Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can "confidence in what we hope for"
and an "assurance about what we do not see"
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[fredonly]

[Replying to fredonly in post #258]

Scientism is philosophically naive, but metaphysical naturalism is not which I assume you recognize, since you gave a description of it.

Regarding abiogenesis vs divine creation of life: neither of these can be defended on evidence. Abiogenesis certainly doesnt serve as evidence for naturalism, but naturalism certainly entails abiogenesis. Some forms of deism (an indifferent creator) also entail abiogenesis, and some theists acknowledge it is at least possible.

My main point is that the mere fact that abiogenesis hasnt been proven does not undercut metaphysical naturalism, and it doesnt serve as evidence a theist can use to justify belief in a God, or in the Bible.

May I ask why you feel the need to make this point?

To head off a potentially pointless discussion

Do you agree that belief in metaphysical naturalism can be rational?

I think this would be similar to a question like, "Do you think medical practice is rational?"...
Science has limitations.
It is not Scientism.
It has to stay within the bounds it can reach, if it is to be rational.

I didn't ask if metaphysical naturalism is coherent, I asked if you agreed that naturalism, as a metaphysical theory, could be (at least potentially) rationally justified? If you say "no", then you would need to have some defeater for it. And if that's the case, what is it?
(For the record, I oppose claims of anyone having a "burden of proof". Rather, we all should be able to show justification for our beliefs- if those beliefs are rational).

May I ask why you brought up scientism with me, after I said it was "philosophically naive"?

BTW, I've read Alvan Plantinga's book, "Warranted Christian Belief", and I accept his argument that Christian belief is rational, if God exists and he gave proper functioning humans a "sensus divinitatus". I haven't seen another complete justification.

I think Alvan Plantinga is a reasonable man.
Those who believe mankind's senses are limited to what they "think they know", are not being reasonable, in my opinion.

That seems an unjustified opinion. If God & Sensus divinitatus are real in proper functioning people, an improperly functioning person can rationally infer naturalism is true. And of course, if either God doesn't exist, or he hasn't instilled a sensus divinitatus, then belief in God & Christianity is irrational.

Actually, this is a good point, which links back to the topic of the thread, and its question - Is faith a reliable path to reality?

Under a common view of faith, it certainly is not. If you define faith as a justified belief (that's what I gathered you were claiming), then it's a meaningless question. If you can rationally justify your beliefs, why bother labeling it as "faith"?

[John17_3]

[Replying to fredonly in post #261]

To head off a potentially pointless discussion

Isn't that creating a pointless discussion?
What is the point of talking to someone about chocolates, when the person is talking about bicycles?

I didn't ask if metaphysical naturalism is coherent, I asked if you agreed that naturalism, as a metaphysical theory, could be (at least potentially) rationally justified?

You actually asked me, "Do you agree that belief in metaphysical naturalism can be rational?"
Perhaps you did not type out what you had in mind?

Now that the question has changed, or been worded according to what you have in mind, it is a bit confusing. Could you reword it, because it sounds like you are saying naturalism is a theory, and you want to know if the theory is correct - validated.
So, i don't understand what you are asking.

I should have headed off any potentially loaded questions, or strawman arguments.
Please rephrase your question. Thanks.

If you say "no", then you would need to have some defeater for it. And if that's the case, what is it?

I'll wait till I am clear on your question.

(For the record, I oppose claims of anyone having a "burden of proof". Rather, we all should be able to show justification for our beliefs- if those beliefs are rational).

I totally agree.

May I ask why you brought up scientism with me, after I said it was "philosophically naive"?

I said,

• Science has limitations.
  It is not Scientism. Meaning that it is not the be all to all questions, and investigation.
  It has to stay within the bounds it can reach, if it is to be rational.

That seems an unjustified opinion. If God & Sensus divinitatus are real in proper functioning people, an improperly functioning person can rationally infer naturalism is true.

Please explain.

And of course, if either God doesn't exist, or he hasn't instilled a sensus divinitatus, then belief in God & Christianity is irrational.

Please explain, the logic of your argument.

Under a common view of faith, it certainly is not. If you define faith as a justified belief (that's what I gathered you were claiming), then it's a meaningless question. If you can rationally justify your beliefs, why bother labeling it as "faith"?

Faith goes beyond belief. It demonstrates belief.
If you understood what I said, you would understand this.

If one has faith, their beliefs will actually be strong, because they have the assurance - the guarantee - the evidence.
This faith is a aspect of the fruitage of God's spirit. Galatians 5:22

To believe that evidence is not required to have faith, is to not understand faith.
Please reread what I posted, if you do not understand.

Yes. Any belief can be justified with evidence.
The faith referred to in the Bible is not as commonly defined - blind, having no proof.

[fredonly]

I didn't ask if metaphysical naturalism is coherent, I asked if you agreed that naturalism, as a metaphysical theory, could be (at least potentially) rationally justified?

You actually asked me, "Do you agree that belief in metaphysical naturalism can be rational?"
Perhaps you did not type out what you had in mind?

Now that the question has changed, or been worded according to what you have in mind, it is a bit confusing.

It's the same question. I mistakenly thought you had some knowledge of standard philosophical terminology.

Metaphysical naturalism is a metaphysical "theory". Thomist metaphysics is another metaphysical theory (created by Thomas Aquinas, based largely on Aristotelian metaphysics - another theory). Each theory describes the fundamental basis of reality. Theories are mutually exclusive: if Thomism is true, then naturalism (and all others) is false; if naturalism is true, then Thomism is false.

So my question was: do you believe a person could rationally believe naturalism - the metaphysical theory?

A belief in any proposition is rational if it can be "rationally justified". This means that it can be shown true through logically valid arguments (deductive and abductive are the most common). Such arguments aren't necessarily persuasive to another person, because there is some subjectivity involved in abduction, and metaphysical theories always have "first principles" (or axioms) that the other person may reject.

That seems an unjustified opinion. If God & Sensus divinitatus are real in proper functioning people, an improperly functioning person can rationally infer naturalism is true.

Please explain.

If you were familiar with Plantinga's arguments, you would understand it. Since you aren't, it's moot. You evidently don't justify you belief that way.

Under a common view of faith, it certainly is not. If you define faith as a justified belief (that's what I gathered you were claiming), then it's a meaningless question. If you can rationally justify your beliefs, why bother labeling it as "faith"?

Faith goes beyond belief. It demonstrates belief.
If you understood what I said, you would understand this.

If one has faith, their beliefs will actually be strong, because they have the assurance - the guarantee - the evidence.

This faith is a aspect of the fruitage of God's spirit. Galatians 5:22

To believe that evidence is not required to have faith, is to not understand faith.
Please reread what I posted, if you do not understand.

Yes. Any belief can be justified with evidence.
The faith referred to in the Bible is not as commonly defined - blind, having no proof.

My question is: can you rationally justify your belief in Chrstianity? Identifying the belief as "faith" doesn't fix weak reasoning.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #257]

You seem to bre sufferring from the Theist mindset again - if nobody can show how tis or that happened, it meand 'we don't know' It does not mean a god - and even then not saying which god.

Can you point out where I said anything that comes close to your last statement?

Your efforts to try to poke holed in Abiogenesis theory are pointles because it is conceded that it is a hypothesis, (to say the least0 and even if it was conceded that te start of RNA/DNA could [pssibly ha[[en that does Not leave a god as the default.

May I ask, why you keep repeating this thing about "it does not mean a god" or "leave a god as default" as if the person you are talking with currently, said anything, or indicated anything like that?
Is this something you repeat each time you talk to someone that believes in God?

Did you read my post carefully?
With regard to poking holes in Abiogenesis. That's not my efforts. The persons doing that are scientists. I am only quoting them.
Are you saying you do not like scientists to point out facts, which is evidence?

It is the same with Cosmic origins and consciousness, npne of that does a thing to validate a creator, only a lack of compelling evidence one way or the other. And that's before we even get to Which God?

You seem to have a question about which God. Are you asking a question, or are you saying something you normally say, because you believe it is a valid point?
I can address that, if it is something you are querying.

To point to an intelligent creator is faitbased thinking, without a valid evidential case, never mind the particular god.

Would you rather repeat this, rather than address any responses to it?

If you have any other (or valid) points to make, feel free.

I thought I made some valid points which you did not respond to.
Is there any reason why you did not answer any of my questions?

For example, I thought this was a valid point:
Do you consider the scientist that have conflicting theories, and disagreements, on interpretations, as "not having evidence"?

Also, this:
So you accept a hypothetical of how something could happen, or be possible, even though there is no evidence it could.

I find that interesting, because here you have experts, suggesting "that the idea that pure RNA or pure DNA formed spontaneously is unlikely", and you are willing to believe it "could happen, but yet, you are not willing to accept that the universe could have been created by an intelligent designer.
Very interesting.

What is the difference between the two - believing that something could happen, even though there is no evidence it could, and believing that something could be, even though - according to the claimed - there is evidence it could?

This one also:
Concerning the things that are "logically invalid", such claims as, Yeti or Bigfoot, Nessie, Flying saucers and crop circles (made by UFOs or humans), ghosts or indeed, gods, I wanted to know What about "speculation about how nucleic acids, amino acids, and even proteins might have spontaneously appeared and begun self-replicating", or "genetic material or life itself arriving on earth from outer space"? Does it apply to these?

You never answered to or responded to any of these.
Are you sure you want me to feel free to make any other valid points? You aren't saying you won't respond to them, are you?

where you touched on it was here, for example.
I find that interesting, because here you have experts, suggesting "that the idea that pure RNA or pure DNA formed spontaneously is unlikely", and you are willing to believe it "could happen, but yet, you are not willing to accept that the universe could have been created by an intelligent designer.
Very interesting.

How is this not positing that If natural (without a god doing it) origins, of Life, cosmic etc. are unexplainable, an intelligent creator is at least as valid if not better an explanation?

It is not, because unknowns are unknowns, not evidence for a god - claim. Even if you did not say anything like that (and your whole post was trying to make a creator god a valid argument) I cut through the verbiage to the whole point and only 0 actual point.

There is no good evidence for a god, Origins is unknowns, not an argument for a god, and Faith (belief without good evidence) is not a valid path to reality (facts). It is something I tend to clear up every time some theist tries to use origins of Life, universe, etc . as a case for an intelligent creator.

Your argument is crafty and evasive. You YOU are trying to poke holes in Abiogenesis, using quotes from scientists, as you say, but you are making the case that Abiogenesis is improbable and to 'god' is as good if not a better hypothesis. I cut through the waffle (I have seen that sort of thing so many times) to the essential argument and countered it. Not being able to explain how life started does NOT make a case for a god (never mind Which one) but is an unknown or unanswered question.

I am not obliged to be misled onto arguing about how RNA could form - I leave that to the scientists working on Abiogenesis, but made it simple; the argument does NOT make a case for an intelligent creator.

e,g you posted: Do you consider the scientist that have conflicting theories, and disagreements, on interpretations, as "not having evidence" This is crafty, but rather clumsy an attempt at trying to fool me. Scientists, for example those working on abiogenesis, having different theories is indeed not evidence for a god (intelligent creator). It is as I said 'we don't know' Yet, it is still being researched. I cut to this point and you are still trying to make it stick by using irrelevant if not deceptive arguments. I have seen it many times before and you can't fool me.

What more do you have? I am taking each point since you are insisting that I look at everything, relevant or not.

This I suppose So you accept a hypothetical of how something could happen, or be possible, even though there is no evidence it could. hypothetically (and Theists or creationists say this, too) 'nothing is impossible'. Which is itself arguable but I get the point. I could get sucked into a debate about chemical evolution, virtual particles or germination from inert matter, but none of that is relevant. Unexplained does not make 'god' the default.

You haven't a hope of bamboozling me, nor (once I have exposed the attempted trick) anyone else.

If we cannot explain origins of life, that is not leaving the god - default as the go - to hypothesis. And even if it could, nobody cares, unless you can show which god it is.

The clumsy telegraphed swipe was clear 'if you believe something unproven like life from inert chemicals, isn't goddunnit equally valid?' wasn't that what you were trying to pull there?
No, because the materialist default implies that any actuality (uknown and unexplained) is more likely to be natural (without a god doing it) than intelligently created.

finally this attempt to stuff words into my mouth

"You never answered to or responded to any of these.
Are you sure you want me to feel free to make any other valid points? You aren't saying you won't respond to them, are you?"

You may post whatever you want, and O may address them or I may simply show they are not worth discussing, only dismissing as irrelevant.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to John17_3 in post #256]

I think that anyone holding the "belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality" - Scientism, are the ones who have the burden of proof, of demonstrating that anything outside their view is impossible, and that answers can be found nowhere else other than their system of beliefs.

Scientism is philosophically naive, but metaphysical naturalism is not which I assume you recognize, since you gave a description of it.

Regarding abiogenesis vs divine creation of life: neither of these can be defended on evidence. Abiogenesis certainly doesnt serve as evidence for naturalism, but naturalism certainly entails abiogenesis. Some forms of deism (an indifferent creator) also entail abiogenesis, and some theists acknowledge it is at least possible. My main point is that the mere fact that abiogenesis hasnt been proven does not undercut metaphysical naturalism, and it doesnt serve as evidence a theist can use to justify belief in a God, or in the Bible.

Do you agree that belief in metaphysical naturalism can be rational?

BTW, I've read Alvan Plantinga's book, "Warranted Christian Belief", and I accept his argument that Christian belief is rational, if
God exists and he gave proper functioning humans a "sensus divinitatus". I haven't seen another complete justification.

This fellow gives the whole agenda and argument away by going after 'scientism', which is merely Theistic smearing: inventing a deprecating name for a strawman sliming of science (which they otherwise trust every day of their miserable lives) to discredit it - where they see it as undermining their Faith.

Science is (as they well know: John pointed up scientists with conflicting hypotheses) founded on question and scepticism, not some kind of Dogma written in stone. Ot is not an ism but an ever - revised body of explanatory data. Theist apologetics so often shows it does not understand science nor indeed logic, and yet keeps on making pronouncements about it, as strawman ones, too.

Over to you both

[TRANSPONDER]

Occam's razor has this point 'The simplest explanation that explains all the facts is the one to be preferred'. My point is that Mark as the original and Luke based on Matthew does not explain all the Facts - there are contradictions and omissions that cannot be explained, only ignored.

This is either ignorant or dishonest, and is why I am unimpressed by the Authorities.

There's not enough evidence to definitively explain all the facts, and I disagree with your judgement of the authorities. The evidence for Marcan priority (that Matthew and Luke had Mark's written Gospel in front of them) is strong, and better accounts for the "triple tradition" than alternatives (some apologists argue for the priority of Matthew, but they seem motivated to defend the tradition that the author was a disciple). The "double tradition" (material in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark) is suggestive of an additional shared set of material as a common source (labeled Q) but it's form and content can't be established by the evidence. Robert Stein writes:

"It is probably best to say that besides Mark, Matthew and Luke also possessed and used various written and oral traditions in common, and these now appear in their Gospels as the Q material."... It also seems clear that along with Mark and the Q material, Matthew and Luke possessed other oral and written materials overlapped some of what they found in Mark and their Q sources...[but] it is impossible to reconstruct them with any certainty.

Stein also suggests that multiple overlapping sources (potentially oral and written), redaction by Matthew and Luke, and scribal errors could account for all the differences. But it's impossible to definitively determine the specific cause of any similarities or differences. I'll add my personal opinion that Matthew and Luke probably made stuff up, as well. So I think Occam's razor should indeed be applied when it comes to proposing sources beyond Mark and Q, not because we should assume these are the only sources, but because there's not sufficient basis to identify the contents of any other sources.

I suspect what you call 'Marcan priority' is Synoptic original priority. Which is not the same thing.

My argument is that there is evidence (ignored by the Authorities - so far as I have seen) that Mark himself amended the original version (adding common material in Matthew but not in Luke, as well as additions not found in any other gospel). The original synoptic gospel (which can be reconstructed) is lost, and it is not Mark.

The original (some call it Q but I use that to refer to Luke/Matthew material) is not Mark as we have it and I remain unimpressed by these Experts who make guesses based on ignoring the internal textual evidence. Sorry, but Mark cannot be the Synoptic original, and any authority who pretends that Luke copied Mark and simply avoided his errors and left out his additions..and so does Matthew, fails in their argument. It is ignoring the evidence, not following it.

[TRANSPONDER]

HEBREWS 11:1 NWT

Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen

Paul (the writer) defines faith as hoping for something for which we have verifiable proof ( "evident demonstration") . As such that it most certainly would be a good way to conduct business; indeed most bank transactions do exactly that.

When you deposit your money in a bank, do you know that you will be able do see your money again once it disappears into the bank tiller's draw? You hope so. You have good reason to believe you will, but it still boils down to belief.

Think about it: you give the man at the bank $1000 , he gives you a piece if paper with the bank's logo on it. From that moment you are living on "faith" . "Faith" that the bank as an institution is honest. Faith that the legal and financial institutions that guarantee (read : promise) you that, should you need your money back, that worthless scrap of paper can be exchanged for cold, hard cash.

You cannot SEE your $1000 any more (it's an "unseen reality"). Moreso in today's digital age, where you worked hard and then your client or employer transfered the money directly into your bank account. You never saw the physical cash, you just saw some numbers on a computer screen or at the bank go from zero to 1000. You believe that the system will honour what all those digital numbers represent. And you act on that belief. You Swipe your credit card to pay for the petrol (American English "gas") in your car. You buy your kids shoes. You buy groceries. Spending money that you cannot - or even perhaps have never, and will never actually see.


FAITH is simply, having confidence that the evidence that you can see (bank receipt) is a reflection of a reality ($1000 deposit) that you cannot.


JW

ps: I wrote my response before I read 1213's excellent post above.

Nice one. But a fallacy again. Let me give an example. The earth looks flat to us, but it is not, when science examones it. Thus science shows that what seems to be the work of a god is not.

Analogy is better used to explain in a simpler way a validated truth that is harder to understand. it should not be used (misused) to validate (by implication) an unvalidated claim.

Obvious example. the claim that i have a car in my garage does not make a claim that I have a fire breathing dragon in my garage more credible.

[fredonly]

This fellow gives the whole agenda and argument away by going after 'scientism', which is merely Theistic smearing: inventing a deprecating name for a strawman sliming of science (which they otherwise trust every day of their miserable lives) to discredit it - where they see it as undermining their Faith.

Science is (as they well know: John pointed up scientists with conflicting hypotheses) founded on question and scepticism, not some kind of Dogma written in stone. Ot is not an ism but an ever - revised body of explanatory data. Theist apologetics so often shows it does not understand science nor indeed logic, and yet keeps on making pronouncements about it, as strawman ones, too.

Over to you both

Apologists use scientism as a strawman. Science is arguably the best approach to gaining new knowledge, because it is objective, and (in the long run) self-correcting. The slam against the strawman of scientism is that it is self-defeating. Apologist Ed Feser writes,

"that science is even a rational form of inquiry (let alone the only rational form of inquiry) is not something that can be established scientifically. For scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle."

He's right that everyone makes those assumptions, and science can't explain them. Feser then proudly proclaims he has the solution: Thomist metaphysics. It does provide a hypothetical account for the issues he brings up, but it's pure hypothesis- untestable and unfalsifisble - so it can't be considered knowledge in the strict philosophical sense. Feser cannot possibly claim it is THE answer. Metaphysical naturalism can account for those issues as well. It's also a hypothesis, but it demonstrates that Feser's questions do not entail a supernatural answer.

[TRANSPONDER]

This fellow gives the whole agenda and argument away by going after 'scientism', which is merely Theistic smearing: inventing a deprecating name for a strawman sliming of science (which they otherwise trust every day of their miserable lives) to discredit it - where they see it as undermining their Faith.

Science is (as they well know: John pointed up scientists with conflicting hypotheses) founded on question and scepticism, not some kind of Dogma written in stone. Ot is not an ism but an ever - revised body of explanatory data. Theist apologetics so often shows it does not understand science nor indeed logic, and yet keeps on making pronouncements about it, as strawman ones, too.

Over to you both

Apologists use scientism as a strawman. Science is arguably the best approach to gaining new knowledge, because it is objective, and (in the long run) self-correcting. The slam against the strawman of scientism is that it is self-defeating. Apologist Ed Feser writes,

"that science is even a rational form of inquiry (let alone the only rational form of inquiry) is not something that can be established scientifically. For scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle."

He's right that everyone makes those assumptions, and science can't explain them. Feser then proudly proclaims he has the solution: Thomist metaphysics. It does provide a hypothetical account for the issues he brings up, but it's pure hypothesis- untestable and unfalsifisble - so it can't be considered knowledge in the strict philosophical sense. Feser cannot possibly claim it is THE answer. Metaphysical naturalism can account for those issues as well. It's also a hypothesis, but it demonstrates that Feser's questions do not entail a supernatural answer.

Indeed. I could go on a dissertation about casting atheism/secularism as a Religion (or a Faith - claim at least) and how the same thing is done with science 'Scientism', and even how odd it is that this somehow discredits it, even when they praise Faith so long as it is the one they like.

But interesting though that is, it would be surplus to the discussion because it is false. Science is not based on faith but what can be validated. The Believers may dismiss this as human opinion if it isn't what they want to hear, but if they dismiss science and logic, they cannot appeal to science and logic...when it suits them.

"There are many religions; there is only one science".

Scientists argue all the time, but this makes it stronger because the consensus has been thrashed out and can broadly be relied on. What is pretty sure but not proven (as the Higgs - Boson was not until it was) deserves more credibility than a mere faithclaim, but even religious denial does not make a case for Theism, much less religion; so all this discussion is useless.

Epistemology or the sliding scale of credibility, which is often mistaken for...what...how should I put it...? degrees of Belief or Faith, which it is not. Epistemology puts evidence (or reasoning) in the balance for or against credibility, but one either believes or does not. It is not degrees of belief. But that is a side issue. No matter what tomes are printed and sold, the basics are as simple as atheism is the logical response to agnosticism and all the rest is waste paper and waffle - we either give science some credit or we don't, and we credit human rules or logic or we don't.

If we do, then the case for theism fails on evidence and reason, though the debate we have here (apart from holybook debates) is about the case for theism (various kinds of ID, which fail or are debatable) or theism rejects science and human logic, in which case they are nothing but a worthless faithclaim.

It, too, is really quite simple, even though the theists and religious apologists snowball us with Authorities waffle and rhetoric in order to confuse us.

We can and should not be bamboozled by these lawyer - tricks.

cue: 'alternative science'. Yes, but again, what is not validated (Bigfoot, Atlantis, Flying saucers (1) ancient advances technology, ghosts, gods, remains irrelevant as validated evidence for anything. And a fascinating study (like Theist -thinking) is how ancient advanced technology (Daainiken/Chariots of the gods) has been used to discredit science by Bible apologists.

(1) I don my Semantic not -pick hat. UFO merely means an unidentified object in the air. But it is often used as a synonym for flying saucer, which itself is a synonym for an extra -terrestrial space (or inter- dimensional) craft probably piloted by an extra -terrestrial being.

[John17_3]

[Replying to fredonly in post #263]

It's the same question. I mistakenly thought you had some knowledge of standard philosophical terminology.

Metaphysical naturalism is a metaphysical "theory". Thomist metaphysics is another metaphysical theory (created by Thomas Aquinas, based largely on Aristotelian metaphysics - another theory). Each theory describes the fundamental basis of reality. Theories are mutually exclusive: if Thomism is true, then naturalism (and all others) is false; if naturalism is true, then Thomism is false.

So my question was: do you believe a person could rationally believe naturalism - the metaphysical theory?

A belief in any proposition is rational if it can be "rationally justified". This means that it can be shown true through logically valid arguments (deductive and abductive are the most common). Such arguments aren't necessarily persuasive to another person, because there is some subjectivity involved in abduction, and metaphysical theories always have "first principles" (or axioms) that the other person may reject.

Quoting a poster in this thread...
if nobody can show how tis or that happened, it meand 'we don't know'

When one does not know, and cannot say, "Well, we don't know.", but builds a "theory" on presumptions - believing upon probable evidence; assuming or taking for granted; belief upon incomplete proof, or evidence, that person, or such persons are not demonstrating rationality.
When we start off irrational, we cannot end rational, because our foundation is faulty.

I suspect this question is not going to be satisfied with a few words, so I suggest you start a new thread, since this is off topic... Although, to some degree it is on topic, since building on assumptions is basically believing without proof, which is the modern definition of faith, accepted by most.

It's your choice, but I am considering Forum Rule number 4.
Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.

My question is: can you rationally justify your belief in Chrstianity? Identifying the belief as "faith" doesn't fix weak reasoning.

The question was answered, and your last comment ignores what is actually said.