It is reasonable to Believe in A Personal God

Just because a lot of people who are otherwise reasonable believe something, doesn't make the belief reasonable. That's the definition of ad populum. There are two ways in which to assess the reasonability of a claim: If evidence conveys that a belief is reasonable. If something is reasonable by the nature of reality. 1b. A claim that may be investigated through the first criteria is the truth of evolution. We can examine the claims that evolution makes, and can analyze the relevant evidence and determine if the evidence points towards the truth of evolution. 2b. This is what is referred to as an analytic proposition, however I have applied it to reason, as opposed to absolute certainty. For example, I believe it is reasonable for me to not believe I am a brain in a vat, or living in the matrix, because this concept is incoherent. In the reality through which we share experience, I am demonstrably not a brain in a vat, and it is incoherent to appeal to an external reality because I can’t experience it, and have no way to investigate it. My argument will primarily hinge on the nature of the latter, but will discuss the nature of evidence and what this means for reasonability. The Argument From Natural Epistemic Investigation Don’t be discouraged by the terms, it’s actually quite simple. P1) We live in the natural realm P2) We can only investigate claims within this realm P3) A personal God is external to this realm C1) We cannot investigate claims pertaining to a Personal God C2) We cannot reasonably believe in a Personal God Given we live in the natural realm, and can only determine things to be reasonable within this realm, and by definition god is external to this realm, we have no basis for assessing the reasonability of this claim, and therefore it is unreasonable to believe it. Remember, the proposition is “is it reasonable to believe X”, not “is X reasonable”. While I will hope to establish that X is unreasonable, I foremost hope to establish that X can’t be established as reasonable, therefore it is unreasonable to believe X. P1:The natural realm, in philosophical context is akin to the universe in scientific context. The natural realm is the totality of material existence(space and time), and by virtue of this definition it is the case that we live in this realm, because we exist and are material. P2: This premise a is bit more contentious, but fairly intuitive. Take any belief X, and ponder how we can come to this belief. For example, if I make the claim that water is composed of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, this claim can be investigated through the scientific method. We have an understanding of what the terms water, hydrogen and oxygen mean, and therefore we can investigate if it appears to be the case that water is composed of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. And if it in fact appears to be the case that water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, which is the same as stating the evidence points towards the reasonability of this claim, then the belief regarding the composition of water is reasonable. This affirms that evidence can establish the reasonability of belief. Any evidential claim can only be investigated in the natural realm because this is the realm we live in, any it is incoherent to ask if we can evaluate evidential claims outside of this realm, because everything we experience,observe, and sense is within this realm. Let’s take a non-evidence claim in order to show that even these types of claims can only be investigated in the natural realm. For example, A rock is a rock, if I’m not looking at it. This is a fundamentally logical claim. A=A, not contingent upon observation. However, laws of logic are descriptions of the natural realm, and cannot be applied to external realms. So, I believe it is reasonable to believe that a rock remains a rock in the absence of observation, because if something is in fact a rock, my lack of observation cannot alter its nature. Given these laws of logic are natural descriptions, and make no claims about reality other than the reality we collectively experience, we cannot investigate non-natural claims through logic. Given that we can only investigate natural claims in a natural world, a non-natural claim cannot be investigated through evidence nor logic, and by virtue, belief in something non-natural is unreasonable, because it cannot begin to be established as reasonable. P3: This is true by definition, if God is transcendent, he is external to the natural world. If God created the universe, he was external to it, otherwise he would have been contained within the universe, and would not be transcendent. C1: Follows from P1-P3 C2: This follows from the nature of reasonable belief. Remember, if something is reasonable, it appears to comport with reality. If a belief appears to comport with reality, then the belief is reasonable, and holding the belief is reasonable. However, since claims relating to a personal God cannot be investigated, they cannot be established to comport with reality, and by virtue, holding the belief is unreasonable. This is true in the natural realm, so it is especially true regarding supernatural claims. If I said there was an orange elephant in a neighboring galaxy, there is no way to investigate this claim, and as such it cannot be demonstrated as reasonable, and therefore it is unreasonable to believe it. If the premises of my syllogism are true, then the conclusions follow based on the nature of reasonable beliefs and the premises themselves. God or Schizophrenia? It is vital to make the distinction between a Personal God, and posited interaction with this God. Recall, a God is personal IF he communicates with humans through some form of communication. The issue isn’t if we can appear to communicate with God through prayer or some medium, because it may entirely be the case that one is praying to nothing. However, if it can be demonstrated that a God actually communicates with humans through some mechanism, then we have a Good reason to believe such a God exists, however I do not see a way for this to be the case. How do we understand communication, and furthermore how do we understand that someone has communicated with us? So the question is how can a God, external to the natural realm, communicate with humans in such a way that they can reasonably establish that a God has communicated with them? My opponent may be tempted to invoke the bible as a communication medium, however this an antecedent to that issue, because if it cannot be established that a God can communicate with humans in a way in which humans can reasonably establish that a God has communicated with them, then the bible is an unreliable source. I will now argue that a human could not reasonably distinguish between a God, and some other source. Divine communication is often displayed in the Form “God told”, but how could the recipient reasonably establish “I have been told by God”? The term “told” implies a verbal communication through some language system, transmitted through voice and received through hearing. There is no way for human to distinguish between a transcendent source of communication and a natural source. For example If God told anyone anything, it could be interpreted as a Schizophrenic episode. Furthermore, I take this to be a more rational interpretation, especially in the context of earlier humans. Humans 2000 years ago did not understand the nature of perceptual disturbances. If God had never communicated with humans up to now, and God attempted to speak to a human, it would undoubtedly be the case that a human, contingent upon if his cognitive faculties were working well, would conclude that he is hearing voices, as opposed to actually communicating with an external source. Earlier humans did not have a good understanding of abnormal psychology, so while they could not reasonably account for these voices, if all conditions were held equal, except for an understanding of abnormal psychology, given it would be unreasonable to conclude that one was the recipient of divine communication now, why would it be reasonable to conclude that one was the recipient of divine communication then?To argue such a point would be to essentially argue that the development of psychology and psychiatry have actually made us less rational, which I think is demonstrably not the case. Conclusion: A belief is reasonable, if it appears to comport with reality. This is demonstrated through evidence and logic. Evidence and logic cannot demonstrate the reasonability of a belief in a personal God A belief in a personal God is not reasonable I am not arguing from ignorance or stating that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, I am merely saying that reasonable beliefs are beliefs that have been established to be reasonable, and if a claim hasn’t been demonstrated to be reasonable, it is not necessarily the case that the belief is unreasonable, merely that it is unreasonable to hold that belief, since it has not been demonstrated to be reasonable. Which was demonstrated through my elephant analogy. A personal God communicates with humans, but could a human reasonably deduce he has been interacted with by God? It is far more reasonable to believe that those who God supposedly interacted with were having schizophrenic episodes, than to believe they actually communicated with God. In her rebuttal, my opponent needs to demonstrate two things: 1.That we can investigate non-natural phenomena, otherwise a belief in a Personal God will be unreasonable so long as we cannot investigate this claim, and subsequently establish it as reasonable. 2. That it would be more reasonable to conclude that one who believes they have been the recipient of divine communication interactions has been actually interacted with by God, than that they were having a schizophrenic episode.