If I recall, it all stems back to the real reason(s) I think you believe in God. 1. indoctrination 2. geography 3. invoking agency 4. belief perseverance, which leads you to apologetic arguments
I still contend the 'first cause' argument is a distant 4th reason for your continued belief(s).
After all these posts, I'm finally starting, (I hope), to understand what you are asking me.
There is no true belief —that is, the faith mentioned in Hebrews 1— by mere intellectual assent or intellectual comprehension. While I insist First Cause theory is a huge part of what I believe and why I believe so many other things, it is not what saved me nor what keeps me. This Faith is the work of God.
I think I told you early on in my life, maybe even 6 or 7 years old —I don't remember— there was a moment when I realized I should theoretically be able to do whatever I wanted to if I rejected God, and close on the heels of that thought was the absolute realization that I was not able to do so. He was real, I couldn't even claim he was irrelevant. That has remained with me ever since. (No, that wasn't a turning point or anything —just something that was remarkable to me.) That God, the God of my young life, is, of course the same God as now, regardless of how much my beliefs have changed concerning him. (I bring this up, in part because of a question below.)
But my intellectual (and of course, my emotional and so on) reasons to believe I think, are not quite separable from my faith.
I only mention "evolution", as it is the best descriptive word to demonstrate the situation. I'd venture to state, due to 'evolution', or (survival of the "fitter"), we later knowingly or always unknowingly commit type 1 errors all the time.
case/point:
a verified false positive = mistaking a rustle in the weeds for being a predator, to actually turn out to be the wind.
(possible) unverified false positive = mistaking the unknown as being an independent 'first cause', which happens to originate from the pages of the Bible for which you were already indoctrinated.
This seems to me to deny the logical or instinctual knowledge of God mentioned in Romans 1. It also doesn't mention the fact of experiencing God, not through the Bible, but by conversation etc with God. While I have to admit I could be fooling myself even now, these are not type 1 (nor 2) errors, because they are not errors. As surely as I am conversing with you, though not in the same way, (maybe even more surely), I have conversed with God.
Where we differ, is that I too used to think the origin stemmed from the Bible. But once I actually read it, I later fell away; do to vast inconsistencies. Where you, have instead held strong and steady - modifying continued justification to taste.
To taste? Not sure I follow what you are saying there. Anyhow, 'justification' is a funny word. I don't quite accept the idea of justifying anything the Bible says. My problems have never been with the Bible, but with what seems to be the way Christians behave, believe, and talk. Their worldviews have often been my pitfall, because I trusted them as knowing more than me. Through study and experience I came to see I had been misreading several parts of the Bible, and their typical parallels. The Bible always has been absolute for me. The inconsistencies then are not in the Bible, but in the people.
Translating
the same Book, to now mean something entirely different, is quite common. I did this too, before I no longer believed in YHWH any longer. However, you still adhere to Jesus as your source, right? If so, then you still believe in the same God ultimately
Yes, the same God as when I was a young kid. But my ideas concerning him are some of them very different. For one thing, they now make sense.
It looks to be the second strongest reason why you believe YHWH/Jesus is your source, verses another/others, verses none.
(i.e.) Your geographical surroundings make it easier for you to retain belief perseverance, either by finding the 'first cause argument', or many others. Remember what I also told you prior, about a staunch republican tuning into Fox for his/her news, while a staunch democrat may turn to MSNBC. This is one way we, as humans, cleave to our comfortable and already existing beliefs.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. It sounds almost like you are simply saying where I spend my time may (or may not) tend to reinforce my beliefs. That's true enough, but does it counter anything else we have been saying?
A verified "first cause" can only be YHWH?
Any other god is a different cause, not first. Not theoretically because no other name fits First Cause, but because 'God' means, among other things, First Cause. If another religion shows an Identical first cause as God, that God is the same God.
Well, this is where you and I differ apparently. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Where the story of Jesus is concerned, I do not see any? A matter of fact, I do not see extraordinary evidence for anyone rising from the grave?
I guess this is where 'faith' comes in? And if so, why not apply 'faith' to other extraordinary claims?
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence for what —to be proved true? That's true. But they don't need to be proven in order for them to be true. Also, one may become convinced through evidence that is not acceptable to all as evidence.
I don't expect you to believe it, but Faith of Hebrews 11
is the evidence —not even, 'stands for' or 'is an example of' or 'demonstrates' evidence, but when I have this faith, I have the evidence I needed. To say that is illogical only demonstrates you don't have the background facts believed, that the born-again believer has.
FAITH is the cause of my faith. God causes that FAITH.