" without incarnating as Jesus first? So far I have yet to see anything in the homeless man example that logically requires God to incarnate as Jesus.

[The Tanager]

1. Does the Christian God reject people for beliefs they don't have control over?

So you think I know how to do something, but I don't know that I know...? The point is I do not know how to change my belief. I do not believe in God. I need to believe in God to be saved. Therefore, I need to change my belief. If I do not know how, or if I know how but don't know that I know how (however that works), I am still not able to change my belief because I need to know how first. I am unable to change my belief because I do not know how to change my belief.

I don't see why. You choose a belief when there are multiple alternatives available to you. You look at the various evidences in support of each, none are compelling and you must choose what you will believe. You can choose to follow reason or your emotions or a loved one or whatever. And to change that belief you will need new information or to look at old information in a new light. I'm not sure why that process doesn't make sense.

The real issue here (it seems to me) is that you are arguing that reason compels you to believe one thing in every situation (of belief formation) and I don't think that is the case. And it is your burden of proof since you are using that belief to support the argument we are analyzing.

Please explain how belief in YHWH is a reasonable choice

This is not support for the above argument. It is addressing another argument. One we are taking up in subsection 2 right now. If you want to drop the focus on this subsection, I'm fine with that. If you still want to try and support your critique and do the other subsection, I'm fine with that. But this isn't support for your critique in this section.

And you think that the reasons for believing in fairies are weak. How is this any different from me thinking the reasons to believe in YHWH are weak?

It's not that I think the rational arguments are weak, it's that they are non-existent, to my knowledge. I am aware of no rational argument to even be able to see if it's strong or weak. Rational arguments for fairies are not there; rational arguments are there for the Christian God even if they are perceived to be weak.

You said "there is no one who believes in fairies for reasons other than fideism or personal experience". I said "I do not believe your claim". This is not the same as saying "I believe there are philosophical/scientific/historical argument people make for the existence of fairies".

I initially said that, not thinking it was that controversial, but with your response I changed it in post 180. I changed it to saying I am aware of no such kind of argument. You are also aware of none.

There are 3 options
- Yes
- No
- Maybe

I go with maybe

But why did we begin to talk about this? I said the two cases (arguments for the existence of fairies and the existence of the Christian God) are different in the types of arguments offered. If you are as knowledgeable as you claim (and seem) to be, then your answer for the Christian God here would be a definite 'yes' even if you think the argument(s) weak.

[The Tanager]

2. Radical claims require radical evidence

I've had a change of mind here and apologize if I've been taking us on an unneeded tangent to your question. It may be more beneficial (as you were saying) to focus on just the part of the cumulative case that narrows God's existence to the Christian God. And then maybe touch back upon the other ones if they need to come up. I still think you misunderstand the cosmological argument. I also think things like the cosmological argument help to rationally round out the Christian view of God, but I'm not sure that whole discussion is needed for what you were asking of me.

The part of the cumulative argument that I feel narrows the discussion upon the Christian God is the historical argument for the Resurrection. The facts such a case are built upon are the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb and the origin of the Christian faith. Let's take it one at a time. Do you agree that Jesus' earliest disciples claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus or should we look further into this one first?

[The Tanager]

3. The Effect of Sin

No!

determined by the exercise of our free will (for whatever reason(s))

We are trying to figure out what the "for whatever reasons" are!
1. Natural attraction
2. Chance

If literally everyone chose self-reliance over surrender, then this is either because self-reliance is more attractive, or it is by chance. If you can think of a third option, then name it. And if you dare say "free will" then I will end this discussion immediately because then it indicates that you are not listening to a damn thing I'm saying.

Or that we are talking past each other. Please define chance.

[The Tanager]

4. An analysis of one analogy of the Christian solution

So by "creed' what you really mean is "interpretation"?

Well, not all interpretations are creeds but, yes, Christian creeds are Biblical interpretations. A creed is an interpretation agreed upon by a group to be authoritative for that group. How are you using creed?

An omnipotent God would have no problem performing that action

Unless (and you have agreed with this in the past) the action was illogical. It is clearly illogical for a being to perform an ability it does not have. So, even an omnipotent God would have a problem performing that action if it did not have that ability.

The claim that "God cannot surrender" falls apart when we actually take a look at the specifics of what "surrender" requires. Vaguely saying "God cannot surrender" is open to interpretation, but then you specified an example of "surrender" as us helping a homeless man. If you substitute "surrender" with "helping a homeless man" then there is no logical contradiction in God helping a homeless man.

So
- Surrender (in this instance) = helping a homeless man
- God can help a homeless man
- Ergo, God can help us surrender

There is no logical contradiction.

No, surrender in this instance is surrendering our will (not wanting to help the homeless man) to God's will (wanting us to help the homeless man). In self-reliance we refuse to surrender our will. Jesus helps us surrender our will.

Why can't he move humans without first becoming a human?

He can move humans in that way. Either by influencing (but this means we must cooperate and do what God says for it to be successful) or controlling (which overrides our cooperation and, therefore, negates our free will). Controlling is out, you agree.

The confusion is on what's left: the influencing. God can influence, but the success depends on us cooperating and following what God says. So, what happens if we don't actually do that? We need to actually freely follow through. We don't do that on our own. The only other options are someone doing it for us (which you agree is out) or someone do it with us. The only way God can do it with us is to gain the ability for God's self.

[Justin108]

So you think I know how to do something, but I don't know that I know...? The point is I do not know how to change my belief. I do not believe in God. I need to believe in God to be saved. Therefore, I need to change my belief. If I do not know how, or if I know how but don't know that I know how (however that works), I am still not able to change my belief because I need to know how first. I am unable to change my belief because I do not know how to change my belief.

I don't see why. You choose a belief when there are multiple alternatives available to you. You look at the various evidences in support of each, none are compelling and you must choose what you will believe. You can choose to follow reason or your emotions or a loved one or whatever. And to change that belief you will need new information or to look at old information in a new light. I'm not sure why that process doesn't make sense.

I have previously clarified that I cannot choose my belief and that this process is automatic to me. I have also clarified in post 125 that the only thing I have control over is
- method of investigation
- consideration
- contemplation

You disagreed with me on this and insisted that I can still choose what to believe. And now you're saying "to change that belief you will need new information or to look at old information in a new light". Which is exactly what I said in post 125... to seek new information falls under the category of "method of investigation". To look at old information in a new light falls under "contemplation". I have done this repeatedly. I have looked for new information, I have looked at old information in a new light and I still cannot / do not know how to change my belief. I do not believe in God and unless you can give me new information, I cannot change my belief. Essentially by telling me that to change my belief, I need to look at new information or reassess old information, you are just reaffirming what I said in post 125.

I'll repeat what I said in post 125

The following are within my control. The following are choices
- method of investigation
- consideration
- contemplation

...but choosing belief is not a choice. Not to me. If you insist that I have this ability, then you will have to tell me how because you have yet to do so.

The real issue here (it seems to me) is that you are arguing that reason compels you to believe one thing in every situation (of belief formation) and I don't think that is the case.

Why don't you think that is the case?

And it is your burden of proof since you are using that belief to support the argument we are analyzing.

Choose to believe in fairies. If you cannot, you proved my point. It's that simple. Reason compels you to not believe in fairies just as reason compels me to not believe in the Christian God. Your excuses for why that is the case is nothing but double standards. If you cannot choose to believe in fairies, then belief is not a choice.

Please explain how belief in YHWH is a reasonable choice

This is not support for the above argument. It is addressing another argument.

In post 198, you said "thus you are making a choice between two reasonable alternatives". For your claim to be accurate, belief in YHWH must be a reasonable choice. If it is not a reasonable choice, you cannot claim that I made a choice between two reasonable alternatives. If YHWH is not a reasonable choice, then by default, lack of belief in YHWH is more rational.

But this isn't support for your critique in this section.

No it is a critique against your argument in this section
- You claim that belief in fairies is not a choice for you
- Yet you insist that belief in YHWH is a choice for me
- You base this claim on your opinion that YHWH is somehow objectively more rational than fairies. I reject that position. Your insistence that YHWH is more rational than fairies is entirely your on subjective opinion

And you think that the reasons for believing in fairies are weak. How is this any different from me thinking the reasons to believe in YHWH are weak?

It's not that I think the rational arguments are weak, it's that they are non-existent, to my knowledge.

And the reasons for believing in YHWH are non-existent to my knowledge

I am aware of no rational argument to even be able to see if it's strong or weak.

Nor am I aware of any rational arguments for the existence of YHWH

Rational arguments for fairies are not there; rational arguments are there for the Christian God even if they are perceived to be weak.

Define rational argument, then give me an example of a rational argument for the Christian God