Originally posted by jaden101
In other words I believe rational decisions are based on actual evidence and you don't.
OMFG, where the hell did you get that from?
Originally posted by jaden101If you used a rational line of thinking with the evidence you have then that was a rational decision, does that mean that their could have been another cause for his vision no but for this person it is a rational decision. He saw a vision, sought out answers that it could have been, was not presented with any new evidence so that left him with a rational conclusion that it was God. Now if this person person "could" have had his house checked out for other things that could have caused this like a natural gas leak, CO2 or others or gone to every specialist in the world to have his brain scanned for a tumor but for this example this person wasn't aware that these things could cause his vision. Another person like you or me would have and if we left this step out then yes that would have been irrational, if this guy was told that there could have been things like this to cause his vision then yes it would have been irrational but this is not the case. This is to illustrate that it is the use of the information to make the decision that makes it irrational.
That's just the long way of saying what I just said. Once you've eliminated all the rational explanations then you're free to believe whatever you like. It still doesn't make that belief rational. Although your explanation does not negate all the other reasons for hallucinations.We've also extremely diverged from the intial discussion in which you said belief in God doesn't make you irrational. This is something noone has said. It's merely the belief in God without any evidence for it that makes the belief in God irrational.
Unless you're proposing that a hallucination or "vision" is proof for the existence of God?
As for the point is I said that the belief in the God of the Bible is irrational not the belief in a god.