Hell

[Edwardo Piet]

(I assume you mean a sound argument.)

Yes, technically a sound argument, as the premises for belief in God tend to be bogus whenever the argument is actually valid. But "valid" can also simply mean something like:

producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom.

The fact that I take belief in God to be basic should tell you that I reject your assumption that a sound argument is necessary for rational belief.

So you consider an unsound belief in God to be rational? Why?

Arguing against basic beliefs by saying that you need an argument to support them is rather begging the epistemological question, now, isn't it?

My point is that the "basic belief" in God is an irrational belief because it has no rational argument to support it. I do not understand why you think any belief without a rational argument behind it can be a rational belief, maybe you can enlighten me.