How does one come to believe something?

[Davian]

To ALL -- but, atheists, anti-theists, and closed-minded "seekers". OK, now, into step 3 -- evidence, which ties in more specifically w the orig. subject by Joshua260. BTW: Are you still here, Joshua? Or, did you just start this thread and move on?

First, we must realize that there are different kinds of evidence. Off the top, I offer, at least, four kinds: 1) science (natural, physical), 2) historical (as in genealogy, one of my hobbies), 3) metaphysical (as in philosophy, logical concepts), and 4) "soft science" (as in social studies, psychology).

While this discussion starts with observations & questions in #1 (nature), the "proofs" go more in the line of #2 (as in scripture sources) or #3 (spiritual or metaphysical concepts). If one cannot accept "proofs" from all four kinds of evidence, or, worse yet, is confused between the kinds, then, there is little hope that logical argument can be done.

In genealogy, we have 1) sources (incl. observation), 2) gleaning evidence from these, 3) evaluation of the quality, 4) correlation toward a specific fact, 5) weaving these correlations together to establish a "fact" (or a conclusion). All of this requires mental processes & concepts -- referred to as such as hypothesis, interpretation, analysis, presumption, prove & convince.)

These are done in science, also, but with much more rigor -- on sources which a present (not past) and testable. So, comparing scientific results w genealogical ones is like comparing apples to oranges or, perhaps, even non-fruit to fruit! So, also, is trying to compare science to metaphysical proofs.

It is better that all types of evidence be used on a common issue to answer different types of questions to arrive at a better, more complete or comprehensive, result. This is as I see that science, & philosophy can, and should, do when delving into religious issues.

BTW: I was trained as a dualist (black-white, good-evil, physical-spiritual, etc.). But, I have become a "modified dualist" -- this is, inserting a middle 3rd element (gray, middle, metaphysical, ...). This middle ground may be a mixture of the other two or just unknown. When, unknown, a search may result it placing it in either. For here, the metaphysical will be the most operative.

With this foundation, next, I will go into the "proofs" (or demonstrations) of a God - e.g. Aquinas' five. This leads to the definition or description of my concept of God. After this, I will return to some of your posts for specific responses.

To quote the Philosophy Forum Statement of Purpose:The CF Philosophy forum is not intended for general apologetics of Christianity, i.e., the defense of the Christian faith against arguments, objections or attacks from non-Christians. Nor is this forum intended as a means for Christian evangelism (persuasion) of unbelievers.

 

[jonesdon]

1) Click on "user panel"; click on "preferences" and deselect "Show people's signatures with their messages" 2) What will be "soon"? 3) If you are unable to define your terms, we will not know what you are talking about. 4) Sure. But, allow me to be skeptical of undefined, unfalsifiable, unevidenced, and incoherent concepts.

=== REPLY: 1) Thanks! I owe you one here! 2) Depends on which (Einstein) universe time is used! ;-) 3) Yea, I thought you might be interested in my definitions -- so, you'll have something to shoot down. But, with my few definitions, so far, you still don't know what I'm talking about?

4) As I mentioned philosophical evidence (#479), I see that you won't accept any of this then. This will, surely, shorten our discussions! I can surely define, but, I won't be able to do much with your incoherence or lack of understanding my arguments. BTW: What is "unevidenced" evidence?

 

[Davian]

=== REPLY: 1) Thanks! I owe you one here!

You're welcome.

2) Depends on which (Einstein) universe time is used! ;-) 3) Yea, I thought you might be interested in my definitions -- so, you'll have something to shoot down.
But, with my few definitions, so far, you still don't know what I'm talking about?

I am still not clear on what you mean by "God", and all that it entails.

4) As I mentioned philosophical evidence (#479), I see that you won't accept any of this then. This will, surely, shorten our discussions! I can surely define, but, I won't be able to do much with your incoherence or lack of understanding my arguments.

Apologetics will have this thread locked or deleted in short order. This is not the forum for it.

BTW: What is "unevidenced" evidence?

I don't know. What is it?

 

[Wayne R.]

Wayne,

You never really answer my question of why a timeless, all-knowing God would have needed to change his plan mid-course. You say that "gray paint" was never God's plan, but how could anything come about that was not part of God's plan? God is the master of time and space. If a result occurs that he doesn't like, he can just go back in time and make it so that result never occurred. If God knows all, he knows how things will turn out in the future. So gray paint must have been part of God's plan. If God doesn't know what the future holds, if his omniscience is somehow limited by man's free will as you suggest, then what confidence should anyone have that God will ultimately come out on top? Perhaps there is another surprise in store for God in the future that will unravel all he's been planning. This theological position is incoherent and contradictory.

"if his omniscience is somehow limited by man's free will as you suggest", it was not my intention to suggest anything like this. He always knew and set the plan of redemption in motion before the world was even created. Giving man free will didn't create confusion for God or surprises when he exercised that free will. "Going back in time to fix it" would not be honouring free will. (Actually, time is thought to be an integral part of this universe. If that's the case, He doesn't exist IN time, but views it from outside of time. It's like us looking at a time line. Every event is seen simultaneously.) "Gray paint" wasn't part of His plan, but was certainly expected. "White paint" was and is His plan, and His being aware of the "black paint's" plan to destroy the "white paint" caused Him to set the redemption plan in motion. In the end, the "white paint" is the purest possible. So why the "hands off" approach? Man was given rule of the earth. When he submitted to the "black paint" he legally turned that authority over. "You are a servant of the one you obey." Man gave up rule by choice, his choice (free will) must also be an element of his redemption and regaining that authority.
Let me explain the "change of plan" issue this way: my wife and I have been foster parents for the developmentally disabled and we took in a six year old boy with autism and extreme behaviours. The state's plan was to institutionalise him since his behaviours caused every placement to fail. We knew exactly what we were getting into when we made the decision and expected behaviours, but set in place a plan to change him so he could survive in society. We took him to public places knowing he would be out of control. We were never surprised, and having to leave wherever we were wasn't a change in the plan to go there, it was part of it. He finally associated negative behaviour with missing out on his favourite events and changed.
I think I mentioned that there are hidden prophecies all through the Old Testament, many are not so hidden. The many prophecies predicting the future of Israel and Judah have to show He knows the future.

 

[jonesdon]

To quote the Philosophy Forum Statement of Purpose:The CF Philosophy forum is not intended for general apologetics of Christianity, i.e., the defense of the Christian faith against arguments, objections or attacks from non-Christians. Nor is this forum intended as a means for Christian evangelism (persuasion) of unbelievers.

RESP: Thank you, I was not aware of this. I see that it is recent -- just Feb. 2015. Looks like seculars have won another victory, this time even in a Christian forum! Congratulations! Good work!

So, atheists can defend their "religion", but, we Christians can't -- or, at least, must keep one hand behind our back. Well, I'm getting used to this -- a "welcome" to (or reality in) our modern society. And, we wonder why we have so many social (non-financial) issues -- esp. in families?

I really haven't portrayed Christian much -- yet. But, a few "slip ups". And, I had planned on going further. So, you (or the purpose policy) has reduced my plan by a few steps. Since Christianity is out, I'll concentrate more on theists -- as in most of what I've posted so far.

 

[jonesdon]

1) I am still not clear on what you mean by "God", and all that it entails. 2) Apologetics will have this thread locked or deleted in short order. This is not the forum for it.

=== RESP: 1) Hang loose! Coming. 2) Again, relax. It's about CHRISTIAN apologetics, and I'm backing away from this. You & the atheists can continue to defend non-Christian sects.

 

[Wayne R.]

What limitations?

Some are self-imposed by choice, others by interest or just through field of expertise. An oceanographer will probably not be the go-to person with questions of cosmology. A biologist and a psychiatrist may study the same brain, but certainly from entirely different perspectives, mindsets and focus. Different "fish bowls". From what the biologist sees in his microscope he could easily come to the conclusion the psychiatrist is delusional. That's an extreme analogy, but addresses the point.
So here's another "fish bowl" comparison: There are those who believe man has intellect but not spirit. Others believe man has a spirit and is aware of it. It's a key issue when defining belief systems and the reason for them.

 

[Davian]

RESP: Thank you, I was not aware of this. I see that it is recent -- just Feb. 2015. Looks like seculars have won another victory, this time even in a Christian forum! Congratulations! Good work!

The general apologetics forum closed prior to my arrival; apparently the Christians were not on the 'winning' side for the conversion (deconversion) numbers.

So, atheists can defend their "religion",

Atheism is not a religion.

but, we Christians can't -- or, at least, must keep one hand behind our back. Well, I'm getting used to this -- a "welcome" to (or reality in) our modern society. And, we wonder why we have so many social (non-financial) issues -- esp. in families?

Looking to those more secular nations as a comparison, might I suggest, religion?

I really haven't portrayed Christian much -- yet. But, a few "slip ups". And, I had planned on going further. So, you (or the purpose policy) has reduced my plan by a few steps. Since Christianity is out, I'll concentrate more on theists -- as in most of what I've posted so far.

There are the Christian Apologetics and Exploring Christianity forums, if you feel the need.

http://www.christianforums.com/forums/christian-apologetics.237/

http://www.christianforums.com/forums/exploring-christianity.1037/

 

[Davian]

Some are self-imposed by choice, others by interest or just through field of expertise. An oceanographer will probably not be the go-to person with questions of cosmology. A biologist and a psychiatrist may study the same brain, but certainly from entirely different perspectives, mindsets and focus. Different "fish bowls". From what the biologist sees in his microscope he could easily come to the conclusion the psychiatrist is delusional. That's an extreme analogy, but addresses the point.

What are these actual limitations you alluded to?

So here's another "fish bowl" comparison: There are those who believe man has intellect but not spirit. Others believe man has a spirit and is aware of it. It's a key issue when defining belief systems and the reason for them.

What is a "spirit"?

 

[Wayne R.]

What are these actual limitations you alluded to?

Knowledge, perception, concept of reality.

What is a "spirit"?

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.

 

[Wayne R.]

“All the hundreds of millions of people who, in their time, believed the Earth was flat never succeeded in unrounding it by an inch.” — Isaac Asimov

I hope you don't seriously think that's what I was referring to. Yet, it does further bring out the point of "fish bowls".

 

[Davian]

Knowledge, perception, concept of reality.

Those are words. What are these limitations that you allude to?

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.

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".

 

[Davian]

I hope you don't seriously think that's what I was referring to. Yet, it does further bring out the point of "fish bowls".

Clarify what you mean. This "fish bowl" analogy is beginning to look like what you use to delineate between observations of reality and what you imagine to be reality.

 

[lumberjohn]

"if his omniscience is somehow limited by man's free will as you suggest", it was not my intention to suggest anything like this. He always knew and set the plan of redemption in motion before the world was even created. Giving man free will didn't create confusion for God or surprises when he exercised that free will. "Going back in time to fix it" would not be honouring free will. (Actually, time is thought to be an integral part of this universe. If that's the case, He doesn't exist IN time, but views it from outside of time. It's like us looking at a time line. Every event is seen simultaneously.) "Gray paint" wasn't part of His plan, but was certainly expected. "White paint" was and is His plan, and His being aware of the "black paint's" plan to destroy the "white paint" caused Him to set the redemption plan in motion. In the end, the "white paint" is the purest possible. So why the "hands off" approach? Man was given rule of the earth. When he submitted to the "black paint" he legally turned that authority over. "You are a servant of the one you obey." Man gave up rule by choice, his choice (free will) must also be an element of his redemption and regaining that authority.
Let me explain the "change of plan" issue this way: my wife and I have been foster parents for the developmentally disabled and we took in a six year old boy with autism and extreme behaviours. The state's plan was to institutionalise him since his behaviours caused every placement to fail. We knew exactly what we were getting into when we made the decision and expected behaviours, but set in place a plan to change him so he could survive in society. We took him to public places knowing he would be out of control. We were never surprised, and having to leave wherever we were wasn't a change in the plan to go there, it was part of it. He finally associated negative behaviour with missing out on his favourite events and changed.

While I find what you have done quite honorable, I don't see it as a good analogy for God. I presume the plan for your adopted boy did not require raping and killing thousands of people. God's plan did. God destroyed every human on Earth except a single family. God ordered the murder of children. God condoned and accepted slavery for thousands of years. How is that analogous to the relationship you have with your son?

You speak of "Man" as if it were a single being. But we are talking about the entire human race, a race of individuals that each think and feel and make decisions. What kind of justice is it that condemns a newborn baby because of the decision of an ancient ancestor? That would be a system that every modern democracy has long rejected -- and with good reason. We now hold people accountable for their own actions.

I too have a son. My son didn't submit to the "black paint." My son didn't turn his authority over. My son didn't give up any such thing "by choice." So why does he require redemption?

Where is the scriptural authority for this whole scheme by which God's actions are justified due to his "honoring" of man's free will? And what is it about free will that requires God to honor it so slavishly? When a murderer decides to exercise his free will, it deprives his victim of their free will. So to honor one person's free will is to dishonor another's. Why does God consistently honor the free will of the strong over that of the weak?

There are many ways an omniscient and omnipotent God could have avoided such awful results and still respect human free will. That he doesn't shows either a profound lack of imagination or, far more likely, that he doesn't exist at all.

 

[Wayne R.]

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".

Quantum physics is more definable that the other two. At least we know what we're dealing with (particles), the struggle is in comprehending the behavior. It all seems like illusion, especially in the context of physics. With dark energy we have no clue what it is. It accounts for 76% of the universe, yet is a complete mystery except for it's effect of causing the universe's expansion to accelerate. There are no parameters than can be detected or measured in any real sense. Dark matter is just as mysterious. It makes up 23% of the universe, yet we know it's presence only by the distortion it causes on the 4% of the universe considered "knowable". I don't know if you're familiar with it but it's like looking at a familiar object, known matter, then having someone pass a class of water in front of the object, but not being aware of the glass of water. You're familiar with the object, but it's appearance suddenly changes with no detectable reason why. We know about because distant galaxies distort while being observed when dark matter moves in front of them. 96% of the universe appears to be illusion, imaginary, yet it's the greater portion of reality, an ocean compared to the fish bowl we commonly think of as reality.

 

[Davian]

Quantum physics is more definable that the other two. At least we know what we're dealing with (particles), the struggle is in comprehending the behavior. It all seems like illusion, especially in the context of physics. With dark energy we have no clue what it is. It accounts for 76% of the universe, yet is a complete mystery except for it's effect of causing the universe's expansion to accelerate. There are no parameters than can be detected or measured in any real sense. Dark matter is just as mysterious. It makes up 23% of the universe, yet we know it's presence only by the distortion it causes on the 4% of the universe considered "knowable". I don't know if you're familiar with it but it's like looking at a familiar object, known matter, then having someone pass a class of water in front of the object, but not being aware of the glass of water. You're familiar with the object, but it's appearance suddenly changes with no detectable reason why. We know about because distant galaxies distort while being observed when dark matter moves in front of them. 96% of the universe appears to be illusion, imaginary, yet it's the greater portion of reality, an ocean compared to the fish bowl we commonly think of as reality.

Sure.

As I was saying, 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".

 

[Wayne R.]

As I was saying, 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.

No more than you can for spirit.

Describe how we do this with "spirit".

I have already done so as I described "function".

 

[Davian]

No more than you can for spirit.

I have already done so as I described "function".

You can create falsifiable hypotheses, with experimental conclusions that can be independently observed and replicated for "spirit"? Go on, tell us more. I want to hear about these experiments.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

You can create falsifiable hypotheses, with experimental conclusions that can be independently observed and replicated for "spirit"? Go on, tell us more. I want to hear about these experiments.

Davian how do you feel abou the first person knowledge that "I exist" is true for you? Is that a falsifiable hypothesis, or an "axiom" or what? By the way I dont want to see you experimenting with your life, just to be sure.

 

[quatona]

Davian how do you feel abou the first person knowledge that "I exist" is true for you?

As far as I am concerned I don´t (claim to) have that knowledge.
In certain contexts, though, I find "I exist" to be an extremely useful (to the point of being inevitable within that context) axiom.