Belief in God is irrational

I appreciate thomas44 for accepting my challenge to debate this topic which he has so recently engaged. I thought it necessary due to the fact that your previous opponent shared your Atheistic worldview subsequently giving up because he had no philosophical disagreement and therefore there was no real debate which he could posit and remain consciously consistent. His conscience could not bear the inconsistency – and rightfully so. My position as a Christian is that the triune God of the Bible necessarily exists and therefore the Christian worldview is the only rational worldview to hold. It will be demonstrated that unless you presuppose God, as He has specially revealed in the Christian scriptures (see Romans 1 http://www.biblegateway.com... ) you cannot account for existence or how you know what you know or how you should live your life. My final authority or ultimate standard is the Bible. To make a reasoned defense the 3 main laws of logic must be maintained. 1.Law of Identity. Everything is what it is. A is A or A is Identical with A. 2. Law of Non-Contradiction. A cannot be A and not A at the same time. 3. Law of Excluded Middle. A is either A or not A Not only are the laws of logic truths, they are necessary truths. This is just to say that they are true propositions that could not have been false. Given that the laws of logic are truths, we can say that they are propositions, in the technical philosophical sense. The Law of Non-Contradiction is a truth about truths. In other words, the Law of Non-Contradiction is a truth about propositions. To present a proposition as true one cannot resort to pure subjectivism or feelings. I assert that the laws of logic exist only because God exists, that they are a reflection of His nature. Further, consistency must be maintained between the set of basic underlying principles (presuppositions) that make up a person's belief system(your worldview) and the propositions presented as truth claims or the argument at that point becomes incoherent. I would like to insert here that rationality or logic is not the only way to prove that something truly exists but the parameters of the debate have been restricted to the rationality or irrationality of belief in (the Christian) God. Neither of us are neutral in this debate so both worldviews must establish the rationality of our opposing truth claims as you noted in your previous post. In this case: "Belief in God is irrational" cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same way. The Law of non-contradiction being clearly assumed and employed. I will proceed by way of an internal critique of our worldviews and demonstrate how the Atheistic worldview is inconsistent, being self-contradictory, therefore irrational. While the Christian worldview supplies the necessary preconditions for intelligibility thereby establishing its rationality. Each opponent in a debate argues through their presuppositions grounded in their ultimate authority and since non-contradiction is an incontrovertible, universal "Law" only my positions can be true… Just wanted to throw a coal on the fire This might prove to be a challenging debate but it should be fun. As a Christian I believe that God created the universe by fiat out of nothing. That He sovereignly governs all things by means of His providence. That He has a decreed and has a purpose for all things whatsoever that comes to pass. This debate should stay focused on the objective claims of the opposing worldviews not resort to subjective personal acts of the people who adhere to the respective systems, being irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the competing worldviews . I must assume God exists in order to argue for the rationality of belief in Him. Thomas44 must assume that God does not exist for him to argue for the irrationality of belief in Him. We both are making a claim. Therefore we both must account for our claims in order to justify the rationality of our belief systems. Christian belief is not blind. Belief and faith are interchangeable in the Christian worldview and are well defined in http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org... as: Specialty Definition: faith Definition FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. Source: Devil's Dictionary Evidence: "Evidence as That Which Justifies Belief - Evidence, whatever else it is, is the kind of thing which can make a difference to what one is justified in believing or (what is often, but not always, taken to be the same thing) what it is reasonable for one to believe.To the extent that what one is justified in believing depends upon one's evidence, what is relevant is the bearing of one's total evidence. Even if evidence E is sufficient to justify believing hypothesis H when considered in isolation, it does not follow that one who possesses evidence E is justified in believing H on its basis. For one might possess some additional evidence E′, such that one is not justified in believing H given E and E′. In these circumstances, evidence E′ defeats the justification for believing H that would be afforded by E in its absence. Thus, even if I am initially justified in believing that your name is Fritz on the basis of your testimony to that effect, the subsequent acquisition of evidence which suggests that you are a pathological liar tends to render this same belief unjustified. A given piece of evidence is defeasible evidence just in case it is in principle susceptible to being undermined by further evidence in this way; evidence which is not susceptible to such undermining would be indefeasible evidence. It is controversial whether any evidence is indefeasible in this sense." http://plato.stanford.edu... It is just here that it must be understood that everyone interprets evidence through their fundamental set of presuppositions. 1.[Noun] Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates.. 2: [Noun] The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition advanced by another; belief, or probable evidence of any kind. 3: [Noun] In theology, the assent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed. Simple belief of the scriptures, of the being and perfections of God, and of the existence, character and doctrines of Christ, founded on the testimony of the sacred writers, is called historical or speculative faith; a faith little distinguished from the belief of the existence and achievements of Alexander or of Caesar. 4: [Noun] Evangelical, justifying, or saving faith, is the assent of the mind to the truth of divine revelation, on the authority of God's testimony, accompanied with a cordial assent of the will or approbation of the heart; an entire confidence or trust in God's character and declarations, and in the character and doctrines of Christ, with an unreserved surrender of the will to his guidance, and dependence on his merits for salvation. In other words, that firm belief of God's testimony, and of the truth of the gospel, which influences the will, and leads to an entire reliance on Christ for salvation. Being justified by faith. Rom. 5. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Heb. 11. For we walk by faith, and not by sight. 2Cor. 5. With the heart man believeth to righteousness. Rom. 10. The faith of the gospel is that emotion of the mind, which is called trust or confidence, exercised towards the moral character of God, and particularly of the Savior. Faith is an affectionate practical confidence in the testimony of God. Faith is a firm, cordial belief in the veracity of God, in all the declarations of his word; or a full and affectionate confidence in the certainty of those things which God has declared, and because he has declared them. Your assertion is that this is irrational. Mine that it is the only rational position to hold. I ask that my opponent briefly explain the contents of his worldview - evolutionist, empiricist, material atheist etc and your ultimate authority (everyone has one). This will greatly help forward the discussion. If I can show that belief in God fulfills the requirements of logic then the Christian worldview is indeed rational and my opponent must therefore concede.