It is reasonable to believe in the Christian god

First of all, the debate is kind of misleading but for the sake of making my points, I'll leave that issue aside. It is the issue of the "Christian God." There is no such thing as the specifically "Christian God" or "Muslim God" etc. There is only the being known as God which is basically the concept of a fundamental reality and supreme first cause. This cause has various attributes. Now, whether such a being exists is a question of philosophy. However, it is a DIFFERENT question as to which religion to follow. THe existence of a fundamental being does not tell us WHETHER that being has communicated to man, and if so, WHICH revelation is correct. Christianity, Islam, etc. are claims that the fundamental being (i.e. God) has revealed Himself. Thus, it is possible to have God exist without revealing Himself. So its a different issue altogether. In any case, I'm going to be arguing that believing in Christianity in general is reasonable, which is what I take it that you mean, even though you assume (wrongly as I point out above) that this entails a "specific God." I am NOT arguing that Christianity is TRUE, only that it is RATIONAL. In bold are things that I think are good reasons to believe something is rational. 1. A belief is rational if rational people believe in it This is one criterion for rationality. It is not the only one, but it is indicative of rationality. There are many rational people in the present day who believe in God in general and Christianity in particular. The fact that these people are rational is defensible on the grounds that they contribute great work in areas of science, history, philosophy, mathematics, and theology. They have had great influences and anyone with any intelectual honesty would admit they are rational even if they happen to be incorrect.Since we are talking about Christianity, I will leave aside great thinkers who believed in the God of "Classical theism" in general (e.g. Aristotle arguably): Aquinas, Augustine, Albert the Great, Nicholas of Cussa, Wiliam of Ockham, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Boyle, Keplar, Descartes, Lincoln, Farraday, Lemaitre, Pasteur, Fr. Jaki, S. Barr, Fr. Spitzer, Craig, Plantinga, Mother Theresa^All arguably intelligent, reasonable, people. Obviously, a random list I came up with that spans 1000+ years and many different disciplines. 2. A belief is rational if it has parsimonious explanatory value of facts in our worldScience shows the existnece of various coincidents in the laws and constants of nature. These values are considered coincidents because they all converge to allow for a stable universe with stable matter and ultimately for life. It seems highly improbable that this would be the case unless the universe were FINE TUNED for the existence of life which would indicate a designer(s) who cared about purpose in the universe. This is at least a reasonable pointer to the God of Christiantiy even if not proof.Another example would be explaining the apparent existence of transcendant features of the world. For instance, the existence of love, self-sacrafice, and morality all make better sense in a theistic, and specifically Christian framework. A materialist has a harder time explaining these because they seem to transcend matter.^These are just two examples, not proofs of God or Christianity, just two reasons why Chrsitianty can be seen as a parsimonious explanation to the human condition. 3. A belief is rational if it can explain deep mysterious of human existence and serve as a compass in lifeIt is a mystery why we are here, what we must do while we are here, and where we are going after death. If materialism is true, then we are stuck in a world without inherent purpose in which every last person we love will eventually be nothing, and in fact, even now is nothing but a collection of particles interacting. Religion makes sense of these mysteries, and specifically the Judeo-Christian tradition with its belief in the afterlife, Ressureciton of the Bodies, and value of redemptive suffering.Christian socities generally have also been on the whole better than some of their barbairic counterparts. This doesn't prove truth but it shows beleif in the system is at least reasonable. For instance, the concept of human rights developed in the West, the part of the world where the Church shaped society. Similarly, Christianity generally promotes the equality of men and women, especially by promoting monogomous marriages which in Muslim countries and pagan nations this and many other rights are not granted to women. Even if many Christians have done wrong, the system itself which has been founded on "Love your neighbor" and more than any other religion emphasizes this concept in the very fact that Christians believe that GOD HIMSELF died for the sins of every individual person. A moral framework with this as a foundation is going to have its benefits that a reasonable person may want to be a part of.4. A belief is rational if there are rational arguments for its truth.There are rational arguments for the existnece of God. These range from design arguments, to cosmological, to ontological and on and on. Some are more deeply philosophical, others are more scientific, others are simple and intuitive. To dismiss a tradition of theistic philosophy as irrational that goes back to the time of the greatest thinkers in history including Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Avencia, Aquinas, Anselm, etc. Is simply and obviously the height of arrogance Now I will offer a simple argument for the existence of God: 1) There exists in the world things that are contingent, namely things that could exist or could not exist. 2) Contingent things point outside of themselves for the explanation of their existence because they cannot explain their own existence. 3) If all that existed was contingent, all existing things would have to point outside of itself for the explanation of existence4) There exists nothing outside of "all that existed"Therefore, there must be something that is not contingent, i.e. something that is necessary and explains its own existence. In the interest of space, I can't defend each of these premises at length. Basically I will point out however the following:1) This premise is certainly true as things we can concieve of fail to exist and things which do exist we could concieve of as failing to exist2) Since a thing is contingent, by definition, it cannot explain its own existence. WHAT it is does not entail THAT it exists, hence if it is intelligible at all, its explanation is in something else.3) This is based on a broad application of the principle of mereological composition...even if not taken in its extreme version, I still think that this premise is hard to deny. Great Muslim philosopher Avicenna argued for this premise specifically.Now, you may retort "a necessary being isn't God!" but that misses the point. The specific traits of a necessary being have been defended at length. I can go into this later. And certianly this doesn't show CHRISTIANITY is true, but it lends credence to the belief since Christians are the largest group in the world to believe in a necessary being (a uinque God independent of all things) 5. A belief is rational if the opposing view has serious flaws Materialism has some serious flaws, maybe there are answers, but the flaws are serious.Example 1: Free will. If all we are is matter, how can we be truly free? Matter is governed by laws which entail there is no freedom. If this is the case, there is no such thing as true morality either. Since most atheists are materialists and think that the two are very much related, this is a problem for atheism.Example 2: Apparent order in the universe: How can the universe be governed by such regularities and precise mathematical laws if not a product of a mind? How can the universe be through and through intelliglbe if not govnered by a mind. Either it is fundamentally irrational (as some atheists believe) or it is rational but then this leaves us asking: WHY? made by a mind?