(September 9, 2009 at 3:52 am)fr0d0 Wrote: No _that_ is circular.What part of my post were you referring to here?
Quote:Because of the very condition, that faith is a requirement[...etc]
I am not talking about the reasoning in the sense of how you believe without evidence, but why. What I was saying was, if your reasoning for making the leap of faith and believing without evidence, comes from the fact you have already made the faith leap beforehand and so you get your reasoning from "God" (or reasons that are otherwise inspired by "Faith" in some way) then that reasoning is circular. Because you are telling me that your reasoning to make the 'leap of faith' is based on reasons that are given by you by the leap of faith itself, right? So however this is done, and whether this is true and this is how you 'do' it or not....why? - is my question. How is that rational?
How is that rational reasoning, if your reason for making the leap is based on reasoning that you get after you make it? Where am I going wrong here? Is this not what you mean? How is that rational?
So if the "reasoning" is with hindsight...how did you rationally believe in the first place beforehand?
Quote:I have discussed both POV. I am now, and have been for some time, just talking provable evidence, and separating non provable as 'rational'.
Well any reasons to believe, if valid, are evidence. Because evidence is a valid reason to believe. If a reason to believe is invalid, it's not evidence.
That is, so long as we are talking of valid in the sense of true, and not in the sense of a valid reason to believe purely for the placebo effect (and that's assuming that there may possibly be one).
Quote:There is (rational) 'proof' for God's existence in the Summa, which is what was explained and linked to you by them.
If it's "Proof" in any way for God whatsoever, then it's by definition very strong evidence for his existence.
And I have no idea what you mean by rational proof, if it's in any way proof for such a belief then of course it's rational, and its very strong evidence. If it's not proof in any way for such a belief, then it's not rational.
Evidence and proof are already rational. So I have no idea what you mean by rational proof/evidence.
If a belief has no evidence then it's irrational, if a belief has evidence then it's rational. Assuming that being more likely to be the truth when you believe it, is more rational! Assuming that being more likely to be part of reality, makes it more rational! (Excluding a possible rational reason to believe purely for the placebo effect I mean (perhaps if it was a life or death matter, etc, and believing falsely might aid you in some way - for example), how else would you say a belief could be rational other than it simply being more likely to be true than false? Because of the fact it has (some form of) evidence to support it?).
EvF
