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.)

[harvey1]

I was only asking if you felt that the various QM interpretations were also a good analogy to the trinity.

No, they are a good analogy as to why there are many religions and denominations.

[QED]

I was only asking if you felt that the various QM interpretations were also a good analogy to the trinity.

No, they are a good analogy as to why there are many religions and denominations.

Very good Now wake me up when someone comes up with the correct interpretation.

[Cathar1950]

It still doesn't make any sense but the history does.
It could be 4 or 5 instead of 3.
Or maybe 12 Gods or 8.
I think Monotheism was a fleece by Josiah and the Deuteronomist.

[Dilettante]

Tilia wrote:

But all of humanity is infinite in the sense that all are immortal, i.e. will go to infinite heaven or infinite hell. There is a sense in which all are incarnated into space/time.

I find this slightly question-begging. Is that based on reason or are you just assuming it to be true? What's rational about believing that?

Tilia wrote:

Nothing can be said about what may be outside space/time, as nothing is known about it. There is no reason in logic to discount the existence of a powerful agent outside space/time.

Nothing can be said, then, about God. Are you saying there is no reason, then, to discount the existence of a number of imaginary beings outside space-time, including, say, a giant pink egg?

That is true, but human 'guesses' do not preclude the existence of spirit(s).

There are a number of things which cannot be proved or disproved, but whose existence is so improbable that we are justified in not taking them into account. Surely you think God is different from those things. How?

It is not a claim, though. It is a feasible possibility.

According to some people, yes. According to others, no. There seems to be no agreement as to how feasible it really is.

True, but that does not appear to have been his choice.

So perhaps he is not really ominibenevolent, or not totally omnipotent, or not perfectly omniscient.

Either a Trinity can be proved from the Bible, or it can't. There are no possible alternatives.

I'm afraid nothing can be proved from the Bible, since it seems to be made up of too many heterogeneous elements, it is fragmentary at best, its language is at times ambiguous, and it's impossible to arrive at a universally-agreed interpretation.

[Tilia]

quote="Dilettante"Tilia wrote:

But all of humanity is infinite in the sense that all are immortal, i.e. will go to infinite heaven or infinite hell. There is a sense in which all are incarnated into space/time.

I find this slightly question-begging. Is that based on reason or are you just assuming it to be true? What's rational about believing that?

The reason is already there; if each belongs to infinity, then God is no different in that regard.

Tilia wrote:

Nothing can be said about what may be outside space/time, as nothing is known about it. There is no reason in logic to discount the existence of a powerful agent outside space/time.

Nothing can be said, then, about God.

If he maintains silence and inaction, yes. But the Christian view is that he has not.

Are you saying there is no reason, then, to discount the existence of a number of imaginary beings outside space-time, including, say, a giant pink egg?

No-one can discount it. But, as there is no evidence for it, as there is for God via Jesus, there is no reason to believe it.

That is true, but human 'guesses' do not preclude the existence of spirit(s).

There are a number of things which cannot be proved or disproved, but whose existence is so improbable that we are justified in not taking them into account. Surely you think God is different from those things. How?

The aforementioned evidence of Jesus supports the existence of spirits.

It is not a claim, though. It is a feasible possibility.

According to some people, yes. According to others, no.

Either something is feasible, i.e. within the bounds of possibility, or not.

True, but that does not appear to have been his choice.

So perhaps he is not really ominibenevolent, or not totally omnipotent, or not perfectly omniscient.

Perhaps not.

Either a Trinity can be proved from the Bible, or it can't. There are no possible alternatives.

I'm afraid nothing can be proved from the Bible, since it seems to be made up of too many heterogeneous elements, it is fragmentary at best, its language is at times ambiguous, and it's impossible to arrive at a universally-agreed interpretation.

Then a Trinity cannot be cited against Christianity.

[Cathar1950]

Tilia wrote:

If he maintains silence and inaction, yes. But the Christian view is that he has not

.
But it is a Christian view and dogma. It doesn't make it true.
Lighting is considered an act of God if it strikes your house but no one thinks God is tossing lighting bolts. Zeus did I think.

No-one can discount it. But, as there is no evidence for it, as there is for God via Jesus, there is no reason to believe it.

You have not shown that Jesus is evidence for God or a reason to belive it.
Again this is a belief not evidence or support.

The aforementioned evidence of Jesus supports the existence of spirits

How is this? This seems to be going in a circle of logic. What is a spirit?
The wind?

Then a Trinity cannot be cited against Christianity.

Sure it can. I can use the Bible against your ideas and be valid but if I don't belive in the bible your arguments from the bible are not only invalid and non-persuasive but irrelevant. It is like a tug of war only one side has the rope tied around their neck.

[Dilettante]

First, to harvey1: QM, as well as other extremely complex scientific theories, have often been cited as "proof" that this or that mystic tradition is correct. Since only a handful of top-notch scientists fully understand those theories (and even they say themsleves that there's a lot they don't understand yet), I don't really see how they can be used to support any religious claims. We'll have to wait until we have digested QM before we can use it in that way.

Second, to Lotan: it's true, Trinitarianism is pure Hellenism. But many Christian ideas are borrowed from Greek philosophy (the Logos, the notion of evil as lack or corruption of good). After all Christianity is a mixture of:

a) the religious affirmations of the 12 Apostles
b) Jewish ideas
c) Pagan, Hellenistic and Neoplatonic concepts
d) elements from Eastern religious traditions

Third, to Tilia: claims such as "God and men belong to infinity" need to be supported by reason to count as rational. Besides, the view that God intervened in our history and spoke to us through the Bible is both unsupported and incongruous with God's existence outside space/time.
To have any effect on human history God would have to exist in space/time.
What is this "evidence of Jesus"? As far as I know, the claim that Jesus was God has to be taken on faith alone, there is no evidence that he was or even that he claimed to be.
Finally, the topic of this thread is whether belief in the Christian God is rational or not. It is not enough to argue that it's not irrational (i.e., contrary to reason), because it can still be non-rational (not based on reason). A rational belief is opposed to an emotional belief, but also to a revealed one. The Aristotelian concept of god is rational (whether it is correct or not). The God of revealed religions is not.

[harvey1]

First, to harvey1: QM, as well as other extremely complex scientific theories, have often been cited as "proof" that this or that mystic tradition is correct. Since only a handful of top-notch scientists fully understand those theories (and even they say themsleves that there's a lot they don't understand yet), I don't really see how they can be used to support any religious claims. We'll have to wait until we have digested QM before we can use it in that way.

Dilettante, what I used as an analogy is not restricted to QM. The three formulations of nature's laws apply to almost all the laws of physics. Perhaps you're referencing my joke to QED, but the interpretations for QM only demonstrates that there are different ways to interpret physical evidence. Religion is much more complex than interpreting physical evidence, we must also consider the pre-established beliefs, values, etc..

The God of revealed religions is not.

I disagree. Your assumptions seem to be based on that there is no God, and therefore there is no God that is influencing the concepts produced about God. I reject that premise.

[Tilia]

quote="Dilettante"

Third, to Tilia: claims such as "God and men belong to infinity" need to be supported by reason to count as rational.

What others may call rational is for their judgement. Can the statement be shown to be logically inconsistent?

Besides, the view that God intervened in our history and spoke to us through the Bible is both unsupported

Is it a logical contradiction? And that statement is 'besides' the stated thesis of illogicality, and is itself circular, moreover.

and incongruous with God's existence outside space/time. To have any effect on human history God would have to exist in space/time.

Because?

What is this "evidence of Jesus"?

It was Jesus who said that 'God is a spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in spirit.' That is explicit, unlike the Trinitarian hypothesis.

None of the four reasons that 'may well be the ones people are thinking of when they say that belief in the Christian God is not rational' has been proved valid.

[trencacloscas]

Freshly back from vacation, though I'll need a couple of days to read the whole bunch of answers in the forum...

About the question in the topic... Bad question. A belief is not necessarily rational or irrational. The idea of the Christian God is based entirely on myth and tradition, not in reason. From that point of view, it is irrational, as most myths and religions are.