How are our beliefs justified? What counts as a rationally justified belief and what counts as an irrational claim?
In order for a belief or claim to be rationally justified, it must have justifying reason behind it. However, as many have pointed out, this seems to lead to problems with basic beliefs that we all take for granted, such as universal, invariant noncontradiction. What reason could anyone have for believing in noncontradiction? It doesn't seem possible for it to be a conclusion, because it must be presupposed in order to come to any conclusion. But how can justifying reason be behind a claim of noncontradiction if it has to be presupposed to come to any conclusions? Noncontradiction seems like an arbitrary assumption!
Many people have philosophically (though almost never practically) embraced solipsism as a result of the difficulty of first principles (or first premises, or ultimate presuppositions).
It seems to me that there are three and only three methods by which beliefs can be rationally justified.
Initially, either the justifying reason behind my belief is my own reason, or it is someone else's reason. There are no other options.
Someone Else's Reason
If it is someone else's reason, then the belief or claim has been imputed into me, and its justification (or lack thereof) goes along with it.
Imputation, the first of the three methods, is seen when we recognize that the premises of a calculator are rationally justified. The calculator's reason didn't justify its premises: they were justified in the mind of its creator.
On the other hand, if it is my reason, it is either my reason by means of my will, or it is my reason regardless of my will. Again, there are no other options.
If it's my reason by means of my will, then I'm the author of the fact and also the author of the claim. All of C.S. Lewis' claims about Tumnus the Faun are rationally justified, because Lewis' will simply is the authority regarding the facts about Tumnus. Authorship is the second method.
Finally, if it is my reason regardless of my will, then I have engaged in discovery. Discovery is the third and final method. Discovery always involves conclusions based on prior premises. If the premises are not justified, the conclusion likewise is not justified.
Minting the Coin or Passing the Buck
It seems to me that these are literally the only three possible methods for rational justification of a claim.
However, two of these methods (imputation and discovery) simply kick the can down the road. Imputation takes an already-justified claim and moves it from one claimant to another; while discovery takes already-justified claims and uses them to formulate a new claim.
Authorship is the only method of the 3 that actually provides ultimate rational justification for a claim: the justifying reason behind it.
Therefore, it seems to me that our first principles -- if rationally justified -- are imputed to us by their author. And, the author of our first principles is the willful author of universal invariant truths, and therefore the author of time and space.
In other words, if you are rational, then God exists.
More of My Writing on the Subject
In Printed Form
Along with numerous other authors including Don Landis, Bodie Hodge and Roger Patterson, Timothy McCabe contributes analyses of various world religions and cults in this volume from Master Books.
"Why am I here? Why do I exist? What is my purpose?"
According to Christ, the greatest commandment is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength" (Mark 12:30). As our greatest command, it is the thing we most ought to do. We exist to love God. How are we to love God? What exactly does that mean? The apostle John tells us that love for God is to obey Him (1 John 5:3).
"Why does Jesus say he will reject all those who believe in him as Lord in Matthew Chapter 7 Verse 21-23?"
Matthew 7:21-23 (NASB) says: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.
"Did Jesus preach non-violence? He says in Mat 5:39 Whoever smites thee on thy right cheek offer him the other. But in Luke 22:36 he says He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. How then can Heb 1:8-12 says he is unchanging?"
Addressing the last part of your question first, the text is below: Hebrews 1:8-12 (from Psalm 102:25-27) - NASB But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. "YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.