Hell

[Matthew]

I wish I had taken some university courses in philosophy and logic, instead of exclusively life sciences and social sciences. Then I would be more equipped to have this kind of discussion. But I understand that each premise must be valid and preferably backed up by other observable evidence (ie. 'Men are mortal;' evidence: we all die).

The word 'valid' is normally used of deductive arguments as a whole when the conclusion logically follows from the premises. I take the view that a deductive argument is 'good' if it is valid, and it is rational to believe the premises, and that an inductive argument is good if the premises make the conclusion more probable than not, and it is rational to believe the premises.

I've seen examples on these forums of deductive reasoning for God's existence, such as:

(1) If God does not exist, then morality does not exist.
(2) Morality exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Don't bother discussing this argument, though, it's being dealt with here. I'm just wondering if this is similar to the kind of reasoning you'd use, for God or other such claims outside the realm of science.

While I think that this kind of argument is sound, I do not think that arguments with the conclusion that God exists are necessary in order to rationally believe that God exists. I take the existence of God to be what's known as a basic belief which supports all other beliefs, and that without that basic belief we are unable to rationally believe anything. I thus reason from God's existence, not to it. [This means that I take a particular epistemological view called foundationalism, which says that a belief is rational if it is basic or it is ultimately supported by at least one basic belief.]