Accountable for our beliefs

[icbeckyc]

Another problem with Christianity, too many unanswerable questions.

Science can be the same way. You just have to keep asking and looking and you find answers. Just like the question is there life on other planets. People are still looking sending out probes. They haven't given up. What about cancer. Don't have the cure and they don't have all the reasons for why it is hear, but scientist keep looking and keep asking.

So keep asking and eventually, maybe not when you are expecting it, but you will get an answer.

 

[TooCurious]

What if he knows you are going to change in the future? He knows what is to come. Is he to give up on you because in a period of your life you will be questioning his exsitance. Are you so certain that nothing can ever change?

If he knows that Telephone is "going to change in the future," then he does NOT know that Telephone will die an unbeliever; these two things are mutually-contradictory, therefore one of them is wrong, therefore God cannot know both of them, because God cannot be wrong. The hypothetical in question is that, long before Telephone is ever born, God knows that Telephone will die without believing in him.

 

[Telephone]

What if he knows you are going to change in the future?

Me changing in the future makes no difference to the question, where I end up is what we are talking about.

If I end up a devout Christian this is something he already knew and has know for all time, if I end up an atheist this is something he already knew and has know for all time.

Do you understand ? Changing my mind will not negate gods foreknowledge, I will just be changing my mind to what I was always going to eventually do, to what god knew I was always going to eventually do.

He knows what is to come. Is he to give up on you because in a period of your life you will be questioning his exsitance. Are you so certain that nothing can ever change?

Are you certain you understand the nature of the question ?

Of course things can change, and indeed things do change, and where do they end up ?

They end up exactly where god has always known they would.


If I die an atheist, god has always known I would die an atheist.

When I was born god knew I would die an atheist.

5000 years ago god knew I would live and die an atheist.

God is inerrant, he cannot be wrong.


How can I change from what god already knows is my fate ?

 

[Telephone]

The hypothetical in question is that, long before Telephone is ever born, God knows that Telephone will die without believing in him.

 

[icbeckyc]

If he knows that Telephone is "going to change in the future," then he does NOT know that Telephone will die an unbeliever; these two things are mutually-contradictory, therefore one of them is wrong, therefore God cannot know both of them, because God cannot be wrong. The hypothetical in question is that, long before Telephone is ever born, God knows that Telephone will die without believing in him.

Sure he can, and maybe I am not understanding what you are saying.

But my point is why does Telephone believe he is going to die an unbeliever. My point I am making in ref to Telephones comment is What if God allowed him to be born and knows that Telephone will be questioning God's existance during a period of time. But God knows that there will be an event in his life and things will change. Just because Telephone doesn't see it at this point why is God to give up. Thats all. I was just throwing my own theory out there.

 

[TooCurious]

Sure he can,

I am unclear; to what was this in affirmation in reference?

and maybe I am not understanding what you are saying.

But my point is why does Telephone believe he is going to die an unbeliever. My point I am making in ref to Telephones comment is What if God allowed him to be born and knows that Telephone will be questioning God's existance during a period of time. But God knows that there will be an event in his life and things will change. Just because Telephone doesn't see it at this point why is God to give up. Thats all. I was just throwing my own theory out there.

It's a hypothetical situation. Let's try this again; maybe I'm not stating it clearly enough.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that when Telephone dies, he will be an atheist at the time of his death.

If this is true, God knows this right now. God also knew it a thousand years before Telephone's birth. God knows, in this example, that Telephone will die as an atheist.

The propositions, "Telephone will die as an atheist," and, "Telephone will die as a Christian," are mutually exclusive; both cannot be true. Therefore, one of them is wrong. Therefore, God cannot know both propositions, because God is infallible.

If it is true that Telephone will be an atheist at the time of his death, God cannot know that Telephone will believe in God when he dies, because in that case, God would "know" a false proposition and thus be wrong. Therefore, God cannot know that Telephone will believe in God when he dies.

Did I explain that better this time?

 

[icbeckyc]

I know I goofed and thought I deleted the first paragraph. Reread and got it. I was just speculating on my own, not really arguing. Putting an additional thought out there. sorry for the confusion.

 

[Godfixated]

You do not 'choose' to believe that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris, do you honestly remember choosing to believe this ?

If you stand in front of the Eiffel Tower and look up at it, are you honestly saying you make a choice as to whether it is there or not ?

Has anyone ever stood in front of the Eiffel Tower and chose to believe it is not there ? I doubt it very much.



How ?

Can you honestly tell me, that you can leave your computer right now and go and sit down and choose to believe the Eiffel Tower is in Washington DC ?

And after you have made this choice do you really, honestly believe the Eiffel Tower is in Washington DC ?

This notion is agenda driven intellectual dishonesty.

When someone first tells you that the eiffel tower is in Paris, than you can either choose to believe them or not. I think you are reading a little too much into what I said. When we are told anything by anybody than it is our choice to believe them or not. This means that we choose what we believe. It is the same principle with God and His Word. When we are comfronted with what God has told us in His Word, we can either believe that the Word is false or we can believe that God is really talking to us and believe that He means what He says.

 

[Godfixated]

I cannot choose to believe that the Eiffel Tower is in Washington, D.C. instead of in Paris; I have no evidence to support such a notion, and much evidence that contradicts it. I cannot dupe myself into believing something for which I have no evidence. If I could, I would be unable to do so while maintaining any shred of intellectual honesty. I do not "choose" beliefs. I am persuaded by evidence. You've heard the phrase, "compelling evidence"? It's accurate. Good evidence compels belief, because it points to a single description of reality.

I could lie to myself, throw away my integrity, and pretend to believe something that I have no reason to think is true. If I did so for long enough, maybe I could even dupe myself into believing the thing. But all that gives me is a lack of integrity and an unsupported belief. And honestly, if there is a God, is that the way he would want me to come to him?

Yet, we are bombarded with snipits of information everyday and we either choose to believe it or not, this was my point. It is a simple point and a simple truth. Plus, by your example, you show me that you do choose to believe. No matter how much research you put into a subject, it all boils down to whether or not you choose to believe something based on the evidence or not. We all have an understanding of cells and that they are essentially the building blocks of life. Well, we have really really strong evidence to support this, but that doesn't mean that everyone is going to "choose" to believe that cells are the building blocks of life. Some people might choose to believe that little aliens are the building blocks of life or whatever. The point is that no matter the evidence people will still not choose to believe despite the evidence. Also, evidence can be interpreted many different ways. Some people will choose to believe that the evidence will support one theory while other people will choose to believe that the evidence supports another theory. If you think that evidence "compels" people to believe the same way you do, than that is very egocentric and unrealistic because human beings are very diverse and not one believes the same exact things as every one else.

 

[TooCurious]

Yet, we are bombarded with snipits of information everyday and we either choose to believe it or not, this was my point. It is a simple point and a simple truth.

We do not "choose" to believe. I dispute your truth claim.

Plus, by your example, you show me that you do choose to believe.

I do not equate lying to oneself until succumbing to one's own delusion with "choosing" to believe. If this is what you mean, then I don't want any of it. Additionally, you will please note that I said I might be able to convince myself of something untrue; I am not certain that it would take. I find it more likely that somewhere deep down, I would still know that what I was trying to believe was a lie.

No matter how much research you put into a subject, it all boils down to whether or not you choose to believe something based on the evidence or not. We all have an understanding of cells and that they are essentially the building blocks of life. Well, we have really really strong evidence to support this, but that doesn't mean that everyone is going to "choose" to believe that cells are the building blocks of life. Some people might choose to believe that little aliens are the building blocks of life or whatever.

Please choose to believe, right now, totally and with all of your mind and heart, that you are a giraffe. If you tell me that you have accomplished this feat, I will believe you. If you cannot, then your claim of being able to "choose" what you belief is nonsense.

The point is that no matter the evidence people will still not choose to believe despite the evidence. Also, evidence can be interpreted many different ways. Some people will choose to believe that the evidence will support one theory while other people will choose to believe that the evidence supports another theory. If you think that evidence "compels" people to believe the same way you do, than that is very egocentric and unrealistic because human beings are very diverse and not one believes the same exact things as every one else.

People certainly understand evidence differently, and some people do not find individual pieces of evidence valid or persuasive. However, people are compelled to believe they evidence they do accept, as they understand it. We do not "choose" how we understand things. For my part, I know that I honestly believe the things I believe, because I cannot reconcile with reality the idea of those things being otherwise. There is no other option, no other "choice," than that which I understand as reality. Perhaps you work differently, and can choose to believe things arbitrarily. I have asked you to demonstrate this power. Please do. And it doesn't even have to be the giraffe thing, if you don't like giraffes. Just pick one thing that you know to be false, and "choose" to completely, honestly, totally believe it. That will be satisfactory.

And please be careful; you came very close to an ad hominem attack in that last statement.

 

[Godfixated]

We do not "choose" to believe. I dispute your truth claim.



I do not equate lying to oneself until succumbing to one's own delusion with "choosing" to believe. If this is what you mean, then I don't want any of it. Additionally, you will please note that I said I might be able to convince myself of something untrue; I am not certain that it would take. I find it more likely that somewhere deep down, I would still know that what I was trying to believe was a lie.



Please choose to believe, right now, totally and with all of your mind and heart, that you are a giraffe. If you tell me that you have accomplished this feat, I will believe you. If you cannot, then your claim of being able to "choose" what you belief is nonsense.



People certainly understand evidence differently, and some people do not find individual pieces of evidence valid or persuasive. However, people are compelled to believe they evidence they do accept, as they understand it. We do not "choose" how we understand things. For my part, I know that I honestly believe the things I believe, because I cannot reconcile with reality the idea of those things being otherwise. There is no other option, no other "choice," than that which I understand as reality. Perhaps you work differently, and can choose to believe things arbitrarily. I have asked you to demonstrate this power. Please do. And it doesn't even have to be the giraffe thing, if you don't like giraffes. Just pick one thing that you know to be false, and "choose" to completely, honestly, totally believe it. That will be satisfactory.

And please be careful; you came very close to an ad hominem attack in that last statement.

You either have totally misunderstood my statement or blatantly chose to disregard my point entirely. My point is not hard to understand, but it seems that people are complicating it tremedously. Why are you an athiest? Did your evidence just "force" you to believe as you are implying or did you come to a point where you decided that through your understanding that it was the best for you? I can guarantee that it is the latter. Another thing is that issue that you said of "lying to oneself" is just your opinion and people who might disagree with might think that you are "lying to oneself" and then we got two people who believe to different. Again it is because you once chose to believe that people were lying to themselves.

One more thing about the "giraffe" example is that we don't only choose to believe, we also choose not to believe. If someone told me that I was giraffe then I have choice to believe it or not to believe it. I chose to believe in God and His Son Jesus Christ, I chose to believe in Creationism over evolution, etc... I chose all of these beliefs because of the evidence that I found to be the most accurate. Everything is a choice whether you believe it or not, which incidentally is also choice. It all seems to come full circle.

 

[Telephone]

When someone first tells you that the eiffel tower is in Paris, than you can either choose to believe them or not.

Godfixated I would like to try something that may explain my point of view a little more clearly, could you please answer the following questions:

Say which of these you 'choose' to believe are true or not and post your answers below in the form of:

A) - I have choosen to believe this is true
B) - I have choosen to believe this is true
C) - I have choosen to believe this is false

etc etc.

OK here we go...



A) The moon is around 2 miles wide.

B) The 9/11 attacks were carried out by helicopters.

C) The current US pesident is Tony Blair.

D) Australia is south of the equator.

E) Horses have wings and can fly.

F) Native African people have very pale skin.

G) Moscow is in Russia.

H) Cars do not have wheels.

I) The Eiffel tower is in Paris.

________________________________________


Would you believe me if I told you I had the power to predict all the 'choices' you make and get this 100% right, all the time, every time !? how do you suppose I can predict your choices, how can I possibly see inside you head and know what you will 'choose' ??

 

[quatona]

Godfixated I would like to try something that may explain my point of view a little more clearly, could you please answer the following questions:

Say which of these you 'choose' to believe are true or not and post your answers below in the form of:

A) - I have choosen to believe this is true
B) - I have choosen to believe this is true
C) - I have choosen to believe this is false

etc etc.

OK here we go...



A) The moon is around 2 miles wide.

B) The 9/11 attacks were carried out by helicopters.

C) The current US pesident is Tony Blair.

D) Australia is south of the equator.

E) Horses have wings and can fly.

F) Native African people have very pale skin.

G) Moscow is in Russia.

H) Cars do not have wheels.

I) The Eiffel tower is in Paris.

________________________________________


Would you believe me if I told you I had the power to predict all the 'choices' you make and get this 100% right, all the time, every time !? how do you suppose I can predict your choices, how can I possibly see inside you head and know what you will 'choose' ??

Hey telephone, looks like a promising approach.
However, I´m wondering: Options A) and B) seem to be exactly identical...

Edited: Ooops, sorry. Upon rereading it I have now understood that A,B,C are not supposed to be three different options of answering, but refer to the questions below. My bad.

 

[quatona]

My point is not hard to understand, but it seems that people are complicating it tremedously.

I think it´s rather like people understand your point, but don´t agree with it, but don´t succeed in making you understand their objections.

Why are you an athiest? Did your evidence just "force" you to believe as you are implying or did you come to a point where you decided that through your understanding that it was the best for you?

False dichotomy, eh?

Although I indeed tend to think that we acquire those convictions that are "best for us" (which, of course is a highly interpretable term and dependant on its definition and connotation and the pov), this would not yet constitute choice or decision to be part of the process.

I can guarantee that it is the latter.

You don´t expect me to regard "I can guarantee you" an argument of sorts, are you?
I can guarantee you that it´s not a choice or decision, so that´s that.

One more thing about the "giraffe" example is that we don't only choose to believe, we also choose not to believe. If someone told me that I was giraffe then I have choice to believe it or not to believe it. I chose to believe in God and His Son Jesus Christ, I chose to believe in Creationism over evolution, etc... I chose all of these beliefs because of the evidence that I found to be the most accurate. Everything is a choice whether you believe it or not, which incidentally is also choice. It all seems to come full circle.

Yes, indeed. Circular reasoning plus begging the question.
You seem to be argmenting from the idea that the existence of hypothetical alternatives constitutes a choice already. This is certainly not so. A leaf can remain on the tree, or it can fall down. Two options, no choice.

 

[Telephone]

If you think that evidence "compels" people to believe the same way you do, than that is very egocentric.....

Godfixated if you have good conviction in your argument you would not feel the need to put unsaid words into anothers mouth, did TooCurious realy say 'evidence "compels" people to believe the same way he does' ?

What he actually said:

"You've heard the phrase, "compelling evidence"? It's accurate. Good evidence compels belief, because it points to a single description of reality."

Evidence does compel people to believe, it really is as simpe as that.

The evidence presented to you by your parents, pastor and the bible etc compelled you to believe the stories in the bible were truth.

Is this statement in any way wrong, if so please explain.

The only proviso I would add would be that of intellectual honesty, the only way to 'believe' something that you think to be not true would be to delude yourself, to be dishonest to your self.

 

[Godfixated]

Godfixated I would like to try something that may explain my point of view a little more clearly, could you please answer the following questions:

Say which of these you 'choose' to believe are true or not and post your answers below in the form of:

A) - I have choosen to believe this is true
B) - I have choosen to believe this is true
C) - I have choosen to believe this is false

etc etc.

OK here we go...



A) The moon is around 2 miles wide.

B) The 9/11 attacks were carried out by helicopters.

C) The current US pesident is Tony Blair.

D) Australia is south of the equator.

E) Horses have wings and can fly.

F) Native African people have very pale skin.

G) Moscow is in Russia.

H) Cars do not have wheels.

I) The Eiffel tower is in Paris.

________________________________________


Would you believe me if I told you I had the power to predict all the 'choices' you make and get this 100% right, all the time, every time !? how do you suppose I can predict your choices, how can I possibly see inside you head and know what you will 'choose' ??

I understand what you are saying, just because the majority of people believe the way we do, does not mean that they haven't chosen to believe what they do. Theses are examples of things that people will likely believe because have been given the sufficient data on each belief to choose what most will see as right, but if you delve deeper into these examples, you will get an example of people choosing to believe certain aspects different than others. Let's take option B about 9/11 for example. Of course it didn't happen by helicopters and most people will say plane, but there are some people who have chosen to believe theories such as this attack was a conspiracy by Bush, the Pentagon was hit by a missile instead of a plane, or there were missile pods on the bottom of the planes that attacked the WTC. I will refrain from saying if any of these are right or wrong to refrain from an entirely different debate, but we do see that people have chosen to believe these theories about 9/11 even when many of them have little evidence. These people were not simply forced to believe this by evidence but by a yearning for a deeper meaning into the cause of 9/11. This is but one example.

 

[Telephone]

Hey telephone, looks like a promising approach.
However, I´m wondering: Options A) and B) seem to be exactly identical...

Edited: Ooops, sorry. Upon rereading it I have now understood that A,B,C are not supposed to be three different options of answering, but refer to the questions below. My bad.

 

[Godfixated]

Godfixated if you have good conviction in your argument you would not feel the need to put unsaid words into anothers mouth, did TooCurious realy say 'evidence "compels" people to believe the same way he does' ?

What he actually said:

"You've heard the phrase, "compelling evidence"? It's accurate. Good evidence compels belief, because it points to a single description of reality."

Evidence does compel people to believe, it really is as simpe as that.

The evidence presented to you by your parents, pastor and the bible etc compelled you to believe the stories in the bible were truth.

Is this statement in any way wrong, if so please explain.

The only proviso I would add would be that of intellectual honesty, the only way to 'believe' something that you think to be not true would be to delude yourself, to be dishonest to your self.

On the contrary, I was not putting words in TooCurious' mouth, I was mearly using her words and forming my own sentences. I was not drawing incorrect conclusions from her posts just using a play on words for more dramatics.

 

[Telephone]

.......just because the majority of people believe the way we do, does not mean that they haven't chosen to believe what they do.

Did I get all your 'choices' right ?

Now can you pick out a single example A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H or I and choose to reverse your previously held idea that this is true/untrue ?

Can you honestly pick, for example, E) Horses have wings and can fly and choose to believe this is a truth ?

Or are you compelled by the overwhelming evidence to think that the idea that horses can fly is improbable ?

Can you break free of these compulsions and choose to believe that the Effiel Tower is in London ?

 

[Telephone]

I was mearly using her words and forming my own sentences.