[split] YOU! - rational/irrational discussion.

[leo-rcc]

But IF the reasons ARE valid because he IS telling the truth, then they're evidence of him telling the truth.

So in that case you would be believing with evidence - and rationally.

And IF the reasons are NOT valid and he's LYING instead - then they're obviously NOT evidence of him telling the truth (for a start - because he's LYING!).

So in that case you would be believing 'on faith' - and IRrationally.

EvF

I was with you so far, but this line of reasoning does not follow. What you are now saying that the one that believes his name is George is either rational and irrational due to what "George" does, even though the reasoning behind the conclusion has not changed.