How does one come to believe something?

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Please take this in the spirit intended. I have a bone to pick with philosophy, not you. I see philosophical debates regarding religion all the time, and it is not necessary and even harmful to engage thus. We cannot and should not argue the existence of God or anything Godly with those who serve worldly gods, like the scientific method and philosophical debate.

I see syllogism as a form of philosophy. And I see philosophy as a form of worldliness.

Therefore, I believe we should avoid philosophical debate and treat it as the babble it is so that no one takes us captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, rather than according to Christ (Colossians 2:8), lest professing to be wise, we become fools (Romans 1:22).

When we lower ourselves to worldly methods we become unclean and defiled. Let those with ears to hear and a seeking heart come to the knowledge and love of God. In His own mysterious way.

 

[Davian]

...
And that is their dilemma, their limitations in thinking, their “fish bowl”! It is the most limited mind that adopts the thinking: “Nothing exists that cannot be proven to me in terms I can relate to.” Many confine themselves to “fish bowls” of their own making, often hypocritically so. <snip>

Speaking of hypocrisy, do you not conduct yourself in the same manner? Do you accept at face value those that claim to have seen extraterrestrial spacecraft? That also claim to have been abducted by those aliens? Or, a have seen Bigfoot? The Loch Ness monster?

 

[Chany]

Please take this in the spirit intended. I have a bone to pick with philosophy, not you. I see philosophical debates regarding religion all the time, and it is not necessary and even harmful to engage thus. We cannot and should not argue the existence of God or anything Godly with those who serve worldly gods, like the scientific method and philosophical debate.

I see syllogism as a form of philosophy. And I see philosophy as a form of worldliness.

Therefore, I believe we should avoid philosophical debate and treat it as the babble it is so that no one takes us captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, rather than according to Christ (Colossians 2:8), lest professing to be wise, we become fools (Romans 1:22).

When we lower ourselves to worldly methods we become unclean and defiled. Let those with ears to hear and a seeking heart come to the knowledge and love of God. In His own mysterious way.

I guess everyone on this list was/is unclean and defiled:

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Christian_philosophy#19th_and_early_20th_century

Philosophy is the not the enemy of a true deity. In fact, I believe philosophy is the only thing that has the potential to save Christianity and the god of classical theism. If there exists a deity and this deity wants us to come to know it, it knows that, at least for some people, there must be rational arguments and reasons to believe in it. If there are no such arguments, then I do not see how this deity could exist. Some of us do not use our heart or feelings to guide us; we can only be moved by our minds. Until a deity moves my mind towards it, I am not going to really believe in it.

Namely, I don't like when Christian philosophers whom I recognize and respect on this list are accused of being unclean and improper towards their religion.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I guess everyone on this list was/is unclean and defiled:

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Christian_philosophy#19th_and_early_20th_century

Philosophy is the not the enemy of a true deity. In fact, I believe philosophy is the only thing that has the potential to save Christianity and the god of classical theism. If there exists a deity and this deity wants us to come to know it, it knows that, at least for some people, there must be rational arguments and reasons to believe in it. If there are no such arguments, then I do not see how this deity could exist. Some of us do not use our heart or feelings to guide us; we can only be moved by our minds. Until a deity moves my mind towards it, I am not going to really believe in it.

Namely, I don't like when Christian philosophers whom I recognize and respect on this list are accused of being unclean and improper towards their religion.

Just speaking to philosophy as the Bible does.

You have a right to your own opinion as well.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Please take this in the spirit intended. I have a bone to pick with philosophy, not you. I see philosophical debates regarding religion all the time, and it is not necessary and even harmful to engage thus. We cannot and should not argue the existence of God or anything Godly with those who serve worldly gods, like the scientific method and philosophical debate.

I see syllogism as a form of philosophy. And I see philosophy as a form of worldliness.

Therefore, I believe we should avoid philosophical debate and treat it as the babble it is so that no one takes us captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, rather than according to Christ (Colossians 2:8), lest professing to be wise, we become fools (Romans 1:22).

When we lower ourselves to worldly methods we become unclean and defiled. Let those with ears to hear and a seeking heart come to the knowledge and love of God. In His own mysterious way.

You see the "critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs" as "unclean" and "defiled"?

 

[Albion]

I believe she wrote that WE become unclean and defiled under certain circumstances.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I believe she wrote that WE become unclean and defiled under certain circumstances.

She suggested that it was "harmful" to engage in philosophical discussions, called philosophy and the scientific method "worldly gods" (whatever that means), and warned that it could lead to defilement.

 

[bhsmte]

You see the "critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs" as "unclean" and "defiled"?

It appears that way.

Some don't like to have their beliefs threatened. Reminds me of the phrase; religion has all the answers, but doesn't allow questions.

 

[Wayne R]

Speaking of hypocrisy, do you not conduct yourself in the same manner? Do you accept at face value those that claim to have seen extraterrestrial spacecraft? That also claim to have been abducted by those aliens? Or, a have seen Bigfoot? The Loch Ness monster?

As to "hypocraisy" You wrote:

"With quantum physics, dark energy, and matter we can define, test, and quantify what we mean by them; we can create falsifiable hypotheses, and experimental conclusions can be independently observed and replicated. Describe how we do this with "spirit""

"What is a "spirit"?"

The response was this:

"That's a bit like defining quantum physics, dark energy or matter. Only effect can be described, not essence. "Intuition" has been described as a "function" of spirit. So what is "intuition"? There again, it seems to be a function, not a tangible essence, like knowing a particular event or circumstance is occurring without any intellectual knowledge involved. It may even be completely contrary to what intellect would dictate."

"Tell me about your experiments involving dark matter and dark energy."


You responded with:

"With quantum physics, dark energy, and matter we can define, test, and quantify what we mean by them; we can create falsifiable hypotheses, and experimental conclusions can be independently observed and replicated. Describe how we do this with "spirit""

"Not my experiments."


Since you have confirmed your belief in the existence of dark matter & energy and also confirmed you had not proven it yourself, you were asked:

"Is it possible you believe in dark matter/energy as a matter of trust in the integrity of those making the report?"

You responded with:

"No, it is not possible. While I may follow the topic with interest, their conclusions do not really concern me. It's not like it will affect the price of milk at the market."

I'm confused as to your and conflicting statements of what you believe to be true and why. You confirm you believe the existence, have not proven it yourself, state it's not possible you believe according to trusting those who have made the report. So, on what basis do you accept the reality of dark energy and dark matter, or do you wish to correct or withdraw one of your conflicting statements in order to clear this up? If you're questioning the standards the “religious” use for believing, it seems your own are very confused, shifting and limited, which is probably your problem in understanding. It would be very difficult to stuff a whale into any fish bowl, especially one that's so mobile.
Also, if you have no familiarity with "spirit" or "intuition" and expect these to be translated into terms you can relate to, you would better to expand your thinking and understanding. If it is your intent to prove they don't exist, or even cast doubt on their existance you will fail for sure since this is impossible. They are very real, and many millions can testify to the fact, not limited by "fish bowl" understanding.
You also wrote this:

“It is interesting to watch someone go from looking like they have nothing to confirming it.”

 

[Davian]

As to "hypocraisy" You wrote:

"With quantum physics, dark energy, and matter we can define, test, and quantify what we mean by them; we can create falsifiable hypotheses, and experimental conclusions can be independently observed and replicated. Describe how we do this with "spirit""

"What is a "spirit"?"

The response was this:

"That's a bit like defining quantum physics, dark energy or matter. Only effect can be described, not essence. "Intuition" has been described as a "function" of spirit. So what is "intuition"? There again, it seems to be a function, not a tangible essence, like knowing a particular event or circumstance is occurring without any intellectual knowledge involved. It may even be completely contrary to what intellect would dictate."

"Tell me about your experiments involving dark matter and dark energy."


You responded with:

"With quantum physics, dark energy, and matter we can define, test, and quantify what we mean by them; we can create falsifiable hypotheses, and experimental conclusions can be independently observed and replicated. Describe how we do this with "spirit""

"Not my experiments."


Since you have confirmed your belief in the existence of dark matter & energy and also confirmed you had not proven it yourself, you were asked:

"Is it possible you believe in dark matter/energy as a matter of trust in the integrity of those making the report?"

You responded with:

"No, it is not possible. While I may follow the topic with interest, their conclusions do not really concern me. It's not like it will affect the price of milk at the market."

I'm confused as to your and conflicting statements of what you believe to be true and why. You confirm you believe the existence, have not proven it yourself, state it's not possible you believe according to trusting those who have made the report. So, on what basis do you accept the reality of dark energy and dark matter, or do you wish to correct or withdraw one of your conflicting statements in order to clear this up? If you're questioning the standards the “religious” use for believing, it seems your own are very confused, shifting and limited, which is probably your problem in understanding. It would be very difficult to stuff a whale into any fish bowl, especially one that's so mobile.
Also, if you have no familiarity with "spirit" or "intuition" and expect these to be translated into terms you can relate to, you would better to expand your thinking and understanding. If it is your intent to prove they don't exist, or even cast doubt on their existance you will fail for sure since this is impossible. They are very real, and many millions can testify to the fact, not limited by "fish bowl" understanding.
You also wrote this:

“It is interesting to watch someone go from looking like they have nothing to confirming it.”

If you were able to point out any hypocrisy in there, are you saying that it would excuse you of yours? That it is okay when you do it?

 

[Davian]

She suggested that it was "harmful" to engage in philosophical discussions, called philosophy and the scientific method "worldly gods" (whatever that means), and warned that it could lead to defilement.

“Reason is a harlot, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” ― Martin Luther

 

[Wayne R]

If you were able to point out any hypocrisy in there, are you saying that it would excuse you of yours? That it is okay when you do it?

The issue is obviously yours, not mine.

 

[Wayne R]

“Reason is a harlot, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” ― Martin Luther

Martin Luther was a great man. When reason justifies hatred, his statement is abundantly true.

 

[Isaacsname]

seems to be different for different folks

what lead me to the bible was experiencing a " miracle "

 

[Wayne R]

REPLY: Nope, no "must". But, if this works, then "yes". However, most Americans have their own experience & foundation to come to the same conclusions that I do. So, what don't you like about my conclusion -- specifically?

I'm curious, have you ever dealt with antitheists before and thought about why they believe what they do?

 

[Wayne R]

seems to be different for different folks

what lead me to the bible was experiencing a " miracle "

Interesting. I've had some, seen others and know of still others. What was yours?

 

[sunshineforJesus]

By having faith

 

[TillICollapse]

Please take this in the spirit intended. I have a bone to pick with philosophy, not you. I see philosophical debates regarding religion all the time, and it is not necessary and even harmful to engage thus. We cannot and should not argue the existence of God or anything Godly with those who serve worldly gods, like the scientific method and philosophical debate.

I see syllogism as a form of philosophy. And I see philosophy as a form of worldliness.

Therefore, I believe we should avoid philosophical debate and treat it as the babble it is so that no one takes us captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, rather than according to Christ (Colossians 2:8), lest professing to be wise, we become fools (Romans 1:22).

When we lower ourselves to worldly methods we become unclean and defiled. Let those with ears to hear and a seeking heart come to the knowledge and love of God. In His own mysterious way.

Are you now unclean and defiled, since you participated in these conversations ?

Is taking the username of a Greek goddess okie dokie ?

 

[Davian]

The issue is obviously yours, not mine.

If that were the case, you should have shown how my accusation of hypocrisy on your part was false, rather than trying to show that we might both be guilty of it.

 

[Davian]

Martin Luther was a great man. When reason justifies hatred, his statement is abundantly true.

Can you cite an example of that?