Hell

[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.