There is No Rational Reason to Believe in God

Thank you JayShay for debating this resolution with me. Rational ReasoningKey to this discussion is to understand what constitutes a “rational reason” to believe anything. Pro presents a definition for “rational”; being based on facts or reason. “Facts” are true statements that are in accordance with reality. “Reason” can be defined as the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.Logic is the study of inferences from premises to a conclusion. For a first order deductive argument rationality is fairly easy to discern. We can compare the structure of the argument to well known patterns of solid inferences. Then if the premises are indeed true, the conclusion is certain to follow by necessity. Such arguments are not only valid by structure but strong. However in reality “truth” is not so easily discerned. Epistemological debates have been waged for decades about the validity of our senses and subsequent thoughts. While “truth” is easily defined as “in accordance with fact” It is with Logic and rational thought that we use to discern facts about an external reality. And here is the rub. 2 rational people can have different conceptions of the same reality. Even when their reasons are based on the same information. And information that may decide one side over another may never come.Which is why this debate is not on the existence of God. It is on the argumentation presented by theist and if these arguments are rational. Do the arguments proceed from the premises to a reasonable conclusion.Inferences from premisesSome of the premises of an argument rely on other arguments. And premises of those arguments rely on other premises, and the cycle continues in an infinite regress. It's preferable to short cut this regress by starting with premises that are accepted by both parties as true. (unless one is arguing an epistemological nihilist, then what is the point?). Eventually some of the most basic premises to an argument maybe logical or pragmatic/systematic assumptions. These assumptions are called axioms.Logical Axiomatic statements using first order logic are accepted as true, not because they can be affirmed but because their falsehood reduces to an absurdity. Such as the “Non-Contradiction” law of Logic. In which p (a premises) does not equal np (not the premise.) We can't confirm by any investigation that All p are of different value then not-p's. But through an argument of absurdity we know that if p did equal not-p, we would arrive at insane conclusions of the most trivial and mundane of statements. Like a cat being alive and dead at the same time.There are also Pragmatic Axioms found in systems. The system itself operates on a rule set. To affirm the rule set by the rule set will eventually lead to circular logic. So some rules in a system are created with no more reasoning then that it makes the system easier, or functional in the real world. Examples might be “innocent until proven guilty”. A default position assigned by the letter of the law, because morally as a society we have elected it better to unknowingly release a guilty party then to erroneously send an innocent person to jail. And of course the word “proven” in this axiom is not a certainty in law either, but defined as "beyond a reasonable doubt."So then we investigate the underlining assumptions we find some are incapable of being affirmed or unlikely to be decided. Then how might one, a rational mind, draw confidently from any starting principle? What justification might a reasonable person have in accepting an axiom, assumption or starting premise as reliable? Rational JustifcationAs with the word “proven” in the context of law, “beyond a reasonable doubt” becomes a fairly normal measure. Is the premise substantive enough to be accepted in spite of any doubt. Also known as:Deontological Justification (DJ) S is justified in believing that p if and only if S believes that p while it is not the case that S is obliged to refrain from believing that p. Take a person named Jake. Jake is driving through a field with fake barns in it. The barns are plywood cutouts painted to appear real. Upon a random inclination Jake turns off the road and approaches a barn. By chance Jake comes upon a real red barn. Jake then draws a conclusion from the specific (the barn he is at) to a generalization (all the barns he sees) and asserts that all the barns in the field are real. From our birds eye view we know Jake has made a classical type 1 error. A “false positive”. Jake is affirming a statement we know to be false. But the question that is relevant to this discussion is: Is Jake justified in believing the barns are real? Some remain steadfast Jake is not justified and prefer a Non-Deontological Justification, citing probablity as a requirement for cogent justification. In which case let us say Jake sees a 100 barns, He stops at 20. All of the 20 he stops at are real. Maybe Jake asserts that anywhere between 20 to 100 of the barns are real. Not quite helpful. So Jake assumes (yeah that word again) that his sampling was truly random, (unlikely Jake doesn't like wasting gas), Statistically we can now assign a confidence metric to his assertion. For the sake of argument let's say Jake wants to be 95% sure of the state of the barns. Real or unreal. Let's say Jake to conserve his gas doesn't mind if he is off by a few (+ or -20%). If jake visits 20 barns and they end up being real he is justified by the criteria set to assert most of the barns are real. I think we can see NDJ is more empirical but problematic. It requires a knowledge of many variables and the extent of a domain. Descision Making despite presence of doubtWe know most arguments about reality are of an inductive type, that doubt is present in every assertion. When and where can confidence derive from. If we are 90% sure 10% doubtful do we proceed to act in accordance as if the conclusion is true. What about 20% doubtful? 30%. 45%, 49% doubtful. If we are 49% doubtful do we still not have more reason to accept than not accept? So when we are in discussion if a person has rational reason to believe in a statement, there could very well be uncertainty, presumptions, adherence to moral, social, systematic rule sets, and despite a large chance of being wrong still arrive at a conclusion by way of reason, facts, and logic.In the dichotomy stemming from a logical investigation 2 types of errors may occur. A Type 1 error is where an assertion is the presence of something not there, or a Type 2 error the assertion of no presence of something that is actually there. We can still make rational decisions even if the discernment between 2 states is neglible. Take Pascal's Wager. From a utilitarian or even a more basic selfish directive of doing the least amount of harm to oneself, IF 2 statements are indistinguishable say 50% doubtful and 50% affirming, we can rationally elect the error that will cause the least amount of harm to us in the event we are in error.Now that we have a summary of what constitutes a reasonable conclusion, we may compare this understanding to the argumentation presented by theist and ascertain if they are rational or irrational in nature. Whether they are derived from thought or emotion. I move to my first argument.1. "Goedels Ontological Argument".[1]Goedel is a well known name in the fields of mathematics and epistemology. His Ontological Argument utilizes Modal Logic. An extension of classical prepositional logic with the use of formalized operators. The argument proceeds reminiscent of mathematical proofs in set theory.Some German Scientist formalized the argument into mathematical equations that a computer (macbook) could then crunch and discern if the conclusion necessarily followed from the premises. To include the 5 axioms at the beginning of the argument. And the result was that the argument is logically valid. The structure of the argument is in accordance with what is generally accepted as correctly inferring from the premises to the conclsion.So we have a Logical Argument affirming the existence of God that is logically valid. That alone doesn't make an assertion “true” or worthy of acceptance. The big IF, is if the premises and the axioms are true as well. In which case those axioms are:Axiom 1: If property A is positive, and if property A entails property B, then B is positive.Axiom 2: If property A is positive, then the property not-A is not positive.Axiom 3: The property G is a positive property. (G is the property of being "God-like"; an object with property G has all positive properties)Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is positive in all possible worlds.Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property. Now I'm not surprised if this argument is unconvincing to many. But the resolution is not on the strength of the arguments but on their validity and reasonableness. And even if Pro finds contentions or doubt with the premises of the argument they must be of such quality to make doubt or rejection of a particular premise an obligation by the believer. A rational person would be under some logical neccessity to not accept the premise as true. If not then the believer quite simply is still rationally justified to believe so.AfterthoughtPascal said, “The heart has its reasons which reason does not know”. And Max Weber said, "No one knows who will live in this cage in the future... For the “last man” of this cultural development, it might well be truly said: “Specialist without spirit, sensualist without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of humanity never before achieved”. Sometimes the most rational decision is to follow one's irrational heart.[1] http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca...[2] http://www.upi.com...