Can a belief in God be justified on a rational basis?

[Thought Criminal]

Many theists will tell you that their belief in God is based on faith, or on something equally nonrational or irrational, such as a special feeling they have, or their unshakable trust in their parents, or an ineffable experience.

Fine, but none of this carries any weight for me because, as a secular humanist, I have a commitment to believe only what is rationally justified, what a logical analysis of the evidence compels me to believe. It's possible that I might miss out on some truths this way, but I do avoid many, many falsehoods. Of course, I do want to believe whatever's true, so I'm always open to evidence.

Anyhow, this leads me to the obvious question: Can a belief in God be justified on a rational basis? If so, how?

TC

[Thought Criminal]

Who is fooling around. I want to know what definition of 'truth' you use that makes it 'objective'. The word 'truth' seems to have many definitions. Is a 'fact' a 'truth'? Is truth a 'moral pronouncement'? I have seen it declared that 'abortion is murder' is a 'truth'.

You're fooling around because you know better than to play the postmodernist game like Nameless does. Truth is correspondence to what exists, and this is necessarily objective.

TC

[InTheFlesh]

5. You read a story in a book about a person who is claimed to have been Biologically Dead for days, then was claimed to have been seen alive by many people who had, previous to his death, proclaimed he was God. You conclude;

A. These people are similar to those who claimed to see Elvis alive after his death

B. The authors of the book were writing fiction or deluded

C. Despite our knowledge of Biological Death and the awareness that there has never been any confirmed instance of a Biologically Dead body being restored to life and that for this to occur, much of what we understand about biology would have to be incorrect; the account is all true.

D. That the lack of external historical references to any such person or any such event provides a more likely conclusion than does the claim of a single source suggesting that it presents the actual experience of hundreds of people.

E. They were telling the truth and he really was God.

The answer is E!

[daedalus 2.0]

Tell me, can you show that 'truth' is objective? I would like to see objective evidence that 'truth' is objective.

Goat, this is not the time or place to fool around.

TC

Who is fooling around. I want to know what definition of 'truth' you use that makes it 'objective'. The word 'truth' seems to have many definitions. Is a 'fact' a 'truth'? Is truth a 'moral pronouncement'? I have seen it declared that 'abortion is murder' is a 'truth'.

I think the nature of knowing is important, but there are times and places. Sorry, goat, I don't think we can always reduce every debate to "but what do we really "Know"?"

Or rather, we all know that this is a deep philosophical question, but there are other modes we can explore reality. For example, E=mc^2 seems to work quite well. Yes, we can start wondering if we really know it, or what "E" REALLY means, but I find this rather fruitless.

I believe we can use words to convey meaning and if we define our terms, we can have menaingful conversations on the level of what it means to humanity.

If a debator wishes to argue that they have a completely different epistemological base then let them debate in another thread. We all know that everything reduces to the "how do we know Solipsism isn't true?" But is this really the best we can offer in terms of human interaction?

Truth: that which resembles the Actual state of things. There is no way we can actually verify it, but certainly there are some things that are objectively true. For example: A triangle has 3 sides and the angles that make it up equal 180 degrees.


I just don't want to see every thread reduced to "oh yeah, but how can we know we know anything?" I like philosophy, but there is a time and a place to move on to things that resemble our lives in Real terms (even if not Actual).

[McCulloch]

5. You read a story in a book about a person who is claimed to have been Biologically Dead for days, then was claimed to have been seen alive by many people who had, previous to his death, proclaimed he was God. You conclude;

A. These people are similar to those who claimed to see Elvis alive after his death

B. The authors of the book were writing fiction or deluded

C. Despite our knowledge of Biological Death and the awareness that there has never been any confirmed instance of a Biologically Dead body being restored to life and that for this to occur, much of what we understand about biology would have to be incorrect; the account is all true.

D. That the lack of external historical references to any such person or any such event provides a more likely conclusion than does the claim of a single source suggesting that it presents the actual experience of hundreds of people.

E. They were telling the truth and he really was God.

The answer is E!

What is the difference between C and E?

You are being selective about which you believe. How many resurrection stories do you believe?

[Confused]

Who is fooling around. I want to know what definition of 'truth' you use that makes it 'objective'. The word 'truth' seems to have many definitions. Is a 'fact' a 'truth'? Is truth a 'moral pronouncement'? I have seen it declared that 'abortion is murder' is a 'truth'.

You're fooling around because you know better than to play the postmodernist game like Nameless does. Truth is correspondence to what exists, and this is necessarily objective.

TC

MODERATOR NOTE:

Welcome to the forum Thought Criminal. This is the second irrelevant, nonconstructive post you have made in your own thread. Please take note of the forum rules found here:


http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6




Should you have questions, please do not post them in the thread but PM or another moderator/administrator.

[Jester]

The term “spiritual position� refers to atheism as well as animism. I offered the concession that Christianity is not absolutely proven, but maintain that it is no less rational a position than atheism.

You can "maintain" it until the cows come home, but an assertion is not an argument. If you wish to claim that theism is rational, you're going to have to back that claim up right now.

I have backed up that claim previously. I mentioned that it is an argumentum ad ignoratium fallacy to claim that atheism is more rational than theism until I can prove otherwise.

If you want to try to make some sort of argument based on morality as your proof of God, go for it. Otherwise, this is irrelevant and off-topic.

It actually connects to the topic quite nicely. I mentioned that a theological belief can be more logically consistent than an atheistic one. In effect this would be akin to making the argument of morality as evidence for God. Mostly, however, I was attempting to dispute the idea that it is a less rational choice of lifestyle. The comment came in to point out an area of life in which it is clearly more rational.

You have thus far offered nothing that has withstood even casual scrutiny. I don't need to offer anything to justify my atheism, other than the simple reminder that you have the burden of proof here.

Both atheism and theism have a burden of proof; it is agnosticism which does not.
But, getting to that evidence:

For a start, why don’t I suggest that there is a great deal of evidence supporting the claims of the New Testament. That’s a big enough subject for a dozen or more threads.

You can suggest it, but it's entirely unpersuasive. Why should we care what some old book says? What could it possibly have in that could prove the existence of God? Good luck answering that.

I didn’t mention any “old book� – so I can’t say I’m sure of the one to which you are referring.

More to the point, however, the fact that you find the evidence unpersuasive, whether we are speaking about Josephus, archeological findings, or anything else, is completely irrelevant to the topic. We are discussing whether or not Christians have belief based in reason and evidence, or if Christians simply give the answer “faith� when asked for the reason for their beliefs. The evidence exists, and has been presented by many people in the past; whether or not it is accepted by all is beside the point of the original question.

If you're going to try for presuppositionalism, you should just leave right now. This topic is about whether the belief is justified on a rational basis, while presuppositionalism is just a little trick to avoid ever providing any such thing.

I hadn’t any intention of referencing this position actually. What I was arguing, in a nutshell, was that we cannot insist upon rationality and logic regarding our choice of religion without insisting on it in all areas of life. Given that, it follows that – if we believe people should be rational – accepting ethics on a purely arbitrary basis is unacceptable. Moreover, it is equally irrational to ignore the logical facts of our own psychology (which is why I mentioned Jung). Unless we’re going to have a pick-and-choose mentality toward logic, based on our whims, we need to take these things into account.

It's not my opinion, it's the topic. Faith, by definition, is not a rational basis, so it's irrelevant.

It’s only irrelevant if I’m using it as the support of an argument. I was referring its existence as a psychological fact to make a rational point. In that case, it was entirely relevant.

I agree that faith is not limited to any one belief, moreover I do not claim to have composed any air-tight rational proof of Christianity. I do, however, believe that there are rational reasons to believe in it, the fact that such reasons leave some unconvinced is, and has never been, a factor to be considered.

The fact that they're unconvincing means they're not sufficient for justification on a rational basis.

This would only be true if we could logically establish that those who remain unconvinced are free of all emotional reaction and prejudice. Essentially, unless you happen to be Dr. Spock, your being unconvinced is not a valid argument.

This is a false argument based on misdefinition. In a lay context, faith can mean belief of any sort, and by this broad definition, everyone has faith since we all believe stuff. However, that is not the definition used in a philosophical context, in which it is defined explicitly as irrational belief. The whole point of this topic is to determine whether fideism or its equivalent is the only route remaining to would-be theists.

Then the answer is no, there is evidence as I have (briefly) mentioned.
Moreover, we have not closed the issue of faith. I’ll expect some reference or justification that “irrational belief� is the proper philosophical definition of faith. I would assert that “non-rational belief� would be a better (though imperfect) definition. The difference being that the latter is not necessarily opposed to rationality. Moreover, it is present in all people. As for the support for that one, I would reference the fact that atheists generally choose to believe in the validity of ethics in spite of the fact that they have no logical reason to do so. Even those that reject ethics accept the premise that reality exists (as opposed to being some sort of fantasy/hallucination) without any logical proof of such.

Then I will assert that you have misunderstood it. First, I don’t feel that a simple assertion on your part should be taken as a rational refutation of Jung’s lengthy and careful discussion. Certainly, it seems arrogant to dismiss such a noteworthy scholar out of hand.

Watch me. Jung's religious beliefs are about as relevant as my plumber's. For the record, he's Catholic.

This is yet another assertion, rather than a rational reason do dismiss his claims.
Beyond that, I agree that his personal beliefs are not relevant evidence regarding the topic (though I did claim that a comparison between he and Freud would be one of many examples of a situation that would contradict any implication that religious people are necessarily less rational than the non-religious).
And, for the record, he was raised Catholic, but turned to Eastern religion later in life. I never intended to present him as an example of my beliefs (though I might have if he’d remained Catholic – it seems that you might not be including them as Christians, which seems to contradict definitions to me).

I have no impulse to faith, and I'm not the least bit interested in Jung's unsupported beliefs about mental health. Like Freud, he was important in the formation of psychiatry, but his actual ideas are garbage.

Please forgive my bluntness, but this is an arrogant and usupported acusation. Jung’s reasoning is lengthy and careful. His importance is rooted in the fact that his ideas were much more than “garbage�, which is why he is remembered much more often than the bulk of his contemporaries. His research has been invaluable to psychiatry, and dismissing his claims out of hand does not suffice as a refutation. It is not a rational form of debate.

My position is no secret, but it is also not relevant. And if you're going to toss out Latin at random, I'll see your misapplied "argumentum ad ignoratium" and raise it with "onus probandi". Go shoulder your burden.

Please explain and support your reasons why I have misapplied the term. I am operating under the assumption that you believe that atheism is the conclusion until theism can be proved. This is clearly within the aforementioned fallacy.
The problem with onus probandi, as it applies to this discussion, is that you are making a claim every bit as much as I am. Were you to take an agnostic position, the burden of proof would be entirely on my shoulders. As you are taking a very specific position, however, you do have a burden to prove it as well. Moreover, you seem to misunderstand my position in general. I am not arguing that I have presented you with infallible proof of Christianity. I have come nowhere near that. I am merely taking the position that it is as rational as atheism. In which case, the rationality of the atheistic position is entirely relevant. If we are going to conclude that it is the most rational position, we must first establish that the evidence to the contrary I provided above is untrue by a more rational means than dismissing it.

[Thought Criminal]

I have backed up that claim previously. I mentioned that it is an argumentum ad ignoratium fallacy to claim that atheism is more rational than theism until I can prove otherwise.

In order to claim argumentum ad ignorantium, there have to be two alternatives that are equally likely, such that the burden of proof goes both ways. This is not the case here, so there is no fallacy. Instead, your accusation is itself in error.

It actually connects to the topic quite nicely. I mentioned that a theological belief can be more logically consistent than an atheistic one. In effect this would be akin to making the argument of morality as evidence for God. Mostly, however, I was attempting to dispute the idea that it is a less rational choice of lifestyle. The comment came in to point out an area of life in which it is clearly more rational.

Like I said, if you want to make an argument for theism based on morality, you're welcome to try. So far, you haven't actually put forth any such argument. Until you do, there is nothing for me to comment on.

Both atheism and theism have a burden of proof; it is agnosticism which does not.

As I pointed out earlier, this is false. When there is no evidence at all for a thing existing, the only conclusion we are allowed to draw is that it does not exist. After all, the possibilities are endless, but actualities are not because, unlike possibilities, they cannot contradict.

In some cases, the thing in question is at least plausible on its surface because it is similar to something else that we already know exists. This bit of indirect evidence, while not sufficient to prove that it exists, does suffice to push us towards a neutral position, pending more evidence. Only then can we imagine that the burden of proof is equal.

The size of the burden depends on the size of the claim; the bigger the stretch, the more skeptical we must be. If someone tells me they have a car, even though I have no direct evidence of it, the fact that many cars are known to exist and people quite frequently have them constitutes sufficient indirect evidence to make me think that they may well be telling the truth. On the other hand, if they tell me they have a magical unicorn, this would be an instance of a supernatural being, of which none are known to exist, so I would have to reject their claim. And if they say they have a God, this is a claim that has no parallel in form and is limitless in size, so my rejection would be emphatic.

Even so, all conclusions are provisional, pending further evidence and arguments. Perhaps one day there'll be sufficient evidence to justify a rational belief in God. If so, then we'll overturn our provisional atheism and become theists. However, this seems particularly unlikely, not only because of the scope of the claim, but because the most popular forms of God appear to be logically inconsistent or just plain meaningless, thus making evidence logically impossible.

If you want to prove something exists, there are three elements you must satisfy. First, you must define the conclusion such that it is clear, unambiguous and meaningful. The test for this is that it allows us to generate predictions of how things would be different were the claim true instead of false. Second, you must offer a valid argument whose conclusion is the claim. Finally, you must support the truth of the argument's premises, so that it can be shown to be sound, not merely valid. So far, you've done none of these things, so I'm forced to remain an atheist.

For a start, why don’t I suggest that there is a great deal of evidence supporting the claims of the New Testament. That’s a big enough subject for a dozen or more threads.

You can suggest it, but it's entirely unpersuasive. Why should we care what some old book says? What could it possibly have in that could prove the existence of God? Good luck answering that.

I didn’t mention any “old book� – so I can’t say I’m sure of the one to which you are referring.

Read the exchange. It should be obvious to anyone who looks carefully that the only book being mentioned is the New Testament, which does happen to be nearly two thousand years old, depending on how you date it.

Keep in mind that I have no reason to believe that the Bible is literally true from cover to cover, so you're going to have to do a lot better than "The Bible says so".

More to the point, however, the fact that you find the evidence unpersuasive, whether we are speaking about Josephus, archeological findings, or anything else, is completely irrelevant to the topic. We are discussing whether or not Christians have belief based in reason and evidence, or if Christians simply give the answer “faith� when asked for the reason for their beliefs. The evidence exists, and has been presented by many people in the past; whether or not it is accepted by all is beside the point of the original question.

If they base their beliefs on demonstrably bad evidence, then they're still not being rational. You might as well claim your belief in Zurlflop, Lord of the Yawning Abyss, is quite rational because you base it on the fact that your copy of "Unsupported Claims Quarterly" insists that His Vapid Fluidity exists.

The NT makes many mundane claims, some of which have evidential support, some of which do not. Generally speaking, I don't bother disputing them. It also makes many supernatural claims, such as the existence of God, but none of these have evidential support. I dispute all supernatural claims, categorically.

I hadn’t any intention of referencing this position actually. What I was arguing, in a nutshell, was that we cannot insist upon rationality and logic regarding our choice of religion without insisting on it in all areas of life. Given that, it follows that – if we believe people should be rational – accepting ethics on a purely arbitrary basis is unacceptable. Moreover, it is equally irrational to ignore the logical facts of our own psychology (which is why I mentioned Jung). Unless we’re going to have a pick-and-choose mentality toward logic, based on our whims, we need to take these things into account.

None of this amounts to a rational basis that justifies a belief in God. Do you have any such thing?

It’s only irrelevant if I’m using it as the support of an argument. I was referring its existence as a psychological fact to make a rational point. In that case, it was entirely relevant.

Then you're going to need to be a lot more clear about what point you're trying to make, because I haven't yet detected any point here. Are you going to try to say that the existence of faith is itself proof of God?

This would only be true if we could logically establish that those who remain unconvinced are free of all emotional reaction and prejudice. Essentially, unless you happen to be Dr. Spock, your being unconvinced is not a valid argument.

Actually, it would be up to you to show that a rational person would be convinced. Again, you have done no such thing. Do you intend to?

Then the answer is no, there is evidence as I have (briefly) mentioned.

There has been no evidence put forth so far, merely the unfulfilled promise of evidence that you might one day share; in other words, hand-waving. Perhaps this day will come, perhaps not. But until then, theism remains irrational.

Moreover, we have not closed the issue of faith. I’ll expect some reference or justification that “irrational belief� is the proper philosophical definition of faith. I would assert that “non-rational belief� would be a better (though imperfect) definition. The difference being that the latter is not necessarily opposed to rationality. Moreover, it is present in all people. As for the support for that one, I would reference the fact that atheists generally choose to believe in the validity of ethics in spite of the fact that they have no logical reason to do so. Even those that reject ethics accept the premise that reality exists (as opposed to being some sort of fantasy/hallucination) without any logical proof of such.

You are compounding error with confusion. To be nonrational, something would have to be outside the domain of rationality, which is objective truth. Presumably, the existence of God is a claim that is objectively true, therefore any belief in this claim that is not rationally supported must be actively irrational, not merely nonrational.

The other fallacy here is the old tu quoque, where you accuse us of using faith as if that excuses you for doing the same. As it happens, I have no faith-based ethical beliefs, nor is empiricism based on faith. But even if it were, it would still not offer you a justification on a rational basis for a belief in God, which is in fact the topic that you are avoiding here.

This is yet another assertion, rather than a rational reason do dismiss his claims.

There's no rational basis to accept them, so what do you expect me to do but dismiss them?

Beyond that, I agree that his personal beliefs are not relevant evidence regarding the topic (though I did claim that a comparison between he and Freud would be one of many examples of a situation that would contradict any implication that religious people are necessarily less rational than the non-religious).

If they're not irrational, then you should find it easy to show the rational justification for their belief in God, right? Right?

And, for the record, he was raised Catholic, but turned to Eastern religion later in life. I never intended to present him as an example of my beliefs (though I might have if he’d remained Catholic – it seems that you might not be including them as Christians, which seems to contradict definitions to me).

Pay attention: I was referring to my plumber, not Jung. My plumber is Catholic.

Please forgive my bluntness, but this is an arrogant and usupported acusation. Jung’s reasoning is lengthy and careful. His importance is rooted in the fact that his ideas were much more than “garbage�, which is why he is remembered much more often than the bulk of his contemporaries. His research has been invaluable to psychiatry, and dismissing his claims out of hand does not suffice as a refutation. It is not a rational form of debate.

And the moment you show this to be relevant to the topic at hand, I'll spend more time on it. Until then, I'll dismiss it out of hand.

Please explain and support your reasons why I have misapplied the term. I am operating under the assumption that you believe that atheism is the conclusion until theism can be proved. This is clearly within the aforementioned fallacy.

I explained above why the burden of proof is on the positive claim of existence, even going into the issue of indirect evidence and how you could prove your claim.

The problem with onus probandi, as it applies to this discussion, is that you are making a claim every bit as much as I am. Were you to take an agnostic position, the burden of proof would be entirely on my shoulders. As you are taking a very specific position, however, you do have a burden to prove it as well. Moreover, you seem to misunderstand my position in general. I am not arguing that I have presented you with infallible proof of Christianity. I have come nowhere near that. I am merely taking the position that it is as rational as atheism. In which case, the rationality of the atheistic position is entirely relevant. If we are going to conclude that it is the most rational position, we must first establish that the evidence to the contrary I provided above is untrue by a more rational means than dismissing it.

Actually, this discussion is about your answer to the topic question, in which you claimed that there is a rational basis that justifies a belief in God. It should be quite clear that your claim has the burden of proof. You don't get to play burden tennis or you-tooism. If you must, just pretend I'm agnostic, then go on and prove your claim.

TC

[Jester]

In order to claim argumentum ad ignorantium, there have to be two alternatives that are equally likely, such that the burden of proof goes both ways. This is not the case here, so there is no fallacy. Instead, your accusation is itself in error.

All alternatives, for purposes of debate are considered equal until established otherwise.

Like I said, if you want to make an argument for theism based on morality, you're welcome to try. So far, you haven't actually put forth any such argument. Until you do, there is nothing for me to comment on.

I suppose you could say that I’ve done exactly that. I’ve put forth the proposition that an atheistic position, unless it is also nihilistic, is inherently irrational and must be removed from our list of rational possibilities.

As I pointed out earlier, this is false. When there is no evidence at all for a thing existing, the only conclusion we are allowed to draw is that it does not exist. After all, the possibilities are endless, but actualities are not because, unlike possibilities, they cannot contradict.

I agree with this statement, but disagree with the idea that it applies to this topic. Specifically, evidence has been submitted on this and many other threads. Thus far, it has been simply dismissed. This is not equivalent to it not existing, therefore the issue of onus probandi is irrelevant to our situation.

For a start, why don’t I suggest that there is a great deal of evidence supporting the claims of the New Testament. That’s a big enough subject for a dozen or more threads.

You can suggest it, but it's entirely unpersuasive. Why should we care what some old book says? What could it possibly have in that could prove the existence of God? Good luck answering that.

I didn’t mention any “old book� – so I can’t say I’m sure of the one to which you are referring.

Read the exchange. It should be obvious to anyone who looks carefully that the only book being mentioned is the New Testament, which does happen to be nearly two thousand years old, depending on how you date it.

Well, pardon then. I do agree that the New Testament is roughly two thousand years old, and is an historical resource. I had meant to be more inclusive than that, of course, and thus needed clarification regarding the specific piece of information.

Keep in mind that I have no reason to believe that the Bible is literally true from cover to cover, so you're going to have to do a lot better than "The Bible says so".

Nor do I believe the Bible to be literally true from cover to cover; I don’t consider it to be literal in intent in every place. Also, I agree that “The Bible says so� would be completely irrelevant in this debate. This is largely why I never brought the Bible up in the first place.
Personally, I see no more reasonable explanation for the claims of the New Testament than that they are true. As long as we are discussing the Bible, I will assert that the non-Christian explanations of the New Testament are lacking. I’ve yet to hear a valid reason why this could be purely fabricated information.
This is not the whole of my reasons, of course, but it’s a start.

If they base their beliefs on demonstrably bad evidence, then they're still not being rational. You might as well claim your belief in Zurlflop, Lord of the Yawning Abyss, is quite rational because you base it on the fact that your copy of "Unsupported Claims Quarterly" insists that His Vapid Fluidity exists.

I agree. My issue is that we haven’t dealt with any of the evidence I’ve mentioned in this thread except to dismiss it.

I hadn’t any intention of referencing this position actually. What I was arguing, in a nutshell, was that we cannot insist upon rationality and logic regarding our choice of religion without insisting on it in all areas of life. Given that, it follows that – if we believe people should be rational – accepting ethics on a purely arbitrary basis is unacceptable. Moreover, it is equally irrational to ignore the logical facts of our own psychology (which is why I mentioned Jung). Unless we’re going to have a pick-and-choose mentality toward logic, based on our whims, we need to take these things into account.

None of this amounts to a rational basis that justifies a belief in God. Do you have any such thing?

It is a rational argument, and seems to be and is relevant to the topic in that it limits the scope of reasonable options. Such an elimination of red herrings is a useful part of reaching a logical conclusion in a complex manner. This line of reasoning eliminates all forms of atheism save nihilism, making it a valid point.

It’s only irrelevant if I’m using it as the support of an argument. I was referring its existence as a psychological fact to make a rational point. In that case, it was entirely relevant.

Then you're going to need to be a lot more clear about what point you're trying to make, because I haven't yet detected any point here. Are you going to try to say that the existence of faith is itself proof of God?

No, quite specifically, I am not simply trying to offer you reasons to believe in Christianity. This seems to be a point on which we have miscommunicated. On this particular point, I was trying to refute the implication that anyone professing faith is inherently irrational.

Actually, it would be up to you to show that a rational person would be convinced. Again, you have done no such thing. Do you intend to?

I have actually done just that with my references to psychology (unless we’re expecting a purely rational person – which, of course, does not exist).

There has been no evidence put forth so far, merely the unfulfilled promise of evidence that you might one day share; in other words, hand-waving. Perhaps this day will come, perhaps not. But until then, theism remains irrational.

Theism remains true or untrue; it is merely our perception of it that can be rational or irrational.
If I have been slow to present specific data, then I apologize. It has mostly been because I am more interested in discussing the relative rationality of the two groups you mention than the data itself (the subject being too broad for me to feel that we can cover it in a thread).
One thing you might do, however, in order to accelerate the process is to give me specific reasons why you disagree with the claims I do make. That would allow me to answer more quickly and specifically.

Moreover, we have not closed the issue of faith. I’ll expect some reference or justification that “irrational belief� is the proper philosophical definition of faith. I would assert that “non-rational belief� would be a better (though imperfect) definition. The difference being that the latter is not necessarily opposed to rationality. Moreover, it is present in all people. As for the support for that one, I would reference the fact that atheists generally choose to believe in the validity of ethics in spite of the fact that they have no logical reason to do so. Even those that reject ethics accept the premise that reality exists (as opposed to being some sort of fantasy/hallucination) without any logical proof of such.

You are compounding error with confusion. To be nonrational, something would have to be outside the domain of rationality, which is objective truth. Presumably, the existence of God is a claim that is objectively true, therefore any belief in this claim that is not rationally supported must be actively irrational, not merely nonrational.

I think a slight correction of the semantics here will clear up my position:
For something to be non-rational, it would have to be outside the domain of rationality, which is what we know to be objective truth.
There is enough uncertainty about such an issue that this change is a significant factor.

The other fallacy here is the old tu quoque, where you accuse us of using faith as if that excuses you for doing the same.

This is not the case unless I attempt to use my faith as support for an assertion (an “its true because I believe it� argument), which I have yet to do.

As it happens, I have no faith-based ethical beliefs, nor is empiricism based on faith.

Are you a nihilist, then?

But even if it were, it would still not offer you a justification on a rational basis for a belief in God,

Agreed.

which is in fact the topic that you are avoiding here.

The original topic question was: Can a belief in God be justified on a rational basis? If so, how?

While I’ll admit to deviating somewhat, and misunderstanding your original intent, your premise definitely left me with the impression that you were more interested in the relative rationality of theists and atheists, rather than in direct apologetics. Given this, I’ll attempt a somewhat different argument, but don’t feel that such issues are irrelevant at all. Specifically, you seem to be taking a stance in which I am expected to convince you outright in the course of a thread. I maintain that this topic is far to big, and your disposition to antagonistic for this to be possible in so short a space. Given that, I am somewhat reluctant to try for this new topic. I’ll mention a few things, but my major stance will remain that the logical contradictions in atheism forcing me away from it as a conclusion are entirely relevant to the issue of apologetics.

This is yet another assertion, rather than a rational reason do dismiss his claims.

There's no rational basis to accept them, so what do you expect me to do but dismiss them?

The theories of Carl Jung are widely accepted among modern psychologists. That is to say that he is a highly respected expert in the field. If we cannot expect his research and conclusions to deserve at least a rebuttal before dismissal, we are not having a rational debate.

If they're not irrational, then you should find it easy to show the rational justification for their belief in God, right? Right?

I wasn’t referencing them to show the rational justification for a belief in God. I was using them to refute the implication that theists are less rational than non-theists. And, yes, I believe that this was shown.

Pay attention: I was referring to my plumber, not Jung. My plumber is Catholic.

I’ll be sure to pay attention. Please be sure to make your statements more clear.

Please forgive my bluntness, but this is an arrogant and usupported acusation. Jung’s reasoning is lengthy and careful. His importance is rooted in the fact that his ideas were much more than “garbage�, which is why he is remembered much more often than the bulk of his contemporaries. His research has been invaluable to psychiatry, and dismissing his claims out of hand does not suffice as a refutation. It is not a rational form of debate.

And the moment you show this to be relevant to the topic at hand, I'll spend more time on it. Until then, I'll dismiss it out of hand.

The point stands that his findings establish atheism as a position that ignores objective truth regarding the psychology of human beings. As we are considering the rationality of Christianity versus that of atheism, this is perfectly relevant to the debate.

Please explain and support your reasons why I have misapplied the term. I am operating under the assumption that you believe that atheism is the conclusion until theism can be proved. This is clearly within the aforementioned fallacy.

I explained above why the burden of proof is on the positive claim of existence, even going into the issue of indirect evidence and how you could prove your claim.

Your explanation has been noted (thank you for the specifics). I only argue that, since evidence has been submitted, with regard to the fact that the historical documents we have point to the truth of the claims of the New Testament, specifically, there is not enough time between the events and the writing of the New Testament for the kind of corruption that atheism would require to take place.

Actually, this discussion is about your answer to the topic question, in which you claimed that there is a rational basis that justifies a belief in God. It should be quite clear that your claim has the burden of proof. You don't get to play burden tennis or you-tooism. If you must, just pretend I'm agnostic, then go on and prove your claim.

I did claim that, but I did not claim that I have absolute proof. Moreover, I did not claim that, even if I did, I would be able to convince you with it (which is what you seem to be demanding).
More to this particular point, establishing the initial debate question does not free you from any burden of proof. I may be answering the question, but any failure to do so adequately on my part does not logically infer atheism. Simply put, you would have no burden of proof if you had simply asked the question. This is not the case, however, you have, as I, offered an answer to the question (atheism). To that end, you have a burden of proof as well.

If you wish me to operate under the hypothetical assumption that you are agnostic, I would (reluctantly) agree to that, though it would mean that you refrain from asserting anything in debate that is not consistent with agnosticism.

[Beastt]

5. You read a story in a book about a person who is claimed to have been Biologically Dead for days, then was claimed to have been seen alive by many people who had, previous to his death, proclaimed he was God. You conclude;

A. These people are similar to those who claimed to see Elvis alive after his death

B. The authors of the book were writing fiction or deluded

C. Despite our knowledge of Biological Death and the awareness that there has never been any confirmed instance of a Biologically Dead body being restored to life and that for this to occur, much of what we understand about biology would have to be incorrect; the account is all true.

D. That the lack of external historical references to any such person or any such event provides a more likely conclusion than does the claim of a single source suggesting that it presents the actual experience of hundreds of people.

E. They were telling the truth and he really was God.

The answer is E!

Answer C and your write-in answer of E are basically the same conclusion. I note you neglected to offer your method of logic in either case. So what you have demonstrated is exactly what I asserted. You can apply logic just as do non-theists. But when the subject becomes your theistic beliefs, that logic is locked behind a iron curtain because you realize how corrosive it would be to what you wish to believe. Do you believe that people who claimed to have seen Elvis alive after his death were telling the truth or simply what they had convinced themselves was the truth?

If you read a single source making extraordinary claims which are devoid of corroborating evidence do you look to external sources for confirmation or simply accept the singular claims despite the lack of external corroborating sources?

I again assert that you are capable of logic and reason. You're even quite capable of applying those things to evidence. But when your desire to believe overwhelms your desire to know any truth but what you hope to be true, you push those beliefs into a protective bubble where logic, reason and applicable evidence are not allowed to follow. It is being asked whether belief in God can be justified on a rational basis and I have asserted that it cannot be. I've offered you a chance to demonstrate your rational basis and instead, you've demonstrated your need to evade logic and reason to reach the conclusion which meets with your desires. It's not about a desire to know the truth for you. It's all about your desire to have the truth be only what you wish it to be, even if logic and reason must take a back seat for you to subscribe to such a conclusion.

[Beastt]

Wrong. The assumption, and it is clearly stated here, is that only objective evidence applies. You are here stating, just as I said, that the existence of a non-material and non-objective aspect of reality can and must be proven only by reference to a conception of reality wherein that is impossible. Begging the question, Q.E.D.

I must admit to being too short on time to read the entirety of your post. This singular assertion, however, is worthy of a response all its own.

The game you play is to note that what you wish to believe is unsupportable. So rather than apply the standards found to be reliable and applicable to all other beliefs, you simply assert that such standards are inappropriate for the beliefs you wish to protect from the truth, simply because you claim them to be. But this is not supportable by the very standards of the claims made. God is said (by theists), to have manipulated physical matter. The manipulation itself is evidence of tampering. Yet we find no evidence of manipulation consistent with anything other than the purely natural. God is said to be perfect, yet the creator of the universe which exhibits not a single known example of perfection. If one creates that which is imperfect, they have left room for improvement and therefore, have no reasonable claim to being perfect. By every standard of the beliefs themselves there should be physical means to confirmation. And while many attempts are made to find such physical means, whenever it is noted that such confirmation does not exist, the next claim is that it would be inappropriate to expect such systems of confirmation.

It's nothing but theistic double-talk to support not what is true, but only what you wish to believe is true. You will accept no truth other than what you have already decided to be the truth and as such, you have isolated yourself from truth.