Are Theists Illogical for Believing in God?

[Minimalist]

2) Data from revelation

What kind of revelation might that be?

[Purple Rabbit]

2) Data from revelation

What kind of revelation might that be?

Self evident!

[remza]

2) Data from revelation

What kind of revelation might that be?

A collection of words now scattered all over the globe in hundreds of different languages. Freely available for you study at the following link http://biblewebapp.com/study/ =)

[Caecilian]

I.e.
1) Data from nature
2) Data from revelation
Both require reason to understand, so revelation cannot be opposed to reason.

Your conclusion does not follow at all. Reason is required to understand anything, including the ravings of a lunatic. That doesn't negate the fact that the ravings are illogical.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Not really I’m afraid. I was attempting to make a related point regarding the idea of theists being illogical but also hinting at the scope/limits of science. Theists will claim that there are certain questions which unaided reason cannot answer and to answer them we need another source of information - revelation from God, to understand and evaluate which, reason is essential.

I.e.
1) Data from nature
2) Data from revelation
Both require reason to understand, so revelation cannot be opposed to reason.

If there are questions which unaided reason can't answer (and there probably are), then we should withold judgement on these questions, or accept that we just may never be able to answer them. Declaring the answer to be the first metaphysical mumbo-jumbo that pops into our heads doesn't get us anywhere.

[Purple Rabbit]

I was attempting to make a related point regarding the idea of theists being illogical but also hinting at the scope/limits of science. Theists will claim that there are certain questions which unaided reason cannot answer and to answer them we need another source of information - revelation from God, to understand and evaluate which, reason is essential.

I.e.
1) Data from nature
2) Data from revelation
Both require reason to understand, so revelation cannot be opposed to reason.

The first questions to ask are "what can we know at all?" and "how can knowledge, if it arises, be shared?". Observe that your claim that god exists and we should share that view on basis of your revelation touches on both these questions.

In common practice where humans share information certain principles have emerged in modern society that were less developed or plain absent in ancient times like that of Jesus. For instance, in situations where two or more parties have to rely on the validity of shared information, transparancy of that information must somehow be ensured. Transparancy meaning that the path from the information to the source of it is traceable unambiguously. Another principle is that the information is verifiable from independent sources. In theistic revelation there's no transparancy, no verifiability and no public access, you ask us to rely solely on your alleged revelation from your first experience. You ask us to rely on anecdotal evidence.

I ask you in all earnest to answer me this: Have you ever, in prayer or otherwise, heard god speaking directly at you where it was possible for you to absolutely 100% confirm that it was god himself? If so I would like to know how you did that. How did you confirm that what you heard was from an entity that can be 100% identified as your god? How did you rule out 100% positively the following possibilities:

1) that what you heard arose from your own thought
2) that what you heard was not a false god pretending he was your expected god

I mean do you guys exchange encrypted communication certificates to authenticate the parties in communication by a prescribed exchange protocol?

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

I.e.
1) Data from nature
2) Data from revelation
Both require reason to understand, so revelation cannot be opposed to reason.

Your conclusion does not follow at all. Reason is required to understand anything, including the ravings of a lunatic. That doesn't negate the fact that the ravings are illogical.

but a lunatic can be logical even if its conclusions aren't true.

[Autumnlicious]

I.e.
1) Data from nature
2) Data from revelation
Both require reason to understand, so revelation cannot be opposed to reason.

Your conclusion does not follow at all. Reason is required to understand anything, including the ravings of a lunatic. That doesn't negate the fact that the ravings are illogical.

but a lunatic can be logical even if its conclusions aren't true.

Or a lunatic can be absolutely logical and correct for some things but not all things.

[remza]

The first questions to ask are "what can we know at all?" and "how can knowledge, if it arises, be shared?". Observe that your claim that god exists and we should share that view on basis of your revelation touches on both these questions.

In common practice where humans share information certain principles have emerged in modern society that were less developed or plain absent in ancient times like that of Jesus. For instance, in situations where two or more parties have to rely on the validity of shared information, transparancy of that information must somehow be ensured. Transparancy meaning that the path from the information to the source of it is traceable unambiguously. Another principle is that the information is verifiable from independent sources. In theistic revelation there's no transparancy, no verifiability and no public access, you ask us to rely solely on your alleged revelation from your first experience. You ask us to rely on anecdotal evidence.

Some of what your saying smells like ``chronological snobbery'' (see C.S. Lewis for more details). Also, I wouldn't share your definition of revelation. As a Christian, I would say that the contents of the Old and New Testament are God's revelation, and any ``first experience'' is subject to the teaching contained within the Scriptures. And in terms of transparency and public access, in our day and age I think the Bible's a best seller and therefore widely available. Whether you think its a valid source of information or not, that's something you'll have to decide.

I ask you in all earnest to answer me this: Have you ever, in prayer or otherwise, heard god speaking directly at you where it was possible for you to absolutely 100% confirm that it was god himself? If so I would like to know how you did that. How did you confirm that what you heard was from an entity that can be 100% identified as your god? How did you rule out 100% positively the following possibilities:

1) that what you heard arose from your own thought
2) that what you heard was not a false god pretending he was your expected god

I mean do you guys exchange encrypted communication certificates to authenticate the parties in communication by a prescribed exchange protocol?

In answer to your first question, no. I guess I believe I hear God speaks to me through the preaching of the word, but I have to check what is being said to see if agrees with the overall teaching of Scripture.

[Purple Rabbit]

The first questions to ask are "what can we know at all?" and "how can knowledge, if it arises, be shared?". Observe that your claim that god exists and we should share that view on basis of your revelation touches on both these questions.

In common practice where humans share information certain principles have emerged in modern society that were less developed or plain absent in ancient times like that of Jesus. For instance, in situations where two or more parties have to rely on the validity of shared information, transparancy of that information must somehow be ensured. Transparancy meaning that the path from the information to the source of it is traceable unambiguously. Another principle is that the information is verifiable from independent sources. In theistic revelation there's no transparancy, no verifiability and no public access, you ask us to rely solely on your alleged revelation from your first experience. You ask us to rely on anecdotal evidence.

Some of what your saying smells like ``chronological snobbery'' (see C.S. Lewis for more details).

It would be, if I would hold the lack of verification in communication against the people of Jesus's time. I am not doing that. I am simply stating that since those times we know better and should apply that knowledgde.You should apply that knowledge. Also observe that someone around in Jesus' time and neighbourhood had a better opportunity to verify alleged facts from first hand, if they indeed took place. This is not the case for the reader of the bible who some 2000 years later has nothing to go on but anecdotal hearsay.

Also, I wouldn't share your definition of revelation.

Well, by careful study I've learned that absolute religious truth is redefinable at any time any place by its followers. So I'm not surprised at all. Still this idea of revelation as a personal direct link with god was central to the Protestant Reformation and indeed is essential to many protestant varieties, creeds, sub-creeds and sub-sub-creeds.

As a Christian, I would say that the contents of the Old and New Testament are God's revelation, and any ``first experience'' is subject to the teaching contained within the Scriptures. And in terms of transparency and public access, in our day and age I think the Bible's a best seller and therefore widely available.

If you consider the biblical material as "first experience" you're completely lost in the woods. You are thus singlehandedly redefining secondary anecdotal material as "first experience". Which planet are you on?

Whether you think its a valid source of information or not, that's something you'll have to decide.

Does it really come as a surprise to you that I consider it as completely useless garbage to demonstrate anything about the fabulated supernatural claims that christians infer from it?

I ask you in all earnest to answer me this: Have you ever, in prayer or otherwise, heard god speaking directly at you where it was possible for you to absolutely 100% confirm that it was god himself? If so I would like to know how you did that. How did you confirm that what you heard was from an entity that can be 100% identified as your god? How did you rule out 100% positively the following possibilities:

1) that what you heard arose from your own thought
2) that what you heard was not a false god pretending he was your expected god

I mean do you guys exchange encrypted communication certificates to authenticate the parties in communication by a prescribed exchange protocol?

In answer to your first question, no. I guess I believe I hear God speaks to me through the preaching of the word, but I have to check what is being said to see if agrees with the overall teaching of Scripture.

Check again. Also check it against historical facts and facts in nature.