Belief in God is irrational

You are mistaken in your representation of "the God portrayed in the Bible" Have you read the Bible or are you just misrepresenting its teaching by hearsay? Either way your representation is merely prejudicial conjecture. What is the basis of your assumption? What is your concrete evidence? You stated: "I have complete control over my life." I assume because of "ultimate freewill" as you say later. This is quite an arrogant statement. It's also quite irrational and untrue. Your nature is one of being an atheist. I must challenge you then to will yourself, against your atheistic nature, to be a believer. You cannot control that over your life. You assume your will is free, your prime mover, but you fail to recognize that your will is motivated by something more basic in your nature - your desires. That is not an argument just simply an unfounded opinion. This next section is interesting: "You quoted: "My final authority or ultimate standard is the Bible" Here lies the greatest dilemma in this entire argument/debate. The Bible is not a credible source or explanation for the existence of your God. We do not prove anything to be true via conjecture or through axiomatic truths. (Since you simply assert - "The Bible is not a credible source or explanation for the existence of your God." - with no corroborating evidence, comparing it to the Quran, you have "applied incorrectly," and so "it constitutes a false dichotomy, a fallacy." Do you reject the existence of Allah? (Yes) What about the Quran? (No, it exists) Isn't that "proof" for their God's existence? (No) Even though you seemed to be able to accurately quote my statement on my "ultimate authority" you have not accurately understood it. I did not say the Bible proved God's existence. It is the objective, inspired, written, self-revelation of His person and works concerning human history. On whatever it speaks it is truth. It is therefore by what I as a Christian measure all questions and controversies. Furthermore, we are all atheists in some form or another. (How do you know that about everyone? Have you universally "observed" that? To say one is a theist and an atheist at the same time is of course illogical.) You reject the existence of the thousands upon thousands of other Gods before yours. I beg the simple question: Why? (There can be only one.) On what grounds is your God real, and theirs false? (As you know I stated my ground is Scripture, so on the authority of the Bible's clear statements eg: "So that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and there is no savior besides Me." Isaiah 43:10b-11 "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me." Isaiah 44:6) "We do not prove anything to be true via conjecture or through axiomatic truths." con•jec•ture 1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. 2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation. 3. Obsolete. the interpretation of signs or omens. In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not and cannot be proven within the system based on them. Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory and domain dependent) truths… Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be universally true… http://en.wikipedia.org... (I thought we agreed that the Laws of Logic were universally true? So your argument above violates the very thing you are trying to accuse me of doing. Your statement is a conjecture - an arbitrary prejudicial conjecture - an irrational, unargued, philosophical bias.) According to your opening argument, your ultimate authority for believing in the Christian God is the Bible. I ask: was the Bible inspired by God or written by God? (His message sent via the divine authors, to the authors, or did the authors deduct what they thought God would say or act?) I've heard very little of these 40 authors and their backgrounds/credibility. do you believe in all biblical writings as truthful, or like many theists, do you cherry-pick the passages that give credence to your beliefs and reject the others that go against your beliefs?-- or make the cop-out argument: "that story is taken out of context" This will be very important for other components of this debate. (According to 2Timothy 3:16 – "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" "Now, it is common for folks to misunderstand what Paul is saying here, as if he is simply saying that the Scriptures exist on a slightly higher plane than the 'normal' words of men; that is not what he taught. He used the Greek term theopneustos, which means 'God-breathed' or 'breathed out by God,' and this tells us that the very Scriptures themselves are the creation of God, reflecting His very breath, His very speaking." http://www.aomin.org... Inspiration establishes that the Bible is a divine product. In other words, Scripture is divinely inspired in that God actively worked through the process and had his hand in the outcome of what Scripture would say. Inspired Scripture is simply written revelation. "Scripture is not only man's word, but also, and equally God's word, spoken through man's lips or written with man's pen" (J.I. Packer, The Origin of the Bible, p. 31). The term comes from Latin and English translations of the Greek word theopneustos in 2 Timothy 3:16. The KJV renders it "inspiration", while the RSV uses "inspired of God". However, the word literally means "God-breathed". http://www.theopedia.com... To the second point I believe in the "plenary" inspiration of the Bible. I will also say that proper interpretation must take into account the vital aspect of context.) "Until you can prove that the Bible is a credible document, my original contention that belief in God is irrational will remain true." (The Bible as a "credible document" - Dr. F. F. Bruce, the late Ryland's Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, asserts of the New Testament: "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament."8 Professor Bruce further comments, "The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical writers, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt."9 How can the Bible be rejected when its documentation is one hundred times that of other ancient literature? Because it is impossible to question the world's ancient classics, it is far more impossible to question the reliability of the New Testament.13 In addition, none of the established New Testament canon is lost or missing, not even a verse, as indicated by variant readings. By comparison, the books of many ancient authors are filled with omissions: 107 of Livy's 142 books of history are lost, and one-half of Tacitus' 30 books of Annals and Histories. For Polybius, only five complete books remain from the original forty. Finally, the Gospels are extremely close to the events which they record. The first three can be dated within twenty years of the events cited, and this may even be true for the fourth gospel. This means that all four Gospels were written during the lives of eyewitnesses, and that abundant opportunity existed for those with contrary evidence to examine the witnesses and refute them.) http://www.johnankerberg.org... "Unfortunately, self-attestment for the existence of God as predicated upon by the Bible is irrational." … Why is this irrational? Because circular reasoning is irrational. (We both begin with and appeal to a final judge of evidence for truth and knowledge to justify our ground of belief. My final authority is the Bible your ultimate standard is science. "Unless we reason in a circle, we cannot prove anything. We must reason in a circle so we can show the consistency of the Christian faith and worldview and how it alone can account for the foundations of logic, science, and ethics. The truth of the Bible is a presupposition of Christianity. It is an assumed premise. All worldviews hold to presuppositions, those things which are assumed to be true from the outset. How can you justify your use of inductive reasoning? If you seek to justify it by using past experience were it has been successful, that assumes the future will be like the past. Therefore, induction is justified by induction. This is circular reasoning in the classical sense. Christians on the other hand are appealing to the authority of God since He has saved them and they can do no other. They cannot deny their Savior. Christians also make use of this fact when testing the consistency of worldviews. In order to do so, you must assume the premises of that worldview are true. Every worldview has presuppositions, so this is not something that is unique to the Christian faith." http://www.cmfnow.com... ) "You brought up the 3 main laws of logic but failed to present a case for their applicability". Since the debate is over the philosophical issue of rationality and rationality unavoidably includes the Laws of Logic I sought a confirmation from you that they exist and that you attempt to use them in argumentation and everyday living as a necessary component of reasoning and reality and morality.