The point is, How can we say that faith is rational if it is based on something that it was not proven yet? Like we believe in God, but God was not yet proven that he exist, but how can we still explain that our belief is rational?
I’ve heard that it Must be Rational, because if it was Irrational then God would have given us an artifact to reach him that is in fact Irrational, so it Must be Rational, because Faith must support the other gift God gave us, the Reason is that right?
It’s a question of definition: which definition of rational are you using? Which definition of proof?
If you are saying that rational means something like “that which can be proven through our perceptual senses or with aids to them,” then what you really mean is *empirical. *Rational is that which can be understood by our reason, which (unfortunately) some philosophers decided was limited to our sense perceptions… it’s a mess, for sure.
But really, our rationality is not limited to what we perceive with our 5 senses. We can know that rationally, by understanding that we can reason about things which we do not perceive with our 5 senses, like love. We understand certain things about the world which we cannot perceive with our senses, and part of that is called “common sense,” like when we understand that you cannot get more from less.
Same goes for proof. Are you saying that God, a non-material Being, must prove His existence through our 5 senses? Obviously that won’t work, anymore than proving the existence of love between two people.
So, actually God has proven His Existence to us; He just didn’t prove it in a scientific proof kind of way. He is not measurable or perceivable.
But He has shown Himself to people: Abraham, Moses, etc. And He sent His Son to us. And Aristotle shows that we can understand quite a bit about God without Revelation.
Is the existence of Cleopatra proved to you? And yet you only know of her through the writings from history. Why trust those sources but not trust sources telling us about Christ?
