Are there any "rational theists" who claim to have a rational foundation for their theistic belief?

Question

Is anyone here motivated to believe in god because you believe that god's existence has been demonstrated rationally and established through reason? To those of you who answer "yes," I ask: If your arguments were shown to be invalid, would you relinquish your belief in god?

I am not interested in answers from those who believe in god because they "have faith." I am also not interested in supposed valid arguments. Please, no "question begging" such as: "Well how do you explain so and so", or "What do you think causes so and so" I am merely interested in knowing if anyone claims to be a "rational theist" that bases their belief on the supposed validity of rational arguments and if they would give up their belief in god if their arguments were shown to be incorrect.

Note: I do not intend to try to demonstrate the invalidity of such arguments nor do I plan on convincing anyone of anything. Why? I really don't care what people believe in. Just curious about question.

Janie, that is not a rational argument, it's a story you heard about. Besides, I specifically asked to not answer with supposed valid arguments.

Irish Dave: I did not come on here to mock anyone. There are those who believe because of "faith" and those who claim to be "rational atheists". I was politely asking to get an idea because I am curious. You are the one who making a fool of yourself.

I never said it was possible to disprove the existence of god. The burden of proof lies with the theist. But the supposed rational arguments FOR his existence can be shown to be invalid.

Jehen: I agree that the "intelligent design" argument is a point of view. But that argument presupposes that the universe exhibits design. I don't think that it necessarily does.

Answer 1

(longish post, I beg your indulgence. But to be fair, you asked the question :) )

Yes. For me it basically comes down to an Occam's Razor type thing. Looking at the complexity of the world around me, how it all interplays, the sheer genius of some creatures' survival mechanisms, how incredibly hardy and complex the human body is (especially once we start getting close to the cellular level) I just cannot fathom how it would all happen by chance. And that's just biology. Once you start looking at the math and physics involved in determining how finely tuned the universe is, it's mind-bogglingly amazing that the universe, much less life in it, exists at all.
To me, the theories expounded by atheistic scientists require as much, if not more, blind faith. String Theory looked like it might be the answer for a while, but it is not the simple answer they hoped it would be. In order for it to work there have to be at least 29 dimensions (the vast majority of which you just have to have faith are there because we can't detect them.) Multiple Universe theory is on the rise but . . . . c'mon, you can believe in near infinite universes and not God? Finally there's the oscillating universe theory (big bang followed by a big crunch followed by another big bang). This one has the most merit (imho) but the fact is that the expansion of the universe is speeding up, not slowing down (which would be nessecary in order for a big crunch to happen) in addition to which, there is not enough matter in the universe to slow down the inertia of the expansion (there is a lot of dark matter, but there's not nearly enough)

Now it is unlikely that anyone can ever disprove God as far as I am concerned. This is for two reasons: One, you can't prove a negative. You can't disprove God anymore than I can disprove a purple cow (sure the cow is unlikely to exist, but unless I have knowledge of all cows, how could I *prove* that it doesn't exist). "You can't disprove God," is a non-starter as an argument.
Second, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And it would take something truly extraordinary to show how existence could have occurred without divine intervention. The sheer impressiveness of the proof required to alter my belief in God would almost literally be earth shattering in it's awesome. And eye-wateringly beautiful in it's simplicity.

Answer 2

One could point to any number of miracles of chance in the physical world that make it possible for matter, energy, life and even consciousness to exists. We actually know very little about how things came to be or how things work (from an empirical point of view) but some of what must be true is also astonishingly unlikely in the great dice roll of chance in the creation of the universe. If it were different by even a tiny fraction nothing as we know it would exist. This alone is probably enough to see the hand of God for many people. (Me included).

Yes, this is essentially the 'intelligent design' argument. The fact that it can't be tested to the point of scientific proof (currently) does not mean that it is not a rational, well reasoned point of view.

Answer 3

Well, there is no nice way to say this. Both you and your friends are wrong. Your friends are wrong to think that it is irrational to believe in a world where god does not exist and ghosts do exist, and you are wrong to think rationality is subjective. First, rationality can not be based on a single private point of view because if this were true, then a psychotic person who believes that demons speak to him though his dog because that is what he hallucinates would be rational, because from his POV that is exactly what he is experiencing. There is no such thing as different truths for everyone. It is true that we all have experiences and it is true that we have those experiences but that doesn't make what they represent - true. If the only basis for truth that we had was our own private experiences, we would not be justified in saying that another person hallucinates or that any experience we have is true because another person can have the exact opposite experience. If rationality were subjective then no one would be rational. Second, rationality does not mean a set a beliefs that we agree with or a set of beliefs that are true and exclusive of any other set of beliefs. If this were true then we would have to say that no one was rational in the past because their set of beliefs does not match ours. Rational people can be wrong, because our beliefs do not determine what is true. An irrational person holds two mutually exclusive beliefs to be true. It is logically possible that god does not exist and ghost do because we can imagine a world like that. It doesn't mean that we have evidence for it or even believe in it. It simply means that there is no contradiction. Now it is possible to think that god does not exist because one is convinced that only material things exist. In such a case it would be irrational to also believe that non materiel ghosts existed because of the contradiction between the belief that everything is material and something exists that is not material. Short of this, what you describe is a logical possibility, and hence is rational. Evidence has nothing to do with logical possibility. The only thing that is important is the absence of contradiction..

Answer 4

Contrary to the belief of some eyewitness accounts are evidence. Therefore anyone who chooses to believe in something based on eyewitness accounts has developed a rational belief.

Often eyewitnesses have different interpretations of events. Often something that occurs directly in front of someone is un-noticed. Sit in any courtroom where several eyewitnesses to an event are testifying and you will hear a variety of accounts. If everyone who was present testifies some will undoubtedly say they did not see anything.

This is true in religion also.

For example: I have seen Jesus. I have spoken with him and he has spoken back to me. That does not mean that everyone around me when this happened saw the same thing I did. Some people will not have seen anything.

Millions of people over thousands of years have had similar experiences.

If you choose to discount eyewitness testimony as unreasonable evidence that is your choice.

I believe you should lobby congress to have the judicial system of the United States and most other industrialized nations in the world invalidated as unreasonable also.

In fact, you can present yourself and only those who think exactly like you as the "judges of reason", discounting all eyewitness testimony of anything and everything.

Answer 5

Are there any "rational Atheists" who claim to have a rational foundation for their Atheistic belief? It can go both ways. And also this; "I ask: If your arguments were shown to be invalid, would you relinquish your belief in God?" Never because you can never prove God invalid. So I ask you this --I ask: If your arguments were shown to be invalid, would you relinquish your nonbelief in God?
Until you answer these questions I will not bother with yours, because you; As a viper come on here to mock and laugh at us, when you are the one showing your stupidity. If you do not wish to know God then don't come on a Religion and Spirituality forum and ask stupid questions, because you have no foundation here.

Answer 6

"Are there any "rational theists" who claim to have a rational foundation for their theistic belief?"

Yes.

"Is anyone here motivated to believe in god because you believe that god's existence has been demonstrated rationally and established through reason?"

Yes.

"To those of you who answer "yes," I ask: If your arguments were shown to be invalid, would you relinquish your belief in god?"

Yes.

And if after repeated tries you were not able to provide sound defeaters to the premises of a rational argument for God's existence, would you then believe?

HTH

Charles

[Late edit] The burden of proof does *not* belong with the theist.

HTH

Charles

Answer 7

Here is a rational argument; A famous preacher RW Shambach witnessed this; many saw it besides him.
The four year old boy was born blind, deaf, and with no feet. His tongue hung out of his mouth onto his chin.
He was prayed for in Jesus name by AA Allen, an evangelist.
Reverend Shambach said he saw first the boy's tongue snap into his mouth where it belonged. He saw the eyes change from milky white to normal seeing eyes. Then he saw God create feet before all their eyes and the boy was normal and ran to his mother saying mama.
Atheists may yap all they want, but these things happen and no one can go against this argument of seeing it happen before you at the name of Jesus being spoken with faith in Jesus.

Answer 8

You have pretty much set your "rules" to the point that no one could answer. Though I despise this tactic I am still going to answer your question and if you do not like my method, that is your problem.

My belief in God is very "rational". TO ME!!!! That does not mean my reasons would mean crap to you.

FYI - I am a very rational and logical person who strongly believes in the merits of scientific theory. I just do not see that one negates the other.

The Skeptical Christian
Grace and Peace
Peg

Sorry, I thought this question was for Christians, not a opening for atheist to continue their campaign of hate.

Answer 9

Maurice H: I agree that the heart must be involved. After all, when you decide to believe in a theistic god, you certainly aren't thinking rationally. That's why I'm an atheist and I guess I'll just leave my heart to my husband.

Answer 10

Have you ever read Plato's 'The Republic'? That book, written by a pagan philosopher, outlines why it is rational to believe in a monotheistic God.