How does one come to believe something?

[lumberjohn]

I'm not versed well enough in the various world religions to speak on their take on our reason for existence. I am however well versed in the bible and have studied it for many, many years. On that I can speak with some modicum of understanding. How is it that prophets speaking about the Messiah and how he would be killed happened exactly how Yeshua was killed by the Romans? How is it that the Jewish Prophet in the book of Isaiah names King Cyrus by NAME as the man who would allow the Jews to return to Jerusalem 150 years before Cyrus birth?

Virtually all critical biblical scholars recognize that these Old Testament prophecies originally were never intended by their authors to refer to Jesus. They were pulled way out of context by early Christians looking for anything in the Old Testament to hang their hats on. Why is it that virtually no Jewish scholars, who are the most familiar with their scriptures, believe these were messianic prophecies?

 

[lumberjohn]

Science is utterly worthless when asking question's "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"

Atheists make the deeply flawed mistake of then arguing that since science can not address these question at all, that therefore there must be no purpose in our being here. By using the wrong tool to ask a philosophical question you come away with an inherently flawed answer just as you stated.

For some of these questions, yes. For others, no. But some of these questions make assumptions that are completely unwarranted and thus may have no answers. Questions such as "What is the meaning of life" or "Why am I here" assume some overarching purpose that presupposes a creator. If no creator, then no such purpose. The question becomes meaningless.

 

[lumberjohn]

I do find it interesting and noteworthy that if one examines the ORDER in which Genesis gives account of creation it would happen exactly in the order in which one would expect it to occur scientifically. What are the odds that ancient man would know this?

Nope. There are two versions of Genesis, and neither corresponds with the order of scientific creation. The story parallels other creation myths of neighboring tribes. The story of Noah first appeared in the Epic of Gilgamesh, written long before Genesis. I think the odds are pretty good that ancient men would copy and elaborate upon other myths they heard.

 

[lumberjohn]

Lastly, you will find that much of the field of study of molecular genetics is filled with both highly respected scientist who are believers but more importantly a significant absence of atheists as a percentage of the population of scientist in that particular discipline. The reason is quite simple... evolution does not conform at all in that particular field of research and study. Most researchers out rightly reject Darwinist views on evolution simply because it can not be supported at all based upon our current understanding at the molecular level.

Evolution states that things go from simple to complex... yet the deeper we look at the molecular level we see incredible complexity much of which we still do not understand. If evolution were in fact how things happened then random mutations in DNA would likely produce positive results. To date, we have no evidence at all that supports such a view and in fact what we do have evidence of is that random mutation of DNA every single time produces a highly negative result.

I find this hard to believe. You're going to have to support this with a reliable source. The fact is that atheism is much higher in scientists than the general public -- especially scientists in fields such as physics and biology that relate directly to Biblical claims. Now, why would that be?

 

[lumberjohn]

Of course none of this is going to change your world view as the truth is that I have never met a single person that rejects Gd on a rational, logical reasoned research of the evidence. People reject Gd because of the implications... namely that if Gd does exist then I exist as a by product of his creation and his plan. That then means I have to do something about that fact.... its far easier to simply deny he exists and spray justifications around that sound good but actually hold no water upon closer examination.

There is literately hundreds of books out there by people who have started out to prove Gd doesn't exist and through an honest, open, through examination came to the conclusion they were wrong.

I'm not sure where you acquired the credentials to know why I believe what I do more than I do. I'll need a cite for that as well.

And I'll also need some evidence for that last claim. I would put up the books by former Christians turned atheists against the reverse any day.

 

[lumberjohn]

“No clue” is certainly the most truthful statement. There are no credible hypotheses to define the issues I pointed out, and certainly nothing that disproves “God”, especially when considering the fact that “God” is the very name many use in reference to those inconceivable events. Even atheists accept the events by faith in the reports of others, and therefore cannot deny there is a cause, clueless as to the parameters of that cause as they may be. “God is the cause” is certainly a viable and appropriate declaration. Therefore, denying the cause is “God” is futile and amounts to “the cause didn't cause it”. Now if you were to ask what the essence of “God” is, what the “parameters” of God might be, most would admit they don't have a clue, yet as the existence of the universe as understood in the Big Bang theory evidences the fact that a cause exists, denial of the cause amounts to nonsense. "God" as term avoided by atheists and dispised by antitheists, yet "Cause" can be denied by neither, and certainly not disproved. They're arguments amount to semantics.

In this context, God is a hopelessly vague term used by theists as a placeholder for "I don't know." "Cause" certainly can be denied, and is by a large percentage of physicists. Cause is a temporal concept that presupposes temporality. If time began at the Big Bang, then our universe could not have been "caused" in any recognizable sense of that term.

 

[Chany]

Then why isn't EVERYONE given this gift of faith. The Bible says God wants no one to be lost.

Could you please quote the passage? I want it for when I have to deal with Calvinists up at my college. We apparently have a large number of them.

 

[RSLancastr]

There is literately hundreds of books out there by people who have started out to prove Gd doesn't exist and through an honest, open, through examination came to the conclusion they were wrong.

Name ten.

 

[Davian]

“No clue” is certainly the most truthful statement. There are no credible hypotheses to define the issues I pointed out, and certainly nothing that disproves “God”,

Define "God" in a manner that can be tested. You can define what you believe in, can you not?

especially when considering the fact that “God” is the very name many use in reference to those inconceivable events.

Or, when they hit their thumb with the hammer for the second time. Ouch.

Even atheists accept the events by faith in the reports of others, and therefore cannot deny there is a cause, clueless as to the parameters of that cause as they may be. “God is the cause” is certainly a viable and appropriate declaration.

Where do you get this assumptions that all atheists are astrophysicists?

Therefore, denying the cause is “God” is futile

I do not deny it. I am skeptical of unevidenced religious assertions.

and amounts to “the cause didn't cause it”.

Or a case was not needed. Or, did it have to be a god?, Or, we just don't know.

Now if you were to ask what the essence of “God” is, what the “parameters” of God might be, most would admit they don't have a clue,

Can you not define this thing that you believe in?

yet as the existence of the universe as understood in the Big Bang theory evidences the fact that a cause exists,

No, it is only evidence that supports the standard model of cosmology, and a 13+ billion-year-old cosmos.

denial of the cause amounts to nonsense.

Are you our new arbiter of "sense" for this forum?

"God" as term avoided by atheists and dispised by antitheists, yet "Cause" can be denied by neither, and certainly not disproved.

The unfalsifiable cannot be falsified. But then, the unfalsifiable is of no scientific significance.

They're arguments amount to semantics.

Pretend that you are participating in a philosophy forum.

 

[As I was saying]

Hi everyone. I am a newbie here and am interested in all things atheistic. I have several books on the topic, have attended seminars and recently I watched three programmes om TV where Richard Dawkins was the centre of attention. In addition I watch all of David Attenborough’s programmes and love the photographic expertise that shows us God’s magnificent creation in all its glory whilst David tries to convince us that it all happened by chance. In one of his latest ones apparently my great grandfather removed umpteen times was a fish. What a pity I love eating fish.

Over the course of my learning (I love learning with three university degrees to lend support to the fact) I have found out that if you want to know all about God you ask an atheist. After all, they do not believe he exists so they are obviously the ones that are the experts on nothing. In addition they claim that the bible is rubbish (written by goat herders) but that doesn’t stop them telling us they are world authorities on rubbish.

Now, to get to the core of the issue, to say that God does things this way or that way and only this way or that way is fanciful in the extreme. I am married and have two children and eight grandchildren. If I am baby sitting the grandchildren I don’t say “It is 7 o’clock so it time for you all to go to bed.” It may be time for the youngest (12 months old) to go to bed but not for the oldest (12 years old) to go to bed.

No, they have different bedtimes because they are younger or older as the case may be. In other words, I treat them differently depending on their age. God treats us differently depending on our age. When I was convinced about God I was 11 years old. He spoke to me through scripture which the Holy Spirit revealed the truth of to me.

I had a very good friend who has since died who was a Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University. He was 25 when he acknowledged God in his life. How did it happen? Being a Professor of Philosophy he decided to read the bible from A to Z. His study was from a philosophical perspective. Prior to that he was an atheist.

When he had finished reading it he confessed that he believed the bible to be true and that God existed and said who he said he was. He spent the next 60 years teaching Christian faith and doctrine. Having such a brilliant mind, he was a formidable exponent of Christian truth.

For some people evidence is important and God accepts that. For others faith alone is all that is needed to find and acknowledge the one true God. Both are valid and to be accepted.

I read of an American missionary in Mozambique who preached the gospel to a village for the first time. A mother pushed through to the front with a baby in her arms and said to her. “My son has died (she had the little baby in her arms) and the witch doctors can do nothing for him. Can your God do anything? If he can I will follow your God.”

To cut a long story short the missionary believed God could do miracles and prayed for the little boy. He stirred and came back to life and as a result the whole village became followers of the Christian God. Some people do need evidence. Some don’t. And please note evidence isn’t necessarily x + y - 2 = a fish.

 

[Zoe Brain]

I read of an American missionary in Mozambique who preached the gospel to a village for the first time. A mother pushed through to the front with a baby in her arms and said to her. “My son has died (she had the little baby in her arms) and the witch doctors can do nothing for him. Can your God do anything? If he can I will follow your God.”

To cut a long story short the missionary believed God could do miracles and prayed for the little boy. He stirred and came back to life and as a result the whole village became followers of the Christian God. Some people do need evidence. Some don’t. And please note evidence isn’t necessarily x + y - 2 = a fish.

Do you think what you read is true?
If so - why?
If not - why not?

Can we do tests here - we'd need to know the name of the village, the name of the Missionary, when it happened, etc.
Does this happen only in Mozambique, or do pediatric hospitals in the USA have missionaries on call to perform resurrections like this?

 

[AllanV]

Then why isn't EVERYONE given this gift of faith. The Bible says God wants no one to be lost.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Christians would say that the Bible is the Word of God, but an individual if disciplined and in full belief should be able to express words with the Spirit of God. There is a purity that comes from within.
Generally a barrier in the mind exists to receiving the word and believing something beyond and deeper than self belief but someone who already believes can facilitate a breakthrough. But who can be trusted.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

By attempting to argue that Gd must fit into the scientific box.

The scientific box is a flawed one because it is constantly changing as man gains a greater understanding of the universe in which he lives.

That's not a bug, it's a feature. Would you rather that we not revise theories in light of new evidence?

Evidence of the creator is all around us but most reject it.

For example?

To this day science has no clue what so ever as to what actually caused the spark of life to happen on earth.

How does this point to a creator?

 

[Zoe Brain]

Perhaps we can do an experiment here, involving something a little less controversial. Something that has only a peripheral connection with religious belief, yet something which is topical.

Do you believe "Anyone with XY chromosomes is, by definition, male"?

If so - why? If not, why not?

Note the "by definition" implies that
1. All males, without exception, have XY chromosomes
2. All people with XY chromosomes, without exception, are male.
3. It is a theoretical impossibility for anyone who is male not to be XY
4. It is a theoretical impossibility for anyone who is XY not to be male.

We'll leave open for now the definition of female etc and if people neither male nor female exist, as the last in particular causes theological controversy.

 

[Zoe Brain]

To this day science has no clue what so ever as to what actually caused the spark of life to happen on earth.

That's incorrect. We can, and have, created life. We're exploring just exactly what other conditions can create life too. So clues we have aplenty. The complete picture, no. There appears to be several ways it can happen, which one happened on Earth may always be a matter of conjecture. The way the Universe is set up appears to make the emergence of Life to be inevitable.

That just transfers the metaphysical question though down another level. Why are the physical constants of the Universe the way they are? For that, the many-worlds interpretation and the weak anthropic principle provide a plausible explanation - but not one we can prove is correct.

See the various (rather ill-publicised) conferences on Artificial Life. They don't get publicised lest they draw unwelcome attention from the kind of people who bomb mosques, abortion clinics, churches etc.

MITpress publishes the proceedings though. The most recent one is at https://mitpress.mit.edu/index.php?q=books/artificial-life-14

 

[Archaeopteryx]

LOL No you dont... your's is not a head problem... its a heart problem.

If I had a penny for every time a Christian has said this to me...

Either Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ) rose from the dead or he didn't. There is 0 question that he lived. He made extraordinary claims and lived from all accounts an extraordinary life....

If he rose (He did) then he is GD and everything in scripture is truth. If he didn't, its all fables and stories and a waste of time.

Ignoring for a moment the paucity of evidence for such a resurrection actually happening, why does him rising from the dead indicate Godhood?

Science is fallible because our understanding of our own existence and the environment around us is incomplete and that is just a plain fact. As our tools and technology improves all we find are more complex difficult questions. It is my firm belief we will NEVER have all the answers. Man does not have the mind of Gd and it is beyond our grasp or ability to full know.

I don't think anyone denies that science is fallible.

You are right that "religion" has yield no facts about the natural world around us... just as science has yield NO FACTS about the realm of the spiritual. You might as well try to plow a field with a hammer.... I suspect you wont get very far with that.

Has religion yielded any facts about "the realm of the spiritual"?

Your understanding of things that are spiritual are woefully flawed. I'm not versed well enough in the various world religions to speak on their take on our reason for existence. I am however well versed in the bible and have studied it for many, many years. On that I can speak with some modicum of understanding. How is it that prophets speaking about the Messiah and how he would be killed happened exactly how Yeshua was killed by the Romans? How is it that the Jewish Prophet in the book of Isaiah names King Cyrus by NAME as the man who would allow the Jews to return to Jerusalem 150 years before Cyrus birth?

It's easy for writers to "fulfil" prophecies that they have access to beforehand.

Science is utterly worthless when asking question's "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"

Which doesn't imply that religion is useful in satisfying those questions.

Atheists make the deeply flawed mistake of then arguing that since science can not address these question at all, that therefore there must be no purpose in our being here. By using the wrong tool to ask a philosophical question you come away with an inherently flawed answer just as you stated.

Religion doesn't appear to be the right tool.

I do find it interesting and noteworthy that if one examines the ORDER in which Genesis gives account of creation it would happen exactly in the order in which one would expect it to occur scientifically. What are the odds that ancient man would know this?

That is demonstrably false. In Genesis, plants predate the sun and stars. The Genesis account is literally off by billions of years.

Lastly, you will find that much of the field of study of molecular genetics is filled with both highly respected scientist who are believers but more importantly a significant absence of atheists as a percentage of the population of scientist in that particular discipline. The reason is quite simple... evolution does not conform at all in that particular field of research and study. Most researchers out rightly reject Darwinist views on evolution simply because it can not be supported at all based upon our current understanding at the molecular level.

I doubt that.

Of course none of this is going to change your world view as the truth is that I have never met a single person that rejects Gd on a rational, logical reasoned research of the evidence.

Welcome to CF. You'll meet plenty such people right here.

There is literately hundreds of books out there by people who have started out to prove Gd doesn't exist and through an honest, open, through examination came to the conclusion they were wrong.

There is also ample literature from former Christians.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

Belief is a choice, many people refuse to believe in mountains of evaluated evidence.

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.

Some do, fundamental religious believed do not. This applies to many religions.

2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.

Some do, fundamental religious believe. This applies to many religions. Some take the message as stories and believe the morals are the best way to live in a society. Something that blind faith ignores. With suicide bombers, burning people at the stake, and ignoring child abuse to keep the organisation safe.

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

What evidence is there god exists and Bronze Age Men and those who claim to have met him or Jesus, or Mary, or know what god wants. Have a clue about him? This would be like taking the evidence of people who claim to have had contact with aliens as the truth.

Lol. I really did like this. You see, I have seen God and spoken with him, and it reinforces my faith, but I do not expect others to believe in him just because I said I've seen him. Why not take my example and meet with him yourself? Then you won't have to doubt me.

I was trying to think whether I evaluated evidence or not. I did evaluate my dad's testimony, but then I suspect I already believed. On what I heard I committed myself to God for life but I did not suddenly believe at that point. I already believed. I'm just not sure why I did. It seems like I always believed, I just knew God was true. The Bible confirms it; my life's experiences confirm it; the testimony of others confirm it, but it was always so.

Perhaps I would have to say it is unsound.

 

[Wayne R.]

Define "God" in a manner that can be tested. You can define what you believe in, can you not?

Or, when they hit their thumb with the hammer for the second time. Ouch.

Where do you get this assumptions that all atheists are astrophysicists?

I do not deny it. I am skeptical of unevidenced religious assertions.

Or a case was not needed. Or, did it have to be a god?, Or, we just don't know.

Can you not define this thing that you believe in?

No, it is only evidence that supports the standard model of cosmology, and a 13+ billion-year-old cosmos.

Are you our new arbiter of "sense" for this forum?

The unfalsifiable cannot be falsified. But then, the unfalsifiable is of no scientific significance.

Pretend that you are participating in a philosophy forum.

LOLOL.
Let's get real. Atheists don't visit religious websites, they're indifferent to theism. Antitheists, however, elevate atheism to the level of religion. They feel compelled to attempt to refute the faith of the theists with their own antitheist faith for political purposes. It really is a ridiculous premise, hating “religion” yet promoting the religion of antitheism, a fact they deny but cannot escape. Antitheism has proved to be destructive throughout history and a failed belief system, yet the antitheist insists on investing unquestioned faith in it. It's purpose is subjugation, elimination of independent thinking not aligned with it's own. Antitheists are what they claim to hate.

As to “theology”: to those familiar with the supernatural, those who's thinking is confined to the limitations of the natural and arguing against the supernatural are like blind men criticizing Picasso. There's no point in discussing what they have no concept of, and every argument raised only proves their blindness. Guppies in a fishbowl will never comprehend whales in the ocean. Antitheism religion, and that is exactly what it is, holds no interest to those who see it for what it is.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Atheists live in faith of what they have been taught. Have they experienced the Big Bang? Not hardly. Do they have an explanation for it's cause or the parameters of it? Not a clue! Do they even ask why they believe what they assume to be true. No, they just accept it. What was the force that collapsed the pre-existant universe they believe became so infinitesimally small it couldn't be measured? “No clue” is the only answer you'll hear. What was the force that over came the collapsing force and caused expansion at 17 trillion degrees? “No clue” again. Since time and space are an integral part of the universe and birthed at that moment, what “force” birthed them? “No clue.” Why did the universe develop in absolute consistency in every direction, and according to order rather than chaos? “No clue.” What caused the vibration that exists as a uniform foundation of all particles as the superheated plasma of the universe began to cool? “No clue.” What created light photons and the energy that propels them at the speed that stops time and causes mass to increase to infinite? “No clue.” Why is only 4% of the universe directly detectable, the remaining 73% being “dark matter” and 23% “dark energy”, not even detectable except for it's effect on the knowable 4%? “No clue.” Why is the “universe” of quantum mechanics impossible to understand and diametrically opposed to the laws of physics? “No clue.” What do they call the forces at work, the developer of consistency? “Anything but God.” Gen 1:1-3 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was (made to become in Hebrew) formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep (they had no word for “plasma”), and the Spirit of God was moving (“brooding”, vibrating) over the surface of the waters (liquid in Hebrew). Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.”

Until the antitheists can prove their nonsense reasoning true, which is impossible, this is the best explanation we have, and it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

Big fat argument from ignorance.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

Thanks to all for responding. I agree with all of you who believe premise 1 is faulty and that the argument is unsound.

I thought I'd reference Wikipedia to define what is meant by "evidence".

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. "

"Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence."

You can get more details from this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

As I said earlier, I remember my mom and dad telling me that Santa was real and I believed it. Also, I might meet someone and they introduce them self as Steve and I have no reason to doubt them, so I believe it. In like manner, the Holy Spirit may speak to a Christian and reveal a truth. Or my sense of seeing tells me that I see a car...I simply believe that and have no reason to think that I may be imagining things. I have no reason to doubt what I perceive is reality. I think all of these examples could be grouped into a kind of belief known as a "properly basic belief".

I also think that we can come to believe something through sound logical argument. I'm going to assume that no one here would dispute that.

So I'd like to modify p1 from the original found in the OP and see if you think it fixes the argument.

1. People come to believe something by evaluating evidence, logical arguments, 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 if you do not agree with my modified argument, please reply with how you would modify p1 and thus make the argument sound.

The argument cannot be made sound because it relies on human intellect and reasoning. People who are Christians believe that God exists by revelation. Evaluating evidence, logical arguments, or properly basic beliefs are all actions of the flesh and no one will be saved by the works of the flesh. John 16 tells us that conviction is a work of the Spirit, not a work of reason. Look around this forum and see. How many have been convinced to believe by debate and reason?