If God exists, it is rational for people to believe he exists without relying on facts:
- If God exists and he wanted to be known by people he would provide a means of knowing him.
- If God wanted as many people to know him as possible, he would provide a means for as many people to know him as possible. People, through all time, with access to varying levels of education and evidence and people with varying levels of intellectual ability.
- If God was all powerful, he would have access to the most effective means of people knowing him.
- Facts require interpretation which may be influenced by our biased self agenda.
- A method of knowing God without interpretation would be more effective than facts.
Therefore if God exists, wanted as many people to know him has possible and was all powerful, he would have access to a method of helping people believe he exists without the requirement of facts.
It has been suggested that it is begging the question, containing the conclusion in the premises, the conclusion is the 'reason' for belief that he exists, while the premise is that the object of said belief provides a reason for belief. Reduced to its constituents, the argument is 'I believe he exists because he exists'.
I don't agree with the 'reduced to it's constituents' is accurate, but I am interested if the argument is logically valid and if not, the technical reasons for why it is not valid so I can deepen my understanding of valid argument formation. If a premise includes a conditional and the conclusion contains the same conditional...isn't that accepting both conditions of either God existing or not..thereby the logic of the argument is not dependent on God's existence being true. In other words, if the argument is successful, it just shows it is rational for people to believe God exists...only if God exists.