Quote Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking View Post
Yes, it needs to be logical, and it needs empirical evidence. Making things up can be fun and all that, but to pretend that it is actually true without any evidence would be irrational.
You run into a huge problem when you try and smuggle in empirical evidence in any definition of rational. The assumptions that are necessary to posit any kind of mind-independent external world are probably less easy to posit than those required to prove a god (the principle of sufficient reason vs. the reliability of sensory perception).

It's merely a psychological habit that we even consider our sensory perceptions to be accurately representing reality. There is no empirical proof of it. By your own definition, such a meta-belief is irrational.

This doesn't really say much at all, though. This doesn't really say much at all, though. All it seem to say is that "god" supposedly created the universe, all beings and every event, which are things that "god" supposedly did, but not what "god" actually is. It's a "being", okay, and that being must be uncaused. As for non-contingent, could you please explain what you mean by that?

Why is god "necessary", and what for?
It may not say much, indeed, it is a highly impersonal basic definition of God (I thought we'd start with something simple).

As for contingent and non contingent/necessary, these are philosophical/theological terms used to contrast God from other things. I would explain it that a contingent being is one that is possibly existent (if nonexistent) and possibly nonexistent (if existent). The reason for God to be labeled a necessary non-contingent being is because it is held (by supporters of that definition) that every being cannot be a contingent being (these deal with the [alleged] impossibility of an actual infinite as well as the purporting of the principle of sufficient reason).

Again, this definition does not suffer from any logical inconsistency. I would deem it rational with my respective view of what that word means. If you require empirical evidence to be part of a definition of rational then any kind of metaphysical belief becomes irrational (including the metaphysical belief that beliefs are rational if they are based on empirical evidence ).

Correct. This is where we use Occam's Razor, which states that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable, and just saying "the universe has always existed" is simpler because it doesn't needlessly introduce another step.

In any case, I do not claim that it is so, only that that is more probable, and there's no need to invent a creator. If you wish to do that, the burden of evidence is on you.
See, there has never been an epistemic reason to favor Occam's razor than not to. Occam's Razor might have some pragmatic appeal (and that is debatable), but it does not at all grant any epistemic merit to the simpler theory.

I know, but as I said to PVC earlier, I do not look for a perfect, all-encompassing definition, just the minimum requirement that something must achieve to be "god".
The definition I gave tends to be one that is regarded as the basic "god".

As for yours and PVC's discussion about demon possessions and exorcism, I apologize, but I must call a Poe on this. Are you being serious?
No need to apologize, but yes, I am. Do you really believe in dissociative identity disorder as explicated in the DSM-IV?