How does one come to believe something?

[ScottA]

Prayer works.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Prayer works.

Imagine if it did - wouldn't there be the risk of interfering with free will? Or does your particular interpretation of Christianity allow that?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Prayer works.

Prayer does not work.

Your turn.

 

[Chriliman]

You may have missed the point; evidence that someone holds a belief is not evidence that the belief is about something that is true.

I didn't miss that point. I agree with that point. The point I made is that the claims his parents made about their beliefs were evidence to him that caused him to believe them. Notice I'm not saying that his parents beliefs are true because they claim they're true. I am saying that his parents claims about their beliefs are evidence.

You also forgot to answer StTruth's question about the 'something that exists in reality that can be objectively analyzed': "What new evidence? Name me one."

If both you and StTruth accept what I'm saying then my claims can be considered as new evidence that caused you to believe what I'm saying.

 

[ScottA]

Imagine if it did - wouldn't there be the risk of interfering with free will? Or does your particular interpretation of Christianity allow that?

Prayer does not work.

Your turn.

Prayer...and freewill both work - just not how you may think.

All of time and the universe exist within the [timeless] eternal realm of God. Perhaps you have heard the saying: "in the twinkling of an eye." That, in worldly terms, is how one might describe a timeless event. In the greater reality of God all of this world of would be prayers and freewill, simply shows a time-lapse view of what already is. "It is finished" - you may have heard that saying too.

Here is another little factoid for you: In this time-lapse non-reality, our "whole life unfolds before our very eyes" (such as you have heard of a near death experience).

One day...all the pieces will come together.

 

[HitchSlap]

Prayer works.

Unless you're an amputee. Then not so much.

 

[Arsenios]

In some religious circles, making inane and irrelevant remarks is a sign of mystical wisdom. To me, it's pure lunacy. That is why I can't stand religious people in my church even though I've been an altar boy most of my life.

Does this mean you hate the desert Fathers?

Arsenios

 

[Ana the Ist]

The issue is not the presence or absence of a brain, but of the determination of the contents found in the understanding... The issue we are wrestling over is one that has on the one side the brain, and on the other side, the mind, and the question is: Does the brain determine the mind? Or does the mind determine itself... I think we can both agree that a person has both a mind and a brain, at least until death, as a default normal for this discussion...

Does the mind "determine itself"? No...no it doesn't. That's absurdity in the face of all logic.

Carnal understanding holds that the mind is not self-determining, but is determined by the brain...

So you can drop the "carnal" part and just call it what it is...understanding.

Private... If you want to know, you have to develop your own relationship with Him...

Then why preach? If it's private...if it's between you and him, why are you being his puppet? His dupe? His [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?

If you can go around preaching his message, then it's not private...you can have him answer some questions for me. Unless you, of course, just imagined the whole thing.

Carnal understanding dies when the brain dies, but YOU go on...

This goes back to my earlier comment that bothered you so much..."emotional needs". You're scared of not existing, aren't you? Terrified even?

No - Would half-breed-Swede qualify?

Sorry, I could've swore you said something about being Russian earlier.

Where is your joy?

Within.

Fabulously challenging, all told...

I can imagine.

Your atheism will not heal them...

And granted, that's an ad-hom observation...

Did you mean "ad hoc" observation? It's not even that, it's a bad guess about me based upon your limited understanding. I don't need anything "healed".

That for me would be to embrace a lie...

Did I mention that I hate lies?

You say that...but you're living one.

For you, death is loss of existence...

For me, it is great gain...

Then why not kill yourself? Why not stroll off into traffic? Your lack of conviction is obvious to anyone.

I never liked them because of what I saw as their sneering judgemental hypocrisy...

Now I love them for the same reason!

So sayeth the man who just claimed to "hate lies".

If you wanna have the toys in the box, ya gotta GO into the box...

There's no box...your toys for are imaginary.

That is the limit of your understanding...

As long as that is true, then do good and avoid evil, loving truth and hating lies, at all times and in all circumstances, and you will either encounter God, or you will not, [God's choice, not yours], but you will be OK in the Age to come, and you will live a worthwhile life here and now...

Arsenios

And good blah blah to you, sir!

 

[StTruth]

What I meant by belief was not so much belief in the moral and ethical propositions of Christianity (which, by and large, I find admirable), but belief in the supernatural aspects of it. Your first sentence suggests that you don't accept the supernatural aspects - God, Jesus-as-son-of-God, etc., as real, but the rest suggests you wholly accept the moral and ethical message. Would that be fair?

And yet you still refer to 'our Lord' - is this out of habit, or convenience, or symbolism, or does it suggest you see Jesus as more than human?

What I'm really interested in is belief in the supernatural - where the boundaries are between natural and supernatural, and why people cross them (in either direction).

Hi FrumiousBandersnatch

My understanding is of course shaped by my parents and my church. But there is someone in my church (he's an archdeacon) who's very learned and I've gained a lot from him. He introduces me to many cool scholars. And he helps to clear my doubts about the Bible and the faith. Most conservative Christians just ignore the problem areas and accuse me of all kinds of terrible things when I ask questions but this priest is different. He raises my understanding of things. Most of the things the average Christian sees as spiritual aren't really spiritual but are quite natural. And then some things can be looked at from two angles or two different approaches. For example our Lord is a good example. He tells me that Jesus can be looked t from two angles. One, the Jesus of history who was a Jewish zealot who got executed by the Romans. The other is the Jesus of the church or the Jesus of faith. You don't call the historical Jesus your Lord. It's the Jesus of faith who's my Lord and who is God himself. When viewed in this way, it doesn't matter if evidence shows that Jesus actually never intended to call himself God.It doesn't matter either if it can be shown (as some scholars do) that the idea of the Holy Trinity grew, evolved and became what it is today. The Jesus of faith is what the church decides him to be today. Never mind if Origen misunderstood what he was and went literally on St Paul's words and called him God's first creation (from St Paul's 'firstborn of all creation') and poor Origen became posthumously a heretic when the concept of the Holy Trinity became refined later in the later part of the third or fourth century (I forget which).

Cheers,

StTruth

 

[StTruth]

Does this mean you hate the desert Fathers?

Arsenios

Sorry, I've not heard of the desert Fathers. Who are they?

 

[StTruth]

I didn't miss that point. I agree with that point. The point I made is that the claims his parents made about their beliefs were evidence to him that caused him to believe them. Notice I'm not saying that his parents beliefs are true because they claim they're true. I am saying that his parents claims about their beliefs are evidence.

I have said earlier that it is evident to me that you don't understand the meaning of 'evidence'. I still think so. The claims of my parents about their beliefs were NEVER evidence. Evidence is not subjective. Something that is not evidence cannot become evidence to a gullible child (as I was then). My parents made bare bald statements about their faith and I, a dumb unthinking gullible child, accepted what they said as truth even though there was no evidence. I really hope you can see that.

If both you and StTruth accept what I'm saying then my claims can be considered as new evidence that caused you to believe what I'm saying.

No, I don't accept what you are saying. I've said you don't understand what 'evidence' means. What you are saying is evidence of your misunderstanding of the word 'evidence'. What you are saying is evidence that you believe in the things you say you believe in and that is all. It is not evidence that the things you believe in are true. It is not evidence that supports what you claim. i really don't know how else to make it plainer.

Cheers,

StTruth

 

[Chriliman]

I have said earlier that it is evident to me that you don't understand the meaning of 'evidence'. I still think so. The claims of my parents about their beliefs were NEVER evidence.

If you don't agree that evidence can be defined as something that exists in objective reality, then I understand why you think I'm wrong.

However, claims do exist in objective reality and therefore should be considered as evidence that can help determine what is true. Notice I'm not saying that claims are always evidence that the claim is true. I am saying that claims that exist in objective reality are evidence that can help one determine what is true(along with other evidence).

Evidence is not subjective.

Agreed. However, evidence is always subjectively interpreted, we just try to be as objective as possible when interpreting. Some are better than others.

Something that is not evidence cannot become evidence to a gullible child (as I was then). My parents made bare bald statements about their faith and I, a dumb unthinking gullible child, accepted what they said as truth even though there was no evidence. I really hope you can see that.

Something had to cause you to believe. In this case it was your parent's claims that caused you to believe them, regardless if their claims were true or not, their claims were evidence because they existed in objective reality where you could observe and accept them.

No, I don't accept what you are saying. I've said you don't understand what 'evidence' means. What you are saying is evidence of your misunderstanding of the word 'evidence'. What you are saying is evidence that you believe in the things you say you believe in and that is all. It is not evidence that the things you believe in are true. It is not evidence that supports what you claim. i really don't know how else to make it plainer.

What does 'evidence' mean to you?

I'm really baffled that you reject my definition that states that evidence is anything that exists in objective reality that can be analyzed by anyone.

 

[StTruth]

If you don't agree that evidence can be defined as something that exists in objective reality, then I understand why you think I'm wrong.

I'm not the only who does not agree with your definition of evidence. Neither does the Oxford English Dictionary. See right below.

However, claims do exist in objective reality and therefore should be considered as evidence that can help determine what is true. Notice I'm not saying that claims are always evidence that the claim is true. I am saying that claims that exist in objective reality are evidence that can help one determine what is true(along with other evidence).

Your definition of 'evidence' is wrong. Did you make up the definition yourself? See below.

Agreed. However, evidence is always subjectively interpreted, we just try to be as objective as possible when interpreting. Some are better than others.

But all this is moot. There is no evidence for Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) to begin with.

Something had to cause you to believe. In this case it was your parent's claims that caused you to believe them, regardless if their claims were true or not, their claims were evidence because they existed in objective reality where you could observe and accept them.

Claims are not evidence. See below.

What does 'evidence' mean to you?

I'm really baffled that you reject my definition that states that evidence is anything that exists in objective reality that can be analyzed by anyone.

There's no need to be baffled if you could only check the dictionary. But I think there is an underlying reason why you made up such a ridiculous definition of 'evidence'. It's part of a debating game that I've been warned about when I told my priest and mentor that I'm now chatting with people on CF. He calls it the debating game that William Lane Craig is a master in. But he thinks it's highly dishonest. But I'm sure you are honest and you are just badly mistaken.

You see, the Oxford Dictionary (or any good dictionary) defines evidence as "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." A claim is not a body of facts or information. Let me give you an example so you can understand. Tom says, "I am a Christian and so I'm going to heaven". That is a claim by Tom but it's not evidence for Christianity. It is evidence of Tom's declaration of faith but it's not evidence for Christianity. So, let's say the Arabian government wants to arrest Tom for the crime of not being a Muslim but a Christian, someone can testify that he heard Tom saying he was a Christian. That's oral evidence of Tom's admission that he was a Christian. But it can never be evidence in favour of Christianity.

I asked myself why on earth you could come up with such a preposterously broad definition for evidence. And silly me. I should have known. I had said that Christianity was evidence-less and you claimed it was not. You insist that there is evidence for Christianity. Hence if evidence is defined so broadly that it goes against the definition of standard English as seen in any English dictionary, it would be easier to show that there is 'evidence' for Christianity. This is, I guess, what my archdeacon means by a 'debating game'. I'm glad I saw through it.

Your definition is totally wrong. Don't make up your own definition.

 

[Dan Bert]

Joshua260 A belief is just that. One may have a belief that is true or not true. That is called the belief stage. The knowledge stage which is also the truth stage is the level we arrive at after the testing of a belief is done and we taste its fruits either in the flesh or spiritually. Every thing we do brings fruits. By tasting those fruits we can determine for oneself if we are on the right track. Life experiences teaches us if we are on the right track or not. It is God's will that we live and have a life of health, happiness, prosperity. If we do not achieve the highest will of God for us, then we change our ways.

dan

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?

 

[Chriliman]

I'm not the only who does not agree with your definition of evidence. Neither does the Oxford English Dictionary. See right below.



Your definition of 'evidence' is wrong. Did you make up the definition yourself? See below.



But all this is moot. There is no evidence for Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) to begin with.



Claims are not evidence. See below.



There's no need to be baffled if you could only check the dictionary. But I think there is an underlying reason why you made up such a ridiculous definition of 'evidence'. It's part of a debating game that I've been warned about when I told my priest and mentor that I'm now chatting with people on CF. He calls it the debating game that William Lane Craig is a master in. But he thinks it's highly dishonest. But I'm sure you are honest and you are just badly mistaken.

You see, the Oxford Dictionary (or any good dictionary) defines evidence as "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." A claim is not a body of facts or information. Let me give you an example so you can understand. Tom says, "I am a Christian and so I'm going to heaven". That is a claim by Tom but it's not evidence for Christianity. It is evidence of Tom's declaration of faith but it's not evidence for Christianity. So, let's say the Arabian government wants to arrest Tom for the crime of not being a Muslim but a Christian, someone can testify that he heard Tom saying he was a Christian. That's oral evidence of Tom's admission that he was a Christian. But it can never be evidence in favour of Christianity.

I asked myself why on earth you could come up with such a preposterously broad definition for evidence. And silly me. I should have known. I had said that Christianity was evidence-less and you claimed it was not. You insist that there is evidence for Christianity. Hence if evidence is defined so broadly that it goes against the definition of standard English as seen in any English dictionary, it would be easier to show that there is 'evidence' for Christianity. This is, I guess, what my archdeacon means by a 'debating game'. I'm glad I saw through it.

Your definition is totally wrong. Don't make up your own definition.

I guess we can agree to disagree at this point.

Claims can contain facts and information and they do exist in reality for all to see, so I'm really not sure why they can't be considered as evidence, but oh well, we don't need to continue debating about it.

God bless

 

[StTruth]

I guess we can agree to disagree at this point.

Claims can contain facts and information and they do exist in reality for all to see, so I'm really not sure why they can't be considered as evidence, but oh well, we don't need to continue debating about it.

God bless

It's very simple. In a debate, you cannot make up your own definitions for English words as you please. What you are doing
is to make up your own definition of the word 'evidence' that flies in the face of the definition of any respectable English dictionary as I have demonstrated with the Oxford English Dictionary. Your purpose? So that you can conclude quite incorrectly that Christianity is not devoid of any evidence. Please consider this honestly and ask yourself if this is fair.

May our Lord bless you too.

 

[bhsmte]

It's very simple. In a debate, you cannot make up your own definitions for English words as you please. What you are doing
is to make up your own definition of the word 'evidence' that flies in the face of the definition of any respectable English dictionary as I have demonstrated with the Oxford English Dictionary. Your purpose? So that you can conclude quite incorrectly that Christianity is not devoid of any evidence. Please consider this honestly and ask yourself if this is fair.

May our Lord bless you too.

Well, when you have someone who has stated many times; "claims are evidence of truth", this is what you get.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Prayer...and freewill both work - just not how you may think.
...
In the greater reality of God all of this world of would be prayers and freewill, simply shows a time-lapse view of what already is. "It is finished"

If it is 'finished' in the 4D Parmenidean block universe you suggest, then there would seem to be a problem for free will in that our choices would all be effectively pre-determined (similar to the problem of foreknowledge).

If, on the other hand, you maintain that it is our experience of the timeline that counts, if God interferes in the world to answer prayers, there is a different problem with free will, in as much as changing human behaviour in response to prayer will directly interfere with free will, and changing natural events to advantage will indirectly affect the free will of humans, by changing their available choices, or the consequences of their choices.

Overarching these issues is the problem of how a God 'outside time' (i.e. eternal rather than everlasting) can interact with the world in a time-like manner, such as described in the bible, or when answering prayers. The acts of God in the bible suggest he is everlasting (timelike) rather than eternal.

 

[Arsenios]

Truth, of course... although the chemical description is a little vague to be called "truth".
But if you mix "soap" and "water" you will get "suds". Reliably. Always.



You had better not declare anything "materially configured mental processes" then without understanding materialism.

Thank-you - Warnings are always welcome...

Is that the soap-suds warning?

I never was much on calling suds truth...

Why did you do so?

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

The Church did not canonise me St Truth for nothing.

Rockin'!!

Pass the BONG!



Arsenios