Is it rational to be a theist?

[harvey1]

According to an atheist, there are few, if any, reasons to believe that God exists, and the God belief has been passed down from pre-scientific times in the guise of religion. The atheist often believes this in itself is good reason to reject the existence of God. The atheist might even say it is not rational to believe in God. Is it rational to be a theist?

[The Happy Humanist]

Although our minds and bodies are composed of particles (strings or whatever) acting according to the regularities of physical law (QED, gravitation or whatever) we have no sense of the interactions on a one-to-one level.

I'm not asking for you to have knowledge of the interactions. I'm asking how it is possible in principle for there to be causation based on a material model. That is your task because I can provide such an account in principle by talking about nomic laws that exist. If you cannot do this, then that demonstrates that you are believing in a material model with an overhanging contradiction.

So our access to such things is necessarily restricted to the mathematical models we can manage to construct.

We both agree on this part. However this is no excuse for not providing a description of how causation can arise in principle from a material line of cause.

Now when I point out that nature is not, in turn, constrained by our (or anyone elses) feeble attempts to describe her properly you're only comeback seems to be that this would be a terrible admission if it was applied to the Nazis. Have I got this right? You're trying to get me to face the contradiction of my beliefs, but all I can see is an extraordinarily weak argument coming from your end.

QED, you are asking people to believe you when you say that theism is irrational. Okay, let's look seriously at your claim. We get to the point where we find that you believe something based on a contradiction to cause, and you want us to continue to believe you regardless. That's not altogether different than if some atheist asked us to believe them that Hitler is alive and giving them instructions. Both are not only unverifiable, the perspective contradicts reason. Why should we believe something is rational if it contradicts reason? Why should we believe something is irrational when its converse philosophy is having serious contradictions with our experience of there being real cause in the world?

I'm getting a little disappointed here because you just won't address the argument. It seems like you want to address the Hitler reference as the argument which leads me to think that you are not even comprehending this discussion. Please, give me some encouragement that you understand the philosophical impact that causation has on materialist beliefs.

Harvey, I see where you're going with this...and I call foul.

The basis of your accusation of a fundamental contradiction seems to be that atheists espouse a purely material universe, and yet we are not able to demonstrate a physical, material basis for causality, as illustrated by your infinitessimal time-slice having no bearing on the next time slice. Have I got this right?

First, I think the "time-slicing" is an artifice. I can take a graph of the Dow Jones Industrials, slice it into minute-by-minute puzzle pieces, and I will get no insight as to market movements; this does not invalidate the dynamics of the stock market.

Second, I think this whole thing is yet another example of Xeno's Paradox. Suppose we were able to demonstrate the mechanics of causality in a purely material manner. Suppose we found a particle called a "bleen" that was the "cause" of causality. You could then ask where the bleen came from, or what it was made of, or what caused it to be the cause of causality? We could then investigate further, and perhaps find that the bleen is made of micro-bleens that glue together infinitessimal time slices in such a way as to cause the the next time-slice. It could all be very, very materialistic, demonstrable, provable, etc....and there would be nothing constraining you from asking where the micro-bleens got their programming. Does this prove God? Does it even prove a "cosmic mind" that you seem to be asserting?

Put more succinctly: The universe could be absolutely, totally, 100% materialistic, and within your mindset there would be no way to discover that fact. You would be forever trapped in an infinite regression of your own making...your mind would be a prisoner of its own inability to fathom the concept of mindless causation.

I hope your brain has an ESCape key.

[harvey1]

It seemed to me that harvey1's assertion should at the least be presented a little more tentatively.

Why? I don't see Spetey presenting his argument that God is unknown to exist because of the PoE as very tentative given our lack of knowledge. Is Spetey wrong? I don't think he is wrong for constructing an argument that tries to show that in principle God's existence is improbable given the problem of evil. The reason I don't think he is wrong is because of this issue here. If one cannot offer a conceptual solution to a straightforward problem, then more than likely the reason is that the belief is wrong. Rather than face this consequential line of reasoning, all I see are cavils coming from you, Curious, and The Happy Humanist.

Remember, it wasn't me berating you for your theory about the crests of waves breaking-off when we were talking about virtual particles. On the contrary, I'm very fond of inventive new ideas -- so long as they are presented with a degree of humility.

Some notions require humility, and some require a bit of frankness. In the case of unworkable conceptualizations, I favor frankness. No sense in living in self-deception.

Harvey1 has alighted upon this single issue about what joins one moment to the next and is attempting to use it to 'prove' that the material realists approach amounts to nothing more than mysticism.

If a belief relies on a mystic response, I see no reason not to say it relies on a mystic response and therefore should not be considered an overly rational belief.

In this debate "Is it rational to be a theist?" there is a great deal of pressure being applied to hinge it on the single issue of causality. This strikes me as being a sort of 'trick' because it takes the discussion into an area which is not yet properly understood by science.

The theory of causality is a study for philosophers, not science. Science is concerned with models that produce experimental verified results. Doing so might favor a particular philosophical theory, but philosophy needs to provide the underlying structure for what science provides evidence for or against. So, let's talk philosophy.

Now it's pretty obvious that "just because science doesn't have all the answers" it mustn't be concluded that it's rational to be a theist. God could be non-existent and still science could be missing many pieces of a wholly natural puzzle.

This view is so absorbed in its own rhetoric that I don't think it deserves a response.

But harvey1 claims that there is an objectives answer to this question and hence claims that it is not a god-by-default argument. The problem that I see with this is that the subject is so poorly understood that we can't even tell if the question is valid

I'm afraid to tell you, that's only because it contradicts what you believe. If it confirmed your beliefs, you'd be saying how inadequate theism is to explain the nature of causation.

-- let alone any answer offered for it. It wouldn't be right if rock-solid answers to ficticious questions were used as foundations for other arguments, so we should all be keen to see that there is something to answer in the first place.

Wow. This basically means that there is no reasoning with you. You will just nullify any view that contradicts your position. That's incredible.

[harvey1]

First, I think the "time-slicing" is an artifice. I can take a graph of the Dow Jones Industrials, slice it into minute-by-minute puzzle pieces, and I will get no insight as to market movements; this does not invalidate the dynamics of the stock market.

If it's an artifice, then why can we not do it? What is the exact error that we are committing? As for your example, we can slice the Dow Jones Industrial graph without any paradoxes. What paradox are you referring to?

Second, I think this whole thing is yet another example of [Z]eno's Paradox. Suppose we were able to demonstrate the mechanics of causality in a purely material manner. Suppose we found a particle called a "bleen" that was the "cause" of causality. You could then ask where the bleen came from, or what it was made of, or what caused it to be the cause of causality? We could then investigate further, and perhaps find that the bleen is made of micro-bleens that glue together infinitessimal time slices in such a way as to cause the the next time-slice. It could all be very, very materialistic, demonstrable, provable, etc....and there would be nothing constraining you from asking where the micro-bleens got their programming. Does this prove God? Does it even prove a "cosmic mind" that you seem to be asserting?

First, THH, please give an explanation for the bleen. If all you want to do is imagine there is a solution because materialism must be right, then you need to question your premise. Notice that is the one thing that is not being done here. It clearly proves to me that most atheists I encounter are not willing to consider that they might be wrong.

Put more succinctly: The universe could be absolutely, totally, 100% materialistic

Hitler could be alive and well and giving instructions to his followers, but that doesn't mean anything to me if you have conceptual problems with that belief.

and within your mindset there would be no way to discover that fact. You would be forever trapped in an infinite regression of your own making...your mind would be a prisoner of its own inability to fathom the concept of mindless causation. I hope your brain has an ESCape key.

Sure, and we could be inside the Matrix. Please provide a counter reply to the argument rather than hope and pray (atheist style) that your materialist beliefs somehow have an answer. I just don't understand the unwillingness here to consider that your beliefs are wrong. What's up with that?

[harvey1]

As I have said, a finite moment can only be divisible by other finite moments. An infinite number of infinite moments is infinite, an infinite number of finite moments is infinite and a finite number of infinite moments is also infinite.

We're talking infinitesimals. In any case, you still haven't responded to the argument that proper time is always based on a clock that marks finite durations. It doesn't matter what composes those finite durations (infinitesimals, planck moments, etc.). We know that we can get a finite duration by adding infinitesimals an infinite number of times. That doesn't mean that the infinitesimal is a finite period. That is in contradiction to what infinitesimals are.

The point I make here is that an infinite number of observers could theoretically observe an event but each moment IN ISOLATION would appear finite to the actual event. If the original event were to observe the second event (or observer), so long as there was no stasis in time (such as the event travelling at light speed) then this event would also become finite. Such light speed travel would seem to exclude the transfer of any information from one event to the next.

Please be more clear in your example. Why are you introducing special relativity? Are you saying that special relativity contradicts this notion that I am talking about? Please explain further.

I think this argument would be more productive if used in respect to the percieved POE where finite good (ie. the POE) might be infinitely applied to reach a theoretical outcome of infinite good.

I don't understand what you are talking about here. Please explain.

[The Happy Humanist]

If it's an artifice, then why can we not do it? What is the exact error that we are committing?

You are committing the error of believing that infinitessimal time-slicing has any bearing on understanding causality.

As for your example, we can slice the Dow Jones Industrial graph without any paradoxes. What paradox are you referring to?

I don't recall mentioning a paradox. I'm simply saying there are times when time-slicing is not a useful tool for understanding. To paraphrase a famous quote, "When all you have is a butcher knife, everything looks like a side of beef."

[edit] I take it back, I did mention a paradox, but in the context of your entire argument being an infinite regression, not in the context of time-slicing being invalid.

If all you want to do is imagine there is a solution because materialism must be right, then you need to question your premise. Notice that is the one thing that is not being done here. It clearly proves to me that most atheists I encounter are not willing to consider that they might be wrong.

That is not the point I am making. I'm saying that if a solution is found, it is guaranteed not to be to your satisfaction, if you insist on ever-more-granular explanations for explanations.

First, THH, please give an explanation for the bleen.

I rest my case.

Put more succinctly: The universe could be absolutely, totally, 100% materialistic

Hitler could be alive and well and giving instructions to his followers, but that doesn't mean anything to me if you have conceptual problems with that belief.

When you resort to re-parsing my sentences to make trivial, immaterial points, I have to question the rationality of your arguments. That phrase was not meant to stand on its own in this context, and you know it.

Sure, and we could be inside the Matrix. Please provide a counter reply to the argument rather than hope and pray (atheist style) that your materialist beliefs somehow have an answer.

My point is that you have constructed an argument to which there can be no satisfactory reply, in the deluded belief that it makes a rational point. Insisting on ever-more-granular explanations is a child's game, and approaches - dare I say it? - irrationality. We've managed to use science to nail down explanations for just about everything, save for the first few moments of existence, the exact nature of consciousness, and a few other minor details, and now we're down to infinitely small pieces of time? And on this you pin your hopes of resurrecting the Elohim from the scrap heap of ancient mythology?

I just don't understand the unwillingness here to consider that your beliefs are wrong. What's up with that?

Please, spare me your attempts to claim the philosophical high ground. We (non-theists) are here because we've considered the possibility of our wrongness over and over and over and over, and the more we consider it, the more sense a materialistic universe makes to us, especially when the best argument your side can make is that we still haven't nailed down causality. Its simple parsimony, Harvey. It's because you have to write paragraphs like this:

Okay. When I say there was (probably) no logical constraint in 2004 to stop the Tsunami, I mean there is no theorem of math or logic which would deterministically in an outright manner prevent God from doing what God sometimes does, and that is imposing God's influence on the physical world so that it goes in the direction God wills the world to go. That doesn't mean that God can at will interfere with the world. The logical constraints themselves are quite hefty in terms of working around. The laws of physics are deterministic laws in a great percentage of the workings of the universe, and those laws are based on logical possibility propositions (i.e., this is what I believe). Therefore, God is quite limited in imposing the divine will on the world from the logical constraints alone. However, God gets the job done, and more than likely, I think, could have worked around the physical laws and stopped the 2004 tsunami. It is in this sense that God could have stopped the tsunami in 2004.

Now, you want to know about the physical constraints. Let me be clear: God was physically constrained in stopping the 2004 tsunami. Whenever there is a physical constraint on God, it is equivalent to a logical constraint. The difference is that a logical possibility proposition puts an immediate--no mistake about it--limitation on what God can and cannot do. The physical possibility propositions do not have this immediate and concise limitation on God. These physical possibility propositions are subject to a great deal of interpretation, and this is where God must decide case by case on where the murkiness of the interpretation allows God to act in positive ways for the world, and when the interpretation to do so would be stretched beyond what is a reasonable interpretation of the physical possibility propositions, and to stretch those interpretations any further would certainly result in a logical constraint violation. Thus, God was physically constrained to stop the 2004 tsunami because the divine will could not stretch the interpretations of the physical possibility propositions far enough to prevent a major tsunami somewhere along this recent period, and God felt that the most minimum damage would be to allow the 2004 tsunami. So, the 2004 tsunami was as minimum as possible. God as all-good limited the scope of the pain as much as was possible given the physical constraints that were backed up by logical constraints such that there was no way possible for God to supercede those physical constraints.

...when we can write paragraphs like this:

No god. Stuff happens. We're working on why.

This has been fun, Harv, but please, get off your high horse and stop with the "we've shown atheism to be irrational" bit. You've done no such thing.

[Curious]

For one finite second to be capable of being divided into an infinite number of infinitely small moments then each finite second must be exactly divisible by each infinite moment.

It is divisible by an infinite number of infinitesimals. In other words, it takes an infinite number of infinitesimals to equal one second (or any other finite duration of time).

Not so. An infinite number of infinite moments can only ever add up to an infinite moment.
Ok, lets take your above argument and apply it to your next statement.

If this is not the case then either every moment is not infinitely small (and so every moment is not) or each moment is finite. If the second is divisible then each moment is, by definition, finite.

No. Each infinitesimal moment is not finite. If you add an infinitesimal moment to other infinitesimal moments, it will never equal a finite moment unless we add it an infinite number of times. Therefore, it is plain incorrect to think of the infinitesimal as a finite number.

You say that that an infinite moment plus an infinite moment will never equal a finite moment in the first quote. Here you say that it is possible if we add it an infinite number of times. Ok here is the problem:
This can be reduced to saying we add one infinite moment to another.
1 infinite moment is equivalent to 2 infinite moments which is equivalent to infinite, infinite moments. I could say that any number of infinite moments equals 1 infinite moment( it does ) so even infinite additions of infinite moments will not give a different result from that of adding 1 infinite moment to 1 more infinite moment (or adding nothing at all).

[Curious]

As I have said, a finite moment can only be divisible by other finite moments. An infinite number of infinite moments is infinite, an infinite number of finite moments is infinite and a finite number of infinite moments is also infinite.

We're talking infinitesimals. In any case, you still haven't responded to the argument that proper time is always based on a clock that marks finite durations. It doesn't matter what composes those finite durations (infinitesimals, planck moments, etc.). We know that we can get a finite duration by adding infinitesimals an infinite number of times. That doesn't mean that the infinitesimal is a finite period. That is in contradiction to what infinitesimals are.

The only contradiction is the one that suggests that a finite quantity can be made of of an infinite number of infinite quantities. You say here that we know that a finite quantity can be made of an infinite number of finite quantities when what we in fact know is the exact opposite. I have shown why this cannot be the case in my above post. If this is a flawed argument then please show why it is flawed. Your observation that finite time is always measured by a clock that measures finite durations does not in any way support the hypothesis of infinite time. All it supports is finite time existence. What should I respond to exactly as the observation you make does not support your theory in any case?

The point I make here is that an infinite number of observers could theoretically observe an event but each moment IN ISOLATION would appear finite to the actual event. If the original event were to observe the second event (or observer), so long as there was no stasis in time (such as the event travelling at light speed) then this event would also become finite. Such light speed travel would seem to exclude the transfer of any information from one event to the next.

Please be more clear in your example. Why are you introducing special relativity? Are you saying that special relativity contradicts this notion that I am talking about? Please explain further.

Action at point A appears finite to Observers from A,B,C,D etc. Similarly all observers will observe all other actions at all other points as being finite. Each observation will not however be able to say the action is THEIR finite duration as all other observations have different durations. The duration of action is therefore infinite. In this way it is possible for a finite moment to consist of an infinite number of finite observations, which can be considered themselves infinite because the action of the observer is also infinite in respect to all other observers. I am unsure whether this explanation is any clearer than my previous one but it amounts to the same thing.

I think this argument would be more productive if used in respect to the percieved POE where finite good (ie. the POE) might be infinitely applied to reach a theoretical outcome of infinite good.

I don't understand what you are talking about here. Please explain.

I think that such an explanation would be more appropriate in the aforementioned thread where it might or might not be shown to have any bearing on the question at hand. My main point is that this line of reasoning when concerned with whether or not theism is rational does not seem to support either opinion. That you might or might not be shown to be rational in this case says little in respect to whether theism itself is rational. If all theists had considered such an idea and formed their beliefs accordingly it might, but since they almost certainly did not, it doesn't.

I find it incredible that causation is used as an argument in support of theism as the majority of theistic belief seems to ignore this point entirely in respect to the existence of God.

[harvey1]

It is divisible by an infinite number of infinitesimals. In other words, it takes an infinite number of infinitesimals to equal one second (or any other finite duration of time).

Not so. An infinite number of infinite moments can only ever add up to an infinite moment. Ok, lets take your above argument and apply it to your next statement.

What do you mean by infinite moment? A moment that lasts infinitely long? I'm talking about an infinitesimal moment: a moment that lasts infinitesimally long (1/infinity sec). If you multiply infinity seconds * (1/infinity sec) you get 1 second. You get a finite duration that is measurable on a clock (i.e., proper time).

You say that that an infinite[simal] moment plus an infinite[simal] moment will never equal a finite moment in the first quote. Here you say that it is possible if we add it an infinite number of times. Ok here is the problem: This can be reduced to saying we add one infinite[simal] moment to another. 1 infinite[simal] moment is equivalent to 2 infinite[simal] moments which is equivalent to infinite[simal], infinite[simal] moments. I could say that any number of infinite[simal] moments equals 1 infinite[simal] moment( it does ) so even infinite additions of infinite[simal] moments will not give a different result from that of adding 1 infinite[simal] moment to 1 more infinite[simal] moment (or adding nothing at all).

I corrected the above passage so that it is understandable compared to what I'm saying. Notice, adding infinitesimal moments is an infinitesimal moment. If you add them an infinite number of times, it equals one finite duration of time (shown above).

The only contradiction is the one that suggests that a finite quantity can be made of of an infinite number of infinite quantities. You say here that we know that a finite quantity can be made of an infinite number of finite quantities when what we in fact know is the exact opposite. I have shown why this cannot be the case in my above post. If this is a flawed argument then please show why it is flawed. Your observation that finite time is always measured by a clock that measures finite durations does not in any way support the hypothesis of infinite time. All it supports is finite time existence. What should I respond to exactly as the observation you make does not support your theory in any case?

You shouldn't confuse infinite with an infinitesimal.

Action at point A appears finite to Observers from A,B,C,D etc. Similarly all observers will observe all other actions at all other points as being finite. Each observation will not however be able to say the action is THEIR finite duration as all other observations have different durations. The duration of action is therefore infinite.

The duration of action is a finite time based on each individual's proper time which is relative to their FOR (frame of reference). If an infinite number of observers make an observation, they always do so in their FOR. This has no impact to how their proper time has been sliced into infinitesimals. I think you should drop this SR tangent, it does not help your case.

That you might or might not be shown to be rational in this case says little in respect to whether theism itself is rational. If all theists had considered such an idea and formed their beliefs accordingly it might, but since they almost certainly did not, it doesn't. I find it incredible that causation is used as an argument in support of theism as the majority of theistic belief seems to ignore this point entirely in respect to the existence of God.

We don't have to agree most of the time. However, you do need to understand a little better how a finite numbe of infinitesimals seconds add up to infinitesimals seconds, and an infinite number of infinitesimal seconds add up to 1 second. Once you make that connection, you'll see that materialism has no answer to this issue of causation whether they think time is infinitely divisible or whether time is finitely divisible. No matter which option a materialist chooses, they come up with severe conceptual problems that I say are unsolvable because materialism is wrong.

[Curious]

What do you mean by infinite moment? A moment that lasts infinitely long? I'm talking about an infinitesimal moment: a moment that lasts infinitesimally long (1/infinity sec). If you multiply infinity seconds * (1/infinity sec) you get 1 second. You get a finite duration that is measurable on a clock (i.e., proper time).

An infinite moment is a moment that is not finite. That is what infinite means. If we were to say that 1 finite second is infinitely small compared to an infinitely long duration we would be correct but the second itself would still be finite in itself. It is only the observation from the position of the infinite duration that makes the finite second appear infinitely small. Any number of these finite moments (which appear to be infinitely small), even an infinite number of them, would never add up to be equal to the infinite moment. Even an infinite number of such infinite moments would never even become more than an infinitely small moment in comparison to the infinitely long duration. As you see, a finite action could then never reach completion by any application of infinitely small "elements" of the action.
It is not possible to divide an infinite amount by a infinite number and reach a finite answer. Any finite number multiplied by (1 divided by the same finite number) is 1. This is not the same for an infinite number as the answer could be anything. Multiplication requires the application of addition sets to one another. How such an application of such a set that itself by definition itself contain all other such sets is unclear so please show me how this would be possible. Of course you could say that a negative number could be infinite if not for the fact that negative numbers are purely conceptual. If you were to say that an infinite number multiplied by an infinite negative number were to equal 1 then this would be incorrect as following your reasoning this would in fact be negative 1. For any number to be divisible by itself and reach the answer 1, it must be finite itself, even if its finiteness is set by itself. It is simply impossible to divide 1 by infinity and reach an answer. Go on, try it if you don't believe me.
1/infinity = >0
infinity*(>0) = infinity.........NOT 1.

You say that that an infinite[simal] moment plus an infinite[simal] moment will never equal a finite moment in the first quote. Here you say that it is possible if we add it an infinite number of times. Ok here is the problem: This can be reduced to saying we add one infinite[simal] moment to another. 1 infinite[simal] moment is equivalent to 2 infinite[simal] moments which is equivalent to infinite[simal], infinite[simal] moments. I could say that any number of infinite[simal] moments equals 1 infinite[simal] moment( it does ) so even infinite additions of infinite[simal] moments will not give a different result from that of adding 1 infinite[simal] moment to 1 more infinite[simal] moment (or adding nothing at all).

I corrected the above passage so that it is understandable compared to what I'm saying. Notice, adding infinitesimal moments is an infinitesimal moment. If you add them an infinite number of times, it equals one finite duration of time (shown above)

I really don't think that my original explanation needed correcting at all. How exactly have you shown that an infinite number of infinite moments equals a finite moment? The addition of 1 infinite moment to another would still makes the result infinite.

The only contradiction is the one that suggests that a finite quantity can be made of of an infinite number of infinite quantities. You say here that we know that a finite quantity can be made of an infinite number of finite quantities when what we in fact know is the exact opposite. I have shown why this cannot be the case in my above post. If this is a flawed argument then please show why it is flawed. Your observation that finite time is always measured by a clock that measures finite durations does not in any way support the hypothesis of infinite time. All it supports is finite time existence. What should I respond to exactly as the observation you make does not support your theory in any case?

You shouldn't confuse infinite with an infinitesimal.

That you think that there is a difference other than a difference in perspective shows that it is not I who is confused.

Action at point A appears finite to Observers from A,B,C,D etc. Similarly all observers will observe all other actions at all other points as being finite. Each observation will not however be able to say the action is THEIR finite duration as all other observations have different durations. The duration of action is therefore infinite.

The duration of action is a finite time based on each individual's proper time which is relative to their FOR (frame of reference). If an infinite number of observers make an observation, they always do so in their FOR. This has no impact to how their proper time has been sliced into infinitesimals. I think you should drop this SR tangent, it does not help your case.

It was meant as an explanation of how a finite moment could be considered to be infinite and how infinite moments could be considered finite, depending on your point of view. I think it absurd that you suggest I should drop special relativity in an argument that is discussing the very nature of time. Far from being an attempt to support my case I am merely pointing out my own observations of your own. If you wish me to drop SR completely then I will happily do so but this does seem rather foolish for you to insist upon as the observations I have mentioned seem to strengthen your case rather than weaken it.

That you might or might not be shown to be rational in this case says little in respect to whether theism itself is rational. If all theists had considered such an idea and formed their beliefs accordingly it might, but since they almost certainly did not, it doesn't. I find it incredible that causation is used as an argument in support of theism as the majority of theistic belief seems to ignore this point entirely in respect to the existence of God.

We don't have to agree most of the time. However, you do need to understand a little better how a finite numbe of infinitesimals seconds add up to infinitesimals seconds, and an infinite number of infinitesimal seconds add up to 1 second. Once you make that connection, you'll see that materialism has no answer to this issue of causation whether they think time is infinitely divisible or whether time is finitely divisible. No matter which option a materialist chooses, they come up with severe conceptual problems that I say are unsolvable because materialism is wrong.

And this shows that theism is rational how exactly?

[edited to correct typos]

[Curious]

duplicate post deleted