walekum peace psyah. Just to play devils advocate in this thread, i dont necessarily vehemently disagree with you, though im not convinced of this particular line of argument.
my sense of fallible was an argument that proves nothing either way. if it can be both true or false we are no better than what we were before it.
If they are indeterminate, it means they are value-neutral. which means that when settling the indeterminate question of God, we merely add this as another indeterminate argument.
Also some of the ontological proofs (St. Anselms one for example) has been shown to be logically flawed, I cant remember the proof now though.
you have a very different notion of objectivity. objectivity is not about the majority, if every human got together and said we dont believe in the Sun, the Sun would still exist. furthermore, what the majority finds reasonable is based on what their values are, what their perspectives are. a majority of finnish people finds it reasonable to believe that there is no God.
I could address the specific arguments you make (there should be a Creator leading to the infinite regress problem) but I think you were citing them as examples, to which i somewhat agree.
i personally lie more along Kierkegaards way of thinking. I dont believe it is possible to make logical/rational headway on this. Believing in God is like falling in love.. you make some calculations about suitability and you're motivated by what you need in life, but it is also a matter of passion and subjectivity... you can never objectively show that one should fall in love with person X.
Peace ravage
The indeterminates are where faith lies and my arguments stem from faith and then to the philosophical constructs. So you are right in that if fallible means not conclusive, but I guess I would be right if fallible only meant 'taking the logically impossible to be true'.
Also some arguments are circular but others are not it is wrong to say that the following is a circular argument:
I believe there is One God because it says so in the Qur'an.
The reason I say this is because trust in the Qur'an can come from other areas other than ones bias of One God. We can base a belief on other established beliefs until we reach something which is testable. I believe in miracles but they are not testable but other things are and although this may not be logically sound argumentation it is 'understood' as circumstantial or at least subjective evidence and people do not call me insane for accepting on this basis. Because to accept on this basis is statistically testable at least to be a firm bet.
So I agree with your 'like love' analogy just as you have developed the conclusion from that analogy and applied it on to the concept of God's existence in the same way this is an indeterminate argument that you have taken as feasible. To argue by analogy is not a logical process of argumentation yet I see you have used it and I agree with its validity.