How does one come to believe something?

[Joshua260]

There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. So I thought I'd extend that into a syllogism and see if it floats.

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?

 

[jacknife]

There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. So I thought I'd extend that into a syllogism and see if it floats.

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?

After reading the post below this one I've decided my idea my not be correct and have withdrawn it.

 

[True Scotsman]

There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. So I thought I'd extend that into a syllogism and see if it floats.

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?

No it's not. Premise one is not true. People believe things for all kinds of reasons, some valid and some not. I've had plenty of people tell me that I should believe first and then the understanding will be given to me. Clearly this is not belief based on the evaluation of evidence.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. So I thought I'd extend that into a syllogism and see if it floats.

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?

Since that thread is still available, why don't you link or quote some of these atheists who said you "only come to believe something based upon evidence?"

It would be helpful to see what they said exactly and the context they said it in.

 

[Joshua260]

Since that thread is still available, why don't you link or quote some of these atheists who said you "only come to believe something based upon evidence?"

It would be helpful to see what they said exactly and the context they said it in.

Primarily because you don't need to see what others said in order to answer whether you believe the argument is sound or not.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Primarily because you don't need to see what others said in order to answer whether you believe the argument is sound or not.

Well frankly, after that last thread of yours...I'd like to see if any atheists are actually saying what you claim they're saying. I read through the thread...but I didn't see any atheists saying ..."people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. "

Now admittedly, I read through it pretty fast, so I guess I could've missed it. However, if it's just not there...maybe the real question should be, "Why do some people feel the need to misrepresent atheists?" I understand this question would be off-topic of course...so I'd have to start a new thread. Unlike you though, I'll be posting links to posters who've intentionally misrepresented atheists.

 

[Davian]

There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. So I thought I'd extend that into a syllogism and see if it floats.

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?

You cannot demonstrate P1 to be true. I know from personal experience that it is not.

I came to believe in Santa as an adult without consciously evaluating any evidence.

I still get goosebumps.

Santa

• Davian
• Jun 5, 2014

I do wonder about your fascination with atheism. If you only put some effort into demonstrating that your god is more than a character in a book, would not that address the issue?

 

[quatona]

There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence.

I don´t believe you. Support your claim with quotes.

So I thought I'd extend that into a syllogism and see if it floats.

You have already had a thread on that very question.

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?

Yes, it´s sound in that the conclusion follows from the premises.
Unfortunately, premise 1 is inaccurate.

 

[Joshua260]

Well frankly, after that last thread of yours...I'd like to see if any atheists are actually saying what you claim they're saying. I read through the thread...but I didn't see any atheists saying ..."people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. "

Now admittedly, I read through it pretty fast, so I guess I could've missed it. However, if it's just not there...maybe the real question should be, "Why do some people feel the need to misrepresent atheists?" I understand this question would be off-topic of course...so I'd have to start a new thread. Unlike you though, I'll be posting links to posters who've intentionally misrepresented atheists.

Off topic.

 

[Joshua260]

I don´t believe you. Support your claim with quotes.

You have already had a thread on that very question.


Yes, it´s sound in that the conclusion follows from the premises.
Unfortunately, premise 1 is inaccurate.

I think you mean valid but unsound. Thanks for your response.

 

[Wryetui]

I do not consider that evidence is the major part for belief in Christ, but I would say love is. God's call leads those who want to have faith, people return to God and get faith not because someone gave them complicate explanations and arguments, evidence or answers, but because they saw in Him that light, joy, profoundness, seriousness and most importantly, love, are the only things that reveals God's presence in the world.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Off topic.

If your claim in the OP is false, why should anyone consider your syllogism?

It doesn't reflect anything about reality.

 

[quatona]

Off topic.

Makes me wonder why you started the OP with an off topic statement.

 

[Colter]

There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. So I thought I'd extend that into a syllogism and see if it floats.

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?

1) No
2) Yes, and our belief grows and evolves or devolves.
3) No, belief or trust is innate in children, human and faith children. In a spiritual sense belief in God seems instinctual, natural, by design. As one grows in intellect and emotional maturity the claims of religion about God may come into conflict with their developing beliefs.

 

[Davian]

1) No
2) Yes, and our belief grows and evolves or devolves.
3) No, belief or trust is innate in children, human and faith children. In a spiritual sense belief in God seems instinctual, natural, by design.

Or, credulousness is an evolved trait, particularly in childhood. Those children that disregarded the elders' warnings to stay back from the river or they will be eaten by crocodiles took themselves out of the gene pool.

As one grows in intellect and emotional maturity the claims of religion about God may come into conflict with their developing beliefs.

Or, observations of reality.

 

[HitchSlap]

Premise one is not sound.

 

[Joshua260]

I came to believe in Santa as an adult without consciously evaluating any evidence.

Yes, I remember believing in Santa simply because my parents told me so and at the time I had no reason to doubt them. That is what is referred to as a "properly basic belief". But as I got older, I evaluated various evidences and determined that his existence was less than probable. I also found the same to be true of the tooth fairy.

In regards to various possible candidates for creators of the universe, I used logical arguments to rule out such gods as Thor and all of the Greek and Roman gods(because they are all continent on the universe) and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (because he is immaterial and thus could not have created the material universe).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. So I thought I'd extend that into a syllogism and see if it floats.

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?

It's not really sound. Basically because Scripture states that Christians have to be "called" by God in order to begin approaching Him with a positive response (i.e. faith); evaluating evidence is just a portion of the spiritual and psychological process at play within the overall structure of faith, not the essential element.

 

[Kirsten]

There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. So I thought I'd extend that into a syllogism and see if it floats.

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?

People come to believe things for many reasons, many being emotional or experiential.
Christians believe in God because God has revealed Himself to them. Nobody can truly have faith without God's hand involved because faith is a gift from God.

 

[Davian]

Yes, I remember believing in Santa simply because my parents told me so and at the time I had no reason to doubt them. That is what is referred to as a "properly basic belief". But as I got older, I evaluated various evidences and determined that his existence was less than probable. I also found the same to be true of the tooth fairy.

In regards to various possible candidates for creators of the universe, I used logical arguments to rule out such gods as Thor and all of the Greek and Roman gods(because they are all continent on the universe) and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (because he is immaterial and thus could not have created the material universe).

You were talking of believing things as an adult without consciously evaluating any evidence, to which I was relating my own experience.

Did you come to your belief in your current god on the evaluation of the evidence? What evidence was that?