A rational unfalsifyable believe

Arielgenesis

I'm trying to argue that it is possible for someone rational to hold on to a believe that is unfalsifyable and remain rational.

There are three people in a room. Adam, Cain, and Able. Able was murdered. Adam and Cain was taken into police custody. The investigation was thorough but it remains inconclusive. The technology was not advanced enough to produce conclusive evidence. The arguments are basically you did it, no, you did it.

Adam has a wife, her name is Eve. Eve believed that Adam is innocent. She believed so because she has known Adam very well and the Adam that she knew, wouldn't commit murder. She uses Adam's character and her personal relationship with him as evidence.

Cain, trying to defend himself, asked Eve. "What does it take for her to change her believe". She replied, "show me the video recording, then I would believe". But there was no video recording. Then she said, "show me any other evidence that is as strong as a video recording". But there was no such evidence as well.

Cain pointed out, "the evidence that you use for your believe is personal relationship and his character. Then if there are evidence against his character, would you change your mind?"

After some thinking and reflection, she finally said. "Yes, if it could be proven that I have been deceived all these years, then I will believe otherwise."

All of Adam's artifact were gathered, collected and analysed. The search was so thorough, there could never be any new evidence about what Adam had did before the custody that could be presented in the future. All points to Adam good character.

Eve was happy. Cain was not. Then he took one step further. He proposed, "Eve, people could change. If Adam change in the future into man of bad character, would you be convinced that he could have been the murderer?"

"Yes, if Adam changed, then I would believe that it is possible for Adam to be the murderer." Eve said.

Unfortunately, Adam died the next day. Cain said to Eve, "how do you propose that your belief about Adam's innocence be falsified now?"

"It cannot be falsified now." Eve replied.

"Then you must be irrational."

Is Eve irrational?
Can believing an unfalsifyable believe be rational?
Can this argument be extended to believe in God?

A rational unfalsifyable believe

I'm trying to argue that it is possible for someone rational to hold on to a believe that is unfalsifyable and remain rational.

Cain pointed out, "the evidence that you use for your believe is personal relationship and his character. Then if there are evidence against his character, would you change your mind?"

After some thinking and reflection, she finally said. "Yes, if it could be proven that I have been deceived all these years, then I will believe otherwise."

"Yes, if Adam changed, then I would believe that it is possible for Adam to be the murderer." Eve said.

Unfortunately, Adam died the next day. Cain said to Eve, "how do you propose that your belief about Adam's innocence be falsified now?"

"It cannot be falsified now." Eve replied.

"Then you must be irrational."

Is Eve irrational?
Can believing an unfalsifyable believe be rational?
Can this argument be extended to believe in God?

The point is that these days... and I think in the days before that, AND the days before that... ... Okay, so basically since forever, "God" has been such a loaded concept...

If you ask people where God is, some of them will tell you that "God is in everything and anything" (or something to that tune). Now, these people don't have to be right (or wrong!) but that's ... a rather broad definition to me.

One can imagine God as an entity. Like, I dunno, a space alien from an alternative universe (don't ask how that universe was created; I don't know, this is a story and not an explanation). With super advanced technology. So if we then ask "did God create the world" and we (somehow...?) went back in time and saw that, hey, this space alien was somewhere else at the time and, no, the planet formed via other means, then you'd have a definitive answer to that question.

But there are other definitions. God are the mechanics of the universe. So, what you'd call the laws of physics, no, that's just God. That's how God keeps everything going. Why, then, yes, God did create the world! But only because current scientific understanding says "we think physics did it" and then you say "Physics is God".

Anyway, if you want a sane, useful, rational answer to your third question then you must define God. I personally treated God as 1 entity in my earlier answer, which leads to the problem of having to connect events to the same entity (which, when you know very little about that entity, is pretty hard). (If you didn't connect events to that same entity then something else must have caused it, in which case you have multiple probable causes for fantastic events, and you might as well call them Gods individually?)

I don't quite grasp what you mean with the last bit...

I am a theist, but I am appalled by the lack of rational apologetic, the abundance of poor ones, and the disinterest to develop a good one. So here I am, making baby steps.

Could you clarify?

God is a messy concept. As a theist, I am leaning more towards the Calvinistic Christianity. Defining God is very problematic because, by definition, it is something, which in it's fullness, is beyond human comprehension.

Could you clarify?

Since ancient time, there are many arguments for and against God (and the many versions of it). Lately, the arguments against God has developed to a very sophisticated extend and the theist is lagging very far behind and there doesn't seem to be any interest in catching up.

2

A rational unfalsifyable believe

2

2

2

A rational unfalsifyable believe

2

2