Which is? So your strawman would undoubtedly argue. But this doesn't speak to the actual veracity of what they say. Care to try a different answer? So your strawman would undoubtedly argue. Care to actually discuss, or are you simply here to assert what you think your strawman will say? 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. So you continue upon your notion that God is a subjective matter. Ah, well. So you keep saying, based on what you think your strawman would undoubtedly argue. 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. 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. 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. Whether it is a made up concept or not, the point remains. And how does this address the point? Answer: it doesn't. You are sidetracking, Jan. That is dishonest of you. One can not recognise what one does not know. 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. Because the theory "God Is" looks identical in practice to the theory that does not include God. "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. 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. No, Jan, it does NOT imply that God IS. This is your a priori assumption. Nothing more. 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. 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? I hope there's an actual point lurking in here, Jan. Care to actually spell it out? 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. No - the lack of an a priori assumption.