Nope, not correct. At a minimum, P3 should end with "at least one of the methods listed in p1", not "everything listed in p1".
But I still think the idea to replace this with people believe for reasons is better.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think the "emotion" suggestion was a good one and it rounds out the syllogism quite nicely. Thanks to all for the suggestion. So here's the modified version:
1. People come to believe something by evaluating evidence, logical arguments, emotions, or properly basic beliefs.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, people who are Christians came to believe that God exists by (everything listed in p1).
But both "articulating reasons" and "...whether...reasons are sufficient to warrant the...confidence the religious have in [their] claims" are, looking at it from one perspective, subject to deeper motives as the real causes of forming beliefs....I don't think anyone denies that the religious are capable of articulating various reasons for why they believe the claims of their religion. The question is whether those reasons are sufficient to warrant the high, often extreme, level of confidence the religious have in those claims.
If (1) all information (or all that exists) is endued by one of two possible qualities--truth or falsity--resulting in bodies, souls, minds and/or spirits existing in value-fragmented states, and (2) prescriptive truth is more powerful than descriptive truth in truth's opposition to the false, it seems to follow that (3) all motives for normative belief consist in either resistance of the intellect to prescriptive truth it encounters (by which the motive to form 'reasons' against it "as true" is born, e.g., Jn 3:19-21) or union of truth in the soul with the truth of intuited and revealed claims.
In the end, judgments about whether religious claims allow warrant for belief are themselves fashioned by either their union with or opposition to external and absolute prescriptive truth.
I have another thread going that fleshes out the starting point for this view. I welcome reasons for its falsification.
Sorry, I've never learned to link. I'll have to research it one of these days. It's easy to find, it's in philosophy.Link? Maybe it is easier to comorehend.
The Scriptures teach that belief or FAITH is based on knowledge and God's wisdom. Hebrews 11:1 states: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (NASB) Then the writer of Hebrews give us examples of faith in the Scriptures. Noah believed the words of God that a worldwide flood was coming sometime in the future and Noah should start building a boat to get ready, despite the fact that it had never rained since the beginning of creation. Over 100 years later the boat was completed and the rains came. Noah had no evidence that what God said was true he simply believed it. Children become Christians everyday, which was my experience at the age of six. Children have no real evidence, they simply believe that the message they hear is true. Belief is based on knowledge reinforced by God's given wisdom. Knowledge dose not always carry an element of empirical evidence. You, as a stranger, could tell me your homeless and need some money. By faith, I give you some money simply because I believe your story without any evidence that what you're telling me is true. Individuals believe what God is telling them is true and become Christians all the time simply through the testimony of others and the Holy Spirit working in the world. The Holy Spirit cannot be seen, but all true Christians know without any doubt that he exists and is working in the world, despite the fact He cannot be seen. The world does not see but Christian do. Why? In John 14:16-17 Jesus Christ gives us the answer: "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you." (NASB) For the Christian the empirical evidence comes after Faith, not before. To help understand some of these concepts my book is available worldwide. Made in the Image of God: Understanding the Nature of God and Mankind in a Changing World by Reid A. Ashbaucher. Something to think about.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. 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?
This is why the intro video theme song, of the American television comedy series, "The Big Bang Theory," is the story of evolution. Every time one watches an episode, they will be indoctrinated. This is also why it is presented as fact in "nature" & "science" programming; even though it is a disproven theory.
No. it is not true.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?
Evaluating Evidence is not the only way, one comes to believe a claim.
I believe it to be the rarest way.
There are parts of all those stories from bibles that have been proven to be wrong, even Jesus said things that would happen. That never did.How many of these do you suppose suspended their belief, until they evaluated the evidence? Or how many would you believe, accepted their faith as a child, then re-evaluated as an adult and concluded they were correct all along, from the evidence? And how many of them do you supposed simply believed their parents and got on with the distractions in their lives?
Another way to come to a belief, is to have it relentlessly repeated to you as a given truth. Or as Hitler put it, "if you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed,"
This is why the intro video theme song, of the American television comedy series, "The Big Bang Theory," is the story of evolution. Every time one watches an episode, they will be indoctrinated. This is also why it is presented as fact in "nature" & "science" programming; even though it is a disproven theory.
So we choose them without thinking, or when unconscious?Chany,
re: "Beliefs, at least to the extent in which we come to have them, are involuntary."
That is certainly true. Beliefs cannot be consciously chosen.
I can never see what the pictures are. Are you suggesting that I am being indoctrinated subliminally? Did you know that the theory of subliminal indoctrination has been disproved?..........This is why the intro video theme song, of the American television comedy series, "The Big Bang Theory," is the story of evolution. Every time one watches an episode, they will be indoctrinated.
Which theory has been disproved?This is also why it is presented as fact in "nature" & "science" programming; even though it is a disproven theory..............
I think, for me at least, it comes down making a sincere choice to ask the questions and seek the answers. I have debated with a many atheists, and one thing I find interesting is that none of them have honestly asked the question and investigated, through God's Word, anything of the existence of God. They will usually respond with, "why would I trust such a thing as a bunch of books put together telling us how to live our lives", which they believe to be fiction, yet never bother to answer the question of how such a group of writings, written over thousands of years can be so consistent and so powerfully perfect. They, of course, would then argue, how can you say it is consistent and powerfully perfect, yet they refuse to search it out for themselves. They always want those who believe to prove it to them rather than taking ownership of the question and seeking for themselves. Very interesting when you consider that the question itself deals with the eternal soul and ignoring that fact doesn't make it obsolete. They say "prove that God exists", I say prove He doesn't! I could give example after example of the glory of, not only God's existence, but that He is a perfectly loving and just God in every aspect. But they will continue to deny. In the end, it is God Himself that must open the heart and mind, whether it be through finally seeing His gracious and loving nature through His Word and creation or through His judgement.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?
But this is atheist circularity. The atheist says to the theist, "Come, let us argue our cases together. The rules are, only things in space and time exist. Now then, come, tell me all about your God!"I think atheists generally agree that if one is to have confidence in a belief, that belief should be epistemologically justified. Epistemological justification requires a systematic process in which evidence, in the more narrow sense of empirical evidence, is set atop a foundation of properly basic beliefs (in the sense that they represent the minimum necessary beliefs to make sense of the world
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?