Belief in God must be irrational.
Yes or no and why?
I say yes, because otherwise it is not belief.
Belief is not, or shouldn’t be, a claim to knowledge. As long as that distinction is made, belief is not irrational in this case at least since we have no idea how the universe came to be. God created or spontaneous creation are equally plausible, or actually implausible, but since those appear to be the only two possibilities, picking one as one’s belief preference isn’t really irrational, merely a preference or hope.
To me the answer is no. Belief in God is rational. It is the belief itself that is irrational. I believe that the Sun will rise tomorrow- I cannot prove it, it is just a reasonable belief derived from what my reason assumes, believes about the universe, reality, and which makes reality reasonable, though, nonetheless a belief. If I believe in God, again, it is rational because it is a belief in something, thus it is in the form of an idea, an idea shaped by the assumptions of reasons.
Because it is a rational belief it can be learned and unlearned or changed into some other belief, in some other version of God. If belief in God was truly irrational then you would not need to be taught about it. No one has to be taught to fear snakes. It is an irrational belief. Sure, belief in the supernatural, God or gods or spirits, is universal, but we are taught what it is we believe in; it is passed on from parent to child, it is relived in rites, traditions, customs- none of which occur without a ratio, without a measurement, without reason.
What you just said is your belief.
I am not sure where this idea came from that a belief must be irrational. Scientists base their beliefs on research (and a lot of other things). Some beliefs are better supported than others. Some beliefs are incorrect. Some beliefs are so well supported they are also considered knowledge.
Knowledge is often referred to as Justified True Belief.
So to say something is irrational because it is a belief is confused. It is a confused belief on your part.
Obviously it would depend on WHY you believed it.
Funny how every time someone asks a “Yes or No” question, the more correct answer is neither or both. 
I think a belief in an interactive God is irrational since it is completely supported by hearsay evidence only, and I can’t think of any of that which would be more reliable than other much more rational reasons.
God transcends rationality. The belief in such a transcendent entity must necessarily depart from the rational, it must itself admit of its own irrationality before it can be a serious belief. This is Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith”: the leap out of the rational into the irrational. To affirm the existence of God, one must first affirm that such an existence is absolutely illogical, that it is absolutely outside of the realm of logic. In an interview, Derrida claimed that only an atheist could truly believe in God. This is exactly the point I want to make. It is only after theistic philosophy is able to overcome its infantile will to define God, to define His boundaries, and to rationally demonstrate his existence, that it will be able to grow at all as a philosophy. One really ought to be forced to read Kierkegaard before calling himself a theist.
And this, of course, from an atheist. Not in Derrida’s sense, but in Nietzsche’s.
But then I have yet to meet an Atheist who knows either Logic, Rationality, or God.
Else he couldn’t be stating such irrational dogma.
James, as other members have confirmed for me: you are of no value to a philosophy forum. You’ve demeaned every engagement I’ve had with you, and so this will be the last. My apologies Jakob, I mean not to derail your thread.
Jayson’s Citation: Religion Forum Rule Violation for the highlighted text above: Rules 1 & 2
Warning Issued.
When you leave logic, rationality, critique, and wisdom out of philosophy, what do you get?
OR;
Granted, your version leaves far more room to play. But to what end?
{{… and why is it they always declare such things just after I have asked them a question they can’t answer 
}}
Why is belief only allowed to be irrational in your mind?
How do you know?
God is irrational? We don’t even know if He exists.
I think that would be transrational; not irrational.
Trans- refers to aside from, while ir- refers to not.
I believe they meant that God is not within the consideration of rational or irrational.
Consequently, you seem to agree.
So someone must read a Danish Protestant or they have the wrong ideas of God? That’s a really odd demand. What else, let’s see. If something transcends rationality, it need not be irrational. Irrational is a pejorative. Non-rational, perhaps, trans-rational. but then that is accepting that belief in God must be faith based, that there must be a leap, whereas many theists, even some Christians - even some Protestants - have experiential bases for their beliefs.
To say that God’s existence must be illogical, is an extreme claim to knowledge? How do you know this? this must be your leap of faith.
I was being hyperbolic, but I do believe Kierkegaard has had a massive impact on philosophical theism.
I did not mean “irrational” to be pejorative; but you’re right: trans-rational has perhaps more relevant implications.
I have a difficult time believing that such experiential foundations for the belief in God are grounded fundamentally in reason and the rational. So, my recourse is the same: the move from such an experience to the belief in God is still a move out of the rational.
Surely, you meant this as a statement, not a question. Again, illogical is perhaps better expressed in this context as non-logical. And yes, I do hold that belief in the existence of God takes place outside the realm of logic. You are free to challenge such a claim, but you have yet to do so. If your rebuttal is merely “that God’s existence must be illogical is too extreme a claim,” then my response is “that God’s existence is logically demonstrable is too extreme a claim.”
How do I know that the belief in God transcends rationality? Because his alleged existence is fundamentally above the rational. I’m also of the opinion that you share this view. This is not my leap of faith, for I have yet to “transcend the rational” in an assertion of belief. Remember: I am a non-believer. To claim that the belief in God’s existence transcends rationality is to claim that rational proofs of God’s existence miss the point. My position is not trans-rational. My position is that the believer’s belief must be trans-rational.
Belief is not “transrational”. The reason for that is complicated, but a synopsis is that all thought is formed by rational impetus even though on a higher level the sum of thoughts can be irrational due to the applications of limited presumptions.
If we agree on a definition of “God”, “logic”, and “rationale”, I can provide that logical proof.
That underlined statement is your presumption; your “leap of faith”.
Sorry, this is a discussion between Moreno and I; I have little interest in engaging you, James.
Haha… I can understand why. 
Why do you say that even though you are capable of seeing the world around you and how it obeys physical laws? Some might say - logically speaking - that that can point to the existence of some kind of deeply organized creative being.
Is it any more logical to say that the universe simply came into existence strictly on its own as opposed to a being which is eternal ? Both boggle the mind but at the same time there is some reasonable, valid evidence for both, no?
I don’t think that either of those two thoughts are illogical. Are logic and reason solely based on what can be proven? What may be outside the realm of logic is how we’ve come to enhance those beliefs through our far-fetched notions because we feel the need to through our humanness. We need to believe in a god with the characteristics which we have projected onto it and we need to believe that there are aliens flying around in UFOs about to take us over (though I do not understand that one). I suppose we simply love the thought of surrendering to something even though we might not want to. 
Arcturus: I am speaking primarily of the Judeo-Christian God of omniscient omnipotence. This God is, I think, necessarily outside the realm of reason.