Belief in god is justifiable

Thank you, Mhykiel. Clarification “My goal is to show a feeling that god is ‘valuable’ or ‘right’ is completely within reason.” In other words, a valuable or right feeling of god is reasonable. I hope my opponent won’t begrudge me a little clarification, and being a little more concise may help us both. The Kalam Cosmological Argument This is a favored argument of William Lane Craig.1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore: 3. The universe has a cause of its existence. 4. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God. Therefore: 5. God exists. Premise one is continually illustrated by all that surrounds us. Everything that begins to exist has been caused by something. The expansion of the universe, and following this expansion back in time, illustrates the universe had a beginning (The Big Bang). Thus, premise two is valid according to modern scientific observations. Whether you are a theist or an atheist, you will still start from an unexplained starting point when considering origins. The conclusion follows from one and two. Certainly, we could argue back and forth as to which is more plausible (god or no god), as great minds have been doing for centuries, but the answer to the Kalam is irrelevant to this debate. I provide this example of a philisophical argument for god in order to show belief in god can be rationally justified. This argument is in accordance with logic and science, and comes from (or contributes to) a reasonable belief in god. I submit this is a justification for a right and valuable belief in god. Even if one denies the explanation, she must accept the plausibility of its truth, and the value of its historical significance. Rebuttal Con: So My argument is and will be "A feeling that God is right CAN NOT BE shown to be right", the counter proposal rewritten with the definitions. Justifiable: able to be shown to be right or reasonable; defensible. Judging from his argument, Con’s counter proposal does not rely on the definition of justifiable from round 1. His sentence must rely on two different meanings of the word “right”, but as written and supported by his opening argument, he relies on one meaning for the word right (true or correct). Does Justifiable mean true? No. Let’s say I seek to justify a theft. I might discuss how the thief was on hard times and needed the money to provided food for his family. Does this explanation make the actions of the thief ‘true or correct’? No, but my explanation could make the theft defensible or reasonable (which is in line with our definition of justifiable). I ask that Con make his counter proposal conform to the definitions he agreed to. He may choose the alternative to ‘right’ from our definition of “justifiable” (reasonable or defensible). If so, then his statement would read,” A feeling that God is right CAN NOT BE shown to be reasonable (or defensible)”. Of course, the wording is Con’s choice, but if he chooses to remain with his original wording, then let the voter be aware of the equivocation, and Con is not arguing for or against the resolution. Con stated ,”A belief could still be rational (consistent with logic and reality). But it will still be indiscernible (unverifiable, unknown to be true or false)”, and I disagree with this for a number of reasons. First off, rational means being consistent with logic or reason, and not necessarily reality, as Con has defined it. Obviously, rationality may generally concord with reality as we know it, but we have limited knowledge of reality. Learning something new about our reality is not irrational, so I reject his definition. Secondly, belief can be rational (reasonable), and the indiscernible nature of the truth does not change that fact. The truth of these arguments is unverifiable, but that is not the question we are looking to answer. We are not arguing disbelief is more reasonable than belief, or vice versa. We are deciding if a belief in god is justifiable (reasonable/defensible). We are seeking whether a belief stemming from these arguments is reasonable. With examples such as the Kalam, the Argument from desire, and other philosophical arguments, we establish a right feeling of god is indeed justifiable. Back to you, Mhykiel.