A Serious Question For Theists

[fr0d0]

Theoretical in science, correct me if I'm wrong, is more that unsupported conjecture.

I'm not saying that most people aren't well balanced/able to use both empiricism and rationalism. I'm picking on the idea that you can deny rationalism on its own.

---

So without the empirical evidence you cannot be rational. Bingo. You are said mono atheist.

Belief in God is purely rational. You cannot have empirical evidence. You can only gather information and consider it rationally. If you cannot fault it then you can trust it. If you trust it you can act on it. If you act on it you believe in God.

How precisely does one gather information without using one's senses? It's my contention that rationalism and empiricism cannot stand alone - or at the very least, are weak when they do.

I'll also note that I've yet to see you put forth a sound rational argument for belief.

You're being facetious. Written information is transference of ideas rather than direct experience. It's 2nd hand information to be accepted or denied.

Claim: "God is"
Empiricist response: no empirical evidence
Rationalist response: consider evidence and weigh up possibilities.

The rationalist can accept the intellectual proposition given no empirical evidence. Because the evidence is logically consistent.

The empiricist cannot move past the fact that there cannot be independently verifiable evidence. He remains with a null answer.

Now you guys say that this isn't a rational explanation exactly because you are illogically married to the notion that there has to be some empirical evidence for any idea to have merit.

---

So your position is no atheist on this forum has ever discussed ontological arguments?

That's funny, could've sworn...

I wrote "most atheists". You wrote "no atheist".

Honesty is important rampant.

---

So, like Cthulhu said, bring forth the rational argument for God.

This shows a misunderstanding of the subject, and that you didn't read or didn't understand what I said above.

If there could be an independently verifiable way of proving God then you wouldn't need to believe (in the religious sense) that he existed. You would know.

The process to belief is the consideration of information. A purely rational (because none of this information is empirically verifiable) process.

The information is subjective/ is dependent on the perspective of the observer. If you were to adopt the perspective of the observer, then the information would be true for you.

The rationalist is able to assume the perspective of the observer and verify to an extent the observers claims. They can then understand the advantageous possibilities of the observers point of view.

Here is the rational process:
Information > intellectual assent > action
This is faith as defined in the Christian tradition.

I suspect though that you're actually saying that you wish to withdraw from the conversion. And that's fine by me.