Here of course all we have at our disposal are words. Others either do or do not succeed in assembling them into arguments able to convince me that the manner in which they connect the dots between the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave, their imagined fate on the other side of the grave, and their thoughts and their feelings about God, are more reasonable than my own.
And, if they are, there is still the problem of demonstrating to others that what we believe about these relationships is that which all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.
Or, instead, it all becomes embedded and embodied in but one more leap of faith to God. One more wager.
This as opposed to any number of human interactions in which we have no problem at all in making a distinction between reasonable and unreasonable beliefs:
It is reasonable to note that in fact Donald Trump calls himself a Christian. It is reasonable to note that in fact he was baptized and confirmed at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens, in New York City.
But:
Is it reasonable to note that Donald Trump is in fact a Christian? Is it reasonable to note that the Christian God does in fact exist?
What “tools” do you suggest that we use in order to make a proper distinction here between reasonable and unreasonable beliefs?