1. A theist's position is reasonable because of the faith of the people who believe in it as witnesses themselves of God being real. However, it is said also in the bible: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them." If you really havent found a person of indisputably good moral character and understanding, the reasons God is real and Jesus is God are the following: For God: If you do not doubt the scriptures, which is the main argument against God's existance (to doubt them, for any reason) It is evident that God is real. You may call this argument a historic argument. For Jesus: The moral character argumebt applies to him, of which those who knew him knew he was without flaw.// If you do not believe him, you may believe his miracles// This is said by Jesus, (I placed it in bars /). The miracles of his disciples shortly after his death and resurrection also are proof. Historic argument again.
2. I dont know.
3. I dont know.

I myself am not ready to say I am of undisputably good moral character, so ask someone else.

It is indeed a skill issue but skilled communicators should be able to lower the skill bar for others. That is my opinion at least.

The biggest problem with philosophy besides its lack of inherent fundamentals is in my opinon the words. It is like teaching a Magikarp Flamethrower. Doesnt make any sense, you must evolve it into Gyarados first. That requires too much effort, it just doesnt make sense. You cant expect every Magikarp in the sea to evolve into Gyarados, they have better things to do than being super angry all the time.

Got it? Of course you didnt. You needed to be super knowledgeable about Pokemon of all things to get why Magikarps cant learn the move Flamethrower. It is that same way when you guys use references and very specific ideas to explain something. Dude, you cant just expect everyone to have read that very same book you did, as basic as it may seem to you. And if they did, why even mention it? They already got the ideas. You cant expect people to know "this is _____ fallacy" and even if you did, how would that help at all? The possibility for misuse is so huge you are better off explaining their mistake or the right logic. I guess if philosophy is as pointless as many people make it seem, and it is if it doesnt have the right fundamentals, goals and observations, it is better off not being a burden to society, and more of a hobby for nerds like you and me. This applies to vocabulary too, to a lesser degree. Still, if you want the widest range of people to understand you (if you agree with me that that is one of the valuable things you can put in everything you say) it is best to use simple vocab. I think it makes it seem more of a special club that way. I think I thought before the likely reason people said this is because they wanted to feel like part of an elite. Fair enough. I don't think so anymore, but I approve of you if you do so. I dont think it gives you charisma points though, if my short experience in r/iamverysmart is anything to judge off of. I guess it makes sense if you want to discuss that thing in particular, but once again that does make it seem like more of a club than a form of conversation. Tell me if u agree or disagree. I dont understand how this isnt fitting for a post so Ill repost this somewhere else noting the requirements in the rules.