Hell

[Matthew]

I'm talking about a baseless belief. A belief that isn't supported by rational argument.

I believe that a basic belief in God is rational because it is justified externally by God's revelation rather than internally by the reasons one has for holding it. So basic belief in God is not unsupported - it is supported by God and not by arguments.

How is belief in God a basic belief?

It is a belief that is arrived at immediately by God's revelation rather than by argument.

Irrelevant. If you can't do it you can't do it. Because you can't support it doesn't mean you should pretend that you can have a rational belief without support.

Your comments below suggest that you actually agree with me that you can have knowledge independent of arguments. Like me, you are an epistemological particularist (as opposed to a methodist) - you think that it is possible to know something without knowing how you know it. Having such knowledge requires that you do not have an argument that supports it (otherwise you do know how you know it: by the argument). You say that there are some things that we just know by awareness. Yet somehow you also hold that we must be skeptical about any answer to the question of how we know something (even though you give awareness as a way in which you know things!) So these things considered, I am finding it difficult to see how your epistemology is consistent.

Most likely I am understanding you incorrectly, so I offer the following examples for some clarifying should you wish to: suppose I say that I know that God exists because I am aware that He exists; or perhaps that I know that other minds exist because I am aware that they exist. Are these, by your definition, examples of my having knowledge?

---

My response is that any question of "Why do I know that X is true?" ultimately leads to the case that I can't know because any response I give either commits the Begging the Question Fallacy or the Circular Reasoning Fallacy.

An example: I don't know why I don't believe in God, because if I say I don't believe because I'm unconvinced or I am unaware of any evidence that is ultimately just a paraphrasing of saying "I don't believe because I don't believe" so it commits the Begging the Question Fallacy.

I define knowledge to be identical to the true awareness of something. Hence why when people say "I'm aware of that" they mean "I know that".

So, following from that definition of knowledge I consider it possible to know that something is true because it's possible to be aware of something. However, I am completely skeptical to knowing why anything is true, because we ultimately don't know why we are aware of anything, if we ask "Why?" enough times we ultimately don't know the answer.

Knowing that something is true is very different to knowing why something is true. I am not always skeptical about the former but I am always skeptical about the latter.

---

---

I'm trying to understand why you feel that God is a necessary being and the creator?

That is just part of what I mean by the word 'God'. Necessary existence and creatorship are part of the "definition" of 'God'.

---

I don't think either morality or rationality has a universal standard that we can compare it to.

So when you say that belief in God is not rational, do you mean your own personal subjective standard of rationality? If so, why should it make any difference to me whether you think that my beliefs are rational? In other words, why have we had a conversation about rationality?

The point is that the basic belief of 'there is a God' is not necessary.

Not necessary for what?

Well theoretically you could go out and interview a huge sample, and test how people use logic and reasoning to come to conclusions. Logic could also be used to make consistent predictions about things.

The first would only give you data on what people think about the laws of logic, not the laws of logic themselves. For the second, could you give an example of a prediction you could make from the laws of logic? [EDIT: Please don't feel obliged* to answer this question given the comment below.]

I don't think I can go into any more detail about the laws of logic, though, I'll have to leave that up to those who are well-versed in philosophy.

I appreciate that the metaphysics of logic is not an easy topic - I am certainly no expert myself. Let's stick to morality and rationality, as those are examples with which we are more familiar.

*Yes, that was meant to be ironic.

[Faith No More]

I'm trying to understand why you feel that God is a necessary being and the creator?

That is just part of what I mean by the word 'God'. Necessary existence and creatorship are part of the "definition" of 'God'.

Okay now I can't tell if you're dodging the question or just being an ass. I don't know your definition of God so if your defintion of God makes him necessary what is your defintion of God? I just want to hear what your reasons are to make you feel make God is necessary. If you don't want to answer just say so but please stop jumping around the question with baseless answers.

[Matthew]

I don't know your definition of God so if your defintion of God makes him necessary what is your defintion of God? I just want to hear what your reasons are to make you feel make God is necessary.

When I use the word 'God' I am referring to the Christian God, that is the God of Christian Scripture. Those Scriptures reveal God to be a necessary being and the Creator. If you want to know why I believe in the Christian God, then you can go to my introduction thread here.

[downbeatplumb]

Matthew, define god please.
There are so many different versions, a lot of them based on scripture, that I have no idea what you are typing about.

[Captain Scarlet]

I believe that a basic belief in God is rational because it is justified externally by God's revelation rather than internally by the reasons one has for holding it. So basic belief in God is not unsupported - it is supported by God and not by arguments.
It is a belief that is arrived at immediately by God's revelation rather than by argument.

As a xtian theist, your claim is not that there is this anonymous god but the xtian god. I cannot see how it is a basic belief given that many different gods have apprently revealed themselves. Is belief in Ganesh also properly basic, he is well known to the personal experiences and lives and hindus? We know we can apply such beliefs to nature becuase the nature is at least part of existence (and I would argue the totality). Self evidently existence, exists; but that is very far from being the case with a god.

[Edwardo Piet]

I believe that a basic belief in God is rational because it is justified externally by God's revelation rather than internally by the reasons one has for holding it.

So this external revelation is not a rational reason for believing?

So basic belief in God is not unsupported - it is supported by God and not by arguments.

I know of no such revelation.

It is a belief that is arrived at immediately by God's revelation rather than by argument.

Where is God's revelation?

Your comments below suggest that you actually agree with me that you can have knowledge independent of arguments.

If it is tautological, but I thought that were obvious.

Like me, you are an epistemological particularist (as opposed to a methodist) - you think that it is possible to know something without knowing how you know it. Having such knowledge requires that you do not have an argument that supports it (otherwise you do know how you know it: by the argument).

If it is tautologically true. That is not the case with God.

You say that there are some things that we just know by awareness. Yet somehow you also hold that we must be skeptical about any answer to the question of how we know something (even though you give awareness as a way in which you know things!) So these things considered, I am finding it difficult to see how your epistemology is consistent.

I consider knowledge to be awareness. I am not skeptical about all things because some things we can be aware of. I am skeptical about the awarenes of the reason (or the knowledge of the why) because that always leads to infinite regress.

suppose I say that I know that God exists because I am aware that He exists;

That's fine but I don't believe you. I reckon what you are actually aware of is your own imagination.

Are these, by your definition, examples of my having knowledge?

If you genuinely are aware of God's existence rather than illusion, then yes, I say you have knowledge of him.

[Welsh cake]

Look, I cant give you empirical proof, I can't show you Gods face but when I look at life around me, other people, the sun I feel there is someone behind it.

Out of everything you said this is the only statement I have any objection to because of its egocentricity. Why do you look around and observe reality then conclude that "someone" is behind everything? Why "somebody"? Why couldn't it have all happened naturally?

Regarding the second, I am challenging your assumption that evidence is necessary in order to hold onto a hypothesis.

It's all down to our own attempts at critical thinking and applying our standards of evidence to enable us to discern fact from fantasy; accepting relevant ideas supported by evidence and rejecting irrelevant notions refuted by evidence, we don't want to hold onto nonsense. You don't seem to want to accept this methodology since it places your god concept in an awkward position, but hey that's fine, that's your issue, however when we observe any phenomena in reality and try to propose an explanation for it we call that a hypothesis.

When OnlyNatural mentions the word in the context of them being supported or unsupported he's talking about scientific hypotheses. If we can't test the idea then it cannot function as a satisfactory explanation of real world phenomenon and is discounted, at least until new research, evidence or compatible scientific theories are presented.

If it is observable scientific evidence you are looking for, then I'm afraid you rule out the possibility of evidence for God, since God is not a part of the physical world and thus can not be subject to the scientific method by definition. If you only allow for observable scientific evidence full stop, and you require such evidence for any truth claim, then your position becomes self-defeating (since it is impossible to provide observable scientific evidence for all the non-scientific claims you have made - including those regarding the necessity of such evidence!).

How do you know he's not part of reality? (Aside from being a fictional character within a collection of writings written by multiple authors, that is) Simply because we cannot observe or test him? That's not a very convincing argument I must say. Matthew how do you distinguish your god from other make-believe imaginary concepts if you have no means of detecting him from the get-go? How do you know he's real?

You don't seem to appreciate your approach is the one that is self-defeating because if we decide tomorrow the scientific method cannot apply to testing god claims, then he becomes as real as, not just other deities from various religions, but ghosts, kitsunes, dragons, minotaurs, ogres and all other products of myth.

When evaluating a truth claim then the best and only reliable method we have is science which relies on evidence.

This is itself a truth claim, but I can conceive of no evidence that supports it. By its own lights, then, I must reject it.

Let's not be silly now. You even acknowledge regress arguments later on, so you're deliberately using logical regression to try and apply the scientific method unto itself and then marvel at your brilliance when it obviously does not work.

I'm talking about a baseless belief. A belief that isn't supported by rational argument.

I believe that a basic belief in God is rational because it is justified externally by God's revelation rather than internally by the reasons one has for holding it. So basic belief in God is not unsupported - it is supported by God and not by arguments.

Your circular argument demonstrates very little except that you, like many theists, don't know what the word "rational" means.

[OnlyNatural]

a belief that is arrived at immediately by God's revelation rather than by argument.

I'd love to know what form these revelations take, and whether or not there could be a more likely alternative explanation for them.

So when you say that belief in God is not rational, do you mean your own personal subjective standard of rationality? If so, why should it make any difference to me whether you think that my beliefs are rational? In other words, why have we had a conversation about rationality?

Like I said:

a core element of rationality is that rational beliefs correspond most closely to the actual structure of reality, and are grounded in as much evidence as possible.

The more this is true about your beliefs, the more rational they are. Is this really a subjective standard of rationality? I think you understand perfectly well what 'rational' means, except when it comes to your religious beliefs. Rationality must be twisted or suspended to accommodate such beliefs.

The point is that the basic belief of 'there is a God' is not necessary.

Not necessary for what?

For anything. We can explain pretty much everything in a naturalistic way at this point in our history. And if there's something we don't yet understand, there's no need to fill in those gaps with God. We'll probably discover more about the world in the future. I think our tendency to jump to conclusions and look for an absolute answer that explains everything is probably because we're uncomfortable with uncertainty.

[KichigaiNeko]

[quote='Matthew' pid='117313' dateline='1297467323']
a belief that is arrived at immediately by God's revelation rather than by argument.

I'd love to know what form these revelations take, and whether or not there could be a more likely alternative explanation for them. [/quote]

So is wanting to defecate...any child can do that....are your "revelations like this?? If so then your whole notion of 'God revealing Himself' is a rather childish one

[quote='Matthew' pid='117313' dateline='1297467323']So when you say that belief in God is not rational, do you mean your own personal subjective standard of rationality? If so, why should it make any difference to me whether you think that my beliefs are rational? In other words, why have we had a conversation about rationality?

Like I said:

a core element of rationality is that rational beliefs correspond most closely to the actual structure of reality, and are grounded in as much evidence as possible.

The more this is true about your beliefs, the more rational they are. Is this really a subjective standard of rationality? I think you understand perfectly well what 'rational' means, except when it comes to your religious beliefs. Rationality must be twisted or suspended to accommodate such beliefs. [/quote]

This does seem plausible Mathew ...a further demonstration of the infantilism that is religious belief...alot like still believing in Santa Claus @ age 50

[quote='Matthew' pid='117220' dateline='1297436905']

The point is that the basic belief of 'there is a God' is not necessary.

Not necessary for what?

Mathew...are you stating here that you do not believe in a god??

For anything. We can explain pretty much everything in a naturalistic way at this point in our history. And if there's something we don't yet understand, there's no need to fill in those gaps with God. We'll probably discover more about the world in the future. I think our tendency to jump to conclusions and look for an absolute answer that explains everything is probably because we're uncomfortable with uncertainty.

Would agree there...for some reason humanity want absolute assurances that today will be exactly the same as yesterday....funniest thing about life ...THERE ARE NO GUARENTEES

[OnlyNatural]

[quote='Matthew' pid='117220' dateline='1297436905']

The point is that the basic belief of 'there is a God' is not necessary.

Not necessary for what?

Mathew...are you stating here that you do not believe in a god??

Hey Kichi, just to clarify:

I said: 'The point is that the basic belief of 'there is a God' is not necessary.'
Matthew said: 'Not necessary for what?'

Carry on.