Seeking a bit of input here. Consider the following scale of possible claims:
- 1. God does not exist.
2. It is irrational to believe that God exists.
3. You are within your rational rights to believe in God.
4. Rationality demands belief in God.
5. God exists.
Which of those claims do you think we can prove? And, my bigger question: is there any gap between claims 4 and 5 (or between 1 and 2, for that matter)? In other words, if you prove 4, have you proved 5? If you haven’t, why not?
Diakrisis 
Chris Ames
October 18, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Question from the section where the dunderheads sit: could #2 and #5 be simultaneously true due to fall-related problems with human reasoning?
Peter D.
October 19, 2010 at 12:02 pm
It makes no sense logically to have 4 without 5. It would say, essentially, that rationality demands belief in God, although He might not exist. I suppose that would mean that there are no rational people in the universe.
nathan
October 19, 2010 at 1:43 pm
great questions michael. I’m inclined to think that there are justified false beliefs and that there are definitely unjustified true beliefs; however, I’m also inclined to think that revealed truths are necessarily both justified (for anyone to whom they are revealed) AND true.
Have you read the 4th Meditation?
Todd Mitchell
October 19, 2010 at 5:36 pm
It depends upon what you mean by “prove,” I suppose. I would say no to all, if “prove” means what it almost always does in our age.
#1 – you can’t prove the negative
#2-#4 are value statements, excluded by empiricists
#5 – God is unseen, therefore empirically unprovable