Is belief in the Christian God a rational belief?

[harvey1]

From my understanding it seems some atheists might think that theism is a rational belief, but they reject that a belief in a Christian God is a rational belief. So, I'd like to open this up for discussion here on the Christianity subforum. Is belief in the Christian God a rational belief?

(Edited: A specific example was taken out because it was disputed as being a fair example on my part.)

[Lotan]

Is belief in the Christian God a rational belief?

Which one? Father, Son, or Holy Ghost?

The ones that caught the last train for the coast...

Seriously. I've never heard the trinity explained rationally, so it's kind of hard to answer your question if you don't first define what you mean by "the Christian God". Can you?

[NINTY15]

Is belief in the Christian God a rational belief?

Which one? Father, Son, or Holy Ghost?

The ones that caught the last train for the coast...

Seriously. I've never heard the trinity explained rationally, so it's kind of hard to answer your question if you don't first define what you mean by "the Christian God". Can you?

"The Christian God", would refer to the means of the entire trinity. They are all in the same. Belief upon them In the opinion of myself would be considered rational. It is of reason, It is of meaning. God sent us the message of proof through his son and miracles. It is sometimes misseen by the foolish, which makes it seem irratonal.

[McCulloch]

Is belief in the Christian God a rational belief?

Which one? Father, Son, or Holy Ghost?

Seriously. I've never heard the trinity explained rationally, so it's kind of hard to answer your question if you don't first define what you mean by "the Christian God". Can you?

I think then Lotan's question becomes, "Can you rationally belive in something that you cannot rationally understand?". The dogma of trinity defies rational explanation. Three persons, one god. It makes no sense. Theologians agree with that. The simplistic analogies (water, steam and ice or leaves of a clover) do not quite cut it. Trinity is the logical conclusion of the belief that God became man and yet remained separate from the man he became (god the father and god the son) combined with the absolute that there can be only one god. The honest ones cannot explain how this can be just that it must be.
But before we dismiss this, the same kind of thinking goes into quantum theory. Light is made up of particles called photons. We have done experiments that show that light must be made up of these particles. But we have done other experiments that show that light is a wave (and not a wave of photons). A particle is not a wave. A wave is not a particle. Both must be true. The theory has been shown to be true experimentally. But no one can honestly explain how this can be.
So why is this atheist helping to explain the theist side? Because there is a big difference between believing the theory of quantum physics which seems to be irrational and the dogma of trinity which seems to be irrational. That is quantum physics has been proven to be correct. If physicists ever find a more rational explanation of the phenomena explained now only by quantum theory, they will jump at the chance. Trinity has not been proven experimentally. Theologians who accept the dogma of trinity have been known to persecute those seeking a more rational explanation to the texts which seem to lead them to such an irrational doctrine.

[harvey1]

Your view of "atheist" beliefs lacking evidence is entirely wrong. You're confusing evidence with conclusive proof.

What do you mean be "conclusive proof"? There's no such animal with respect to the world.

A rationalist will generally require good evidence for something before believing in it.

I disagree. A rationalist will regard something rational if there is no good reason to rule it out. Belief is much more subjective to be given a criteria list as to what establishes a good enough reason to believe something.

a rationalist will disbelieve something if there is good reason to.

Disbelief is much more complex since it requires knowledge of the beliefs of an individual and the society that surrounds them. However, attributing irrationality to a belief would mean that there is no reason at all to expect there is such a phenomena because the evidence, as it interpreted, casts very strong doubt on the phenomena.

Thus, being a rational belief is not so difficult. The belief just must avoid being ruled out by good reasons. Avoiding being called an irrational belief is even easier, just produce some legitimate evidence so that there is not this very strong doubts on the belief. Finding contradictions is the most convenient way to test if a belief is irrational. It is difficult for a belief to be true if it logically contradicts itself. The evidence casts strong doubts. However, even contradiction is not enough to be called irrational, one would need to show that the belief is conceptually irreconciable to the evidence available.

Also, when something should be apparent (i.e. have evidence) but does not, then a rationalist will hold that concept up to grave doubt. Religion is in that catagory.

Again, I disagree. What must be apparent for irrationality is strong evidence against the belief such that conceptually it doesn't make sense to believe that belief. For example, if a belief is self-contradictory in its explanation of how events are caused, then this belief would border on irrationality. The reason is that conceptually it is not possible to salvage that belief. If there are strong reasons for it, then this might balance out the problems in conceiving how the belief is possible, but nonetheless, there should be great reservations on the belief.

So, when you are in a position of believing something that does not have good evidence for it, does have good evidence that it is untrue, and for which there should be copious evidence for it if it were true, then you are obviously believing it for some reason other than reason. Maybe it's because you were taught it as a child, or maybe your social position requires you too, or maybe you are afraid not to. But whatever the reason is, it is irrational.

My view would be that if there is good reason to rule it out, if there is conceptual difficulties such that it is not possible to solve severe problems with those beliefs, and there is no compelling reason to believe those beliefs, then one is obviously believing that belief for irrational reasons. I would say the main difference in our view here is that I believe that far too many rational beliefs would be labelled irrational using your criteria. Evidence is highly interpretated according to current theory (i.e., theory-laden), and it is far too easy for people locked into their own theoretical paradigm to ignore evidence that counts against their belief as well as not count evidence that counts for another belief. If one is not aware of this, they will need to become closed-minded, and this is very dangerous.

On the other hand, we do need to rule out irrational beliefs otherwise we'd believe just about anything. So, this is where good reasons to rule something out, as well as conceptual difficulties based on its own coherency of the belief are more weightier matters for judging irrationality. I fear that using your scheme, we'd all be ole' grouches who would rule things out the moment that we had no good reason to believe such poppycock. Of course, when it takes millions of dollars to find a good reason, we'd hardly do so if we needed the good reason before we made those investments.

Remember, the question of rationalism does not require conclusive proof. It only requires good evidence. It's a fact that christianity lacks good evidence in support of it's claims.

There is no good reason to rule out the existence of the Christian God, and there are no overriding conceptual problems that rule out the Christian God. I know of no paradoxes and, in fact, there's more paradoxes in quantum theory that a belief in a Christian God, so that's hardly reason to consider the Christian belief in God as irrational.

[AlAyeti]

It is skeptics that will focus the holiness of God to a fine view.

First, there is no such thing as "the Christian God." Christian was a derogatory term for the Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus the Messiah. The followers that worshipped jesus as the Hebrew God made flesh. It had happened before anyway.

There is only one "Biblical God."

"Let 'Us' make man after Our image after Our likeness.'"

Plural.

"He" made then male and female.

In Hebrew the Holy Spirit is Ruach ha Kodesh. God is unabashedly mentioned as having female attributes in the Tanakh (Old testament). And was a person walking and talking in several places in the Tanakh. Even eating. So God in the Bible is at least two different aspects of the same thing.

The Trinity is an explanation of the revealved God. 1 x 1 x 1, not 1+ 1+ 1.

Kabbalah shows a similar threesome. Including the son aspect of deity. The ten seferoth coming to us in three columns as it were.

Duet. 6:4: Behold israel the lord our God is one. "Elohim." A pluaral word declared to mean one "God."

The three main festivals of of Israel are fascinating. "Sukkot" where the Jews build a "temporary" dwelling (Succah) for God to come down and "live" among them. The Gospel of John literally uses this example and applies it to Jesus.

The lamb sacrifice we all know so well, a Rabbi on an anti-Christian website declared that the sacrificial offering of the lamb has nothing to do with wiping away a persons obvious sins that they know they have commited. No, it has to do with unknown sins commited unwittingly.

What was Jesus reported as saying on the Cross?

Shavuot or "Pentacost," is where the Spirit of God descended on the Israelites at Sinaii. See what and Whom the Israelites were afraid of.

Humans "decide" to have children. All the time knowing that as free individuals they (child) will not be nor can they be safe and sound. And yet, the very best of human nature decides to want to have children none the less.

I and my wife wanted to have children and gave them half of their life and it was my wife giving them the other half. my wife and I, the two of us becoming "one." To make another "one."

"Male and female we created them!!!!!!"

Male and female we were created. 1x1 equaling one. Even twins and triplets etc., etc., possess individuality, yet come from the same origination. Or, originators. Yet have freedom.

Jesus clearly showed free will while being the "Succah" or "Tabernacle" indwelled by God. Even Paul said that.

Belief in the "Christian God" is brought to us by sound reasoning.

Belief in the Christian God is completely rational.

And as a skeptic, I will continue to seek out the source of perfect knowledge.

Like the Bible says to do.

[QED]

From my understanding it seems some atheists on this board, e.g., QED, have recently come to the opinion that theism is a rational belief (see here), but they reject that a belief in a Christian God is a rational belief. So, I'd like to open this up for discussion here on the Christianity subforum. Is belief in the Christian God a rational belief?

Are you so desperate for 'converts' that you have to invent this nonsense in the hope that it will impress others that you're getting there? I have addressed your 'misunderstanding' in that thread you link to above. Pity you didn't wait a little while for a confirmation of your astounding conclusion. I really shouldn't have to endure this sort of subterfuge.

[harvey1]

Are you so desperate for 'converts' that you have to invent this nonsense in the hope that it will impress others that you're getting there? I have addressed your 'misunderstanding' in that thread you link to above. Pity you didn't wait a little while for a confirmation of your astounding conclusion. I really shouldn't have to endure this sort of subterfuge.

Converts mean money QED. God needs money...

Okay, I thought this was your intention by saying that your beef was with afterlife/omnipotent God theism. Since you have protested, I will edit the post beginning this thread to make converts much more difficult for me to acquire. (I'm joking, of course.)

[Lotan]

I think then Lotan's question becomes, "Can you rationally belive in something that you cannot rationally understand?". The dogma of trinity defies rational explanation.

Thanks, McCulloch. I posted in haste ( ) and really should have explained myself more clearly. I think that the original question "Is belief in the Christian God a rational belief?" is not itself a rational question. First of all, harvey1 hasn't defined what he means by "the Christian God" (although I have invited him to do so). Secondly, the question includes the assumption that a belief can be rational, which is by no means a given. It is my understanding that Christianity is an expression of faith, and I don't recall anyone claiming that faith must needs be rational.

[McCulloch]

First, there is no such thing as "the Christian God." Christian was a derogatory term for the Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus the Messiah. The followers that worshipped jesus as the Hebrew God made flesh. It had happened before anyway.
There is only one "Biblical God."

I think that we can all agree that the phrase "Christian God" refers to the christian concept of what god is. This is different from the "Jewish God" (meaning the Jewish concept of presumably the same god) which is different than the "Christian God".

"Let 'Us' make man after Our image after Our likeness.'"
Plural.
"He" made then male and female.

Here is where the irrationality comes in. Is god plural (in which case it should grammatically be gods) or is god singular (one god). The same thing cannot be both plural and singular. You can have plural components of a singular object, such as three peas in a pod, but that is not what trinity is all about is it?

In Hebrew the Holy Spirit is Ruach ha Kodesh. God is unabashedly mentioned as having female attributes in the Tanakh (Old testament). And was a person walking and talking in several places in the Tanakh. Even eating. So God in the Bible is at least two different aspects of the same thing.

Are you saying that trinity is multiple aspects of one god. Is Jesus reduced to being an aspect of god? Or is Jesus fully god?

The Trinity is an explanation of the revealved God. 1 x 1 x 1, not 1+ 1+ 1.
Kabbalah shows a similar threesome. Including the son aspect of deity. The ten seferoth coming to us in three columns as it were.
Duet. 6:4: Behold israel the lord our God is one. "Elohim." A pluaral word declared to mean one "God."
The three main festivals of of Israel are fascinating. "Sukkot" where the Jews build a "temporary" dwelling (Succah) for God to come down and "live" among them. The Gospel of John literally uses this example and applies it to Jesus.

You lost me. Are you saying that Jesus himself has three aspects?

The lamb sacrifice we all know so well, a Rabbi on an anti-Christian website declared that the sacrificial offering of the lamb has nothing to do with wiping away a persons obvious sins that they know they have commited. No, it has to do with unknown sins commited unwittingly.

I cannot determine what this paragraph has to do with the topic.

What was Jesus reported as saying on the Cross?

Which saying? The biographers of Jesus do not all agree. If you are referring to "My god, my god, why have you forsaken me", then this argues that Jesus and god are two separate entities.

Shavuot or "Pentacost," is where the Spirit of God descended on the Israelites at Sinaii. See what and Whom the Israelites were afraid of.

Relevance?

Humans "decide" to have children. All the time knowing that as free individuals they (child) will not be nor can they be safe and sound. And yet, the very best of human nature decides to want to have children none the less.
I and my wife wanted to have children and gave them half of their life and it was my wife giving them the other half. my wife and I, the two of us becoming "one." To make another "one."

So the two separate entities, the Father and the Holy Spirit, became one (previously they were two) and made another "one", Jesus the son? The family analogy does not work to explain trinity. You are one family but three individuals. A family, by definition, is a collection of individuals. A god (singular) is not a collection of gods. Is it?

"Male and female we created them!!!!!!"
Male and female we were created. 1x1 equaling one. Even twins and triplets etc., etc., possess individuality, yet come from the same origination. Or, originators. Yet have freedom.

1 times 1 equals 1. What do you mean? One god times one god equals one humanity?

Jesus clearly showed free will while being the "Succah" or "Tabernacle" indwelled by God. Even Paul said that.

Relevance?

Belief in the "Christian God" is brought to us by sound reasoning.
Belief in the Christian God is completely rational.

Perhaps, but it has not been shown how here.

[Tilia]

quote="AlAyeti"

First, there is no such thing as "the Christian God." Christian was a derogatory term for the Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus the Messiah.

There is no real evidence that it was a derogatory term. When first applied, the context was a growing church, with no mention of opposition at that time. There is nothing inherently critical in 'christianos', and it is in fact an accurate term in that it reflects belief in a messiah/saviour. It could be taken as meaning 'one who is saved' (as a claim, of course). It is not, it seems, what the followers of Christ first called themselves, which was 'follower of the Way'.

'However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they [the Jews] call a sect.' (Acts 24:14)

The name was evidently accepted later (see 1 Peter 4:16), but it seems to me that the original thought is the most authentic expression of this belief, which may indicate a complete and normal way of life rather than a religion, with special practices and rituals.

The followers that worshipped jesus as the Hebrew God made flesh. It had happened before anyway.

When was that? (It should be noted the Bible God is not just God of the Hebrews, btw.)

There is only one "Biblical God."

"Let 'Us' make man after Our image after Our likeness.'"

Plural.

The Jews were known as being intensely (fanatically, in some cases) monotheistic, and they could not have interpreted Scripture as indicating anything but monotheism. The plural is generally thought to indicate great power and majesty (as with the royal 'we', which may be related). 'Elohim' ('God', in that sentence) is anyway plural, and is thought to have the same sort of connotation. Personally, I think that the unique use of the plural associated with the creation of mankind denotes God's particular certainty and deliberation ('agreement with' Himself) in making this action, as well as perhaps indicating the pluralisms of a) plural human society founded on love, which necessitates plurality, and b) the plurality of morality, in which good and evil are both present as options. This would foreshadow the choice which Jesus had to make in coming to earth.

"He" made then male and female.

In Hebrew the Holy Spirit is Ruach ha Kodesh. God is unabashedly mentioned as having female attributes in the Tanakh (Old testament).

However, there is no marriage in heaven, and presumably no gender. God is spirit, and even to use the word 'he' of him may not be accurate, ultimately. As God is undoubtedly claimed to have the protective attribute of a mother, it is not inappropriate to assign female attributes to 'him'.

And was a person walking and talking in several places in the Tanakh. Even eating. So God in the Bible is at least two different aspects of the same thing.

Is that a difficulty?

The Trinity is an explanation of the revealved God.

It is not an explanation found in Scripture, however.