How does one come to believe something?

[Aardverk]

Jesus existed in space and time. Was he not God?

 

[lumberjohn]

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!"

If you get to set the rules, you'll "win" every time. So much for the 'freethinker' title.

This is basically methodological naturalism, which virtually every scientist on Earth, Christian and non-Christian, uses when engaging in scientific questions. Rather than being circular, it is simply the only methodology humans have found that provides consistently reliable results. What rules would you suggest? I'd be happy to play by them so long as you can show they provide more consistently reliable results than mine.

 

[hgkeller771]

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?

A child will believe anything based on how it affects them directly. A child's mind has not been developed to the point of evaluating evidence. Unfortunately there are adults that have not grown from a child's mind. They don't evaluate evidence or proof and cannot develop a two step logical belief. I believe these people are called liberals. They only see government as the answer because they see government as doing good for them. This same logic is used in their decision to believe in a creator. It is too much work and sacrifice to believe in a God or a creator. You have to follow rules, obey God's laws, go to church, worship and help others as God wishes you to do. A child doesn't believe there is anything more important than themselves.

As an atheist, you don't have to do anything. You don't have do anything emotionally, physically or intellectually. You ignore history, the Bible, the truth. You can still believe there is nothing more important than themselves.

An adult mind is capable of examining the evidence and proof. Capable of reading the Bible and deciding what it teaches and then following the truths it teaches. Even if it means practicing what it teaches. They are challenged emotionally, physically and intellectually but still can see the truths that are conveyed in God's teachings. They can examine history and make an honest decision to believe in a creator.

It's all about how the mind works. In Corinthians the Bible says to leave your childish ways and become an adult, to paraphrase. Do it and you will believe.

 

[BukiRob]

The purpose of the law is to show us we are unable to follow it. It exposes sin.

and the purpose of exposing sin is to drive us to repentance. Messiah is the covering (by his blood) of our sin. He overcame death and sin with his Resurrection. We as believers ought walk as he walked (1 John) and how did he walk? Uprightly and holy, blameless before the Torah.

 

[BukiRob]

This is basically methodological naturalism, which virtually every scientist on Earth, Christian and non-Christian, uses when engaging in scientific questions. Rather than being circular, it is simply the only methodology humans have found that provides consistently reliable results. What rules would you suggest? I'd be happy to play by them so long as you can show they provide more consistently reliable results than mine.

But you are starting with a false premise.... or can you not even see the premise that is false?

 

[lumberjohn]

It may be necessary to clarify what I've said above for those unfamiliar with terms. The charge is often leveled against atheists that they are committed to materialism. I've never found this to be the case with any atheist. I've found that atheists are commited to open processes rather than any particular result, which is why they are also known as freethinkers.

It is important to distinguish metaphysical naturalism, or materialism, from what is referred to as methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a disciplinary method used by scientists that categorically excludes interventionist supernatural forces from consideration of scientific questions. Scientists assume for purposes of their research and methodology that the universe works regularly according to rules, and that if we can identify these rules, we can reliably predict how things will behave. They focus on identifying causes that can be measured, quantified, and studied methodically rather than vague “supernatural” forces that lack such qualities.

For example, when measuring the distance of another galaxy to our sun, scientists assume that light travels at a constant speed, as all our known experiments have demonstrated. They do not assume the light may have been arbitrarily sped up or slowed down along the way by some mysterious supernatural force. Allowing for the latter assumption would prevent one from reaching any conclusion about the distance because there would be no reliable rules to apply.

Without the assumption of methodological naturalism, science as we know it would not be possible, since all known physical laws would be invalidated as unreliable. Furthermore, scientists have no tools to test for causation by supernatural agency, as the very concept is incoherent. This necessarily limits scientists to natural explanations. Methodological naturalism is therefore justified by its prudential value and practical necessity. Employing methodological naturalism in the course of scientific research does not, however, commit one to metaphysical naturalism. The former is merely a tool rather than a philosophical position, limited in scope to a particular enterprise, and as such, is employed by both religious and non-religious scientists alike.

The success of methodological naturalism is a testament to Ockam’s Razor as applied to the hypothesis of an interventionist God since by not factoring it in as a possibility, we can safely assume the regularity of nature, and that assumption has consistently allowed us to make accurate scientific predictions. Without that assumption, such predictions would be impossible. Any irregularity in the laws of nature would be compelling evidence for an interventionist God, but no such irregularity has ever been observed.

 

[lumberjohn]

But you are starting with a false premise.... or can you not even see the premise that is false?

I am afraid I am too dense. Please point it out to me.

 

[hgkeller771]

This is basically methodological naturalism, which virtually every scientist on Earth, Christian and non-Christian, uses when engaging in scientific questions. Rather than being circular, it is simply the only methodology humans have found that provides consistently reliable results. What rules would you suggest? I'd be happy to play by them so long as you can show they provide more consistently reliable results than mine.

Corinthians 13 verse 11, says " when I was a child I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." A child only believes what he/she can see that is good for them. An adult can use logic and deduction to believe what is truth. An adult will decide what is truth to them whether it is good for them or not.

 

[goodman528]

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?

That's a BS argument because assumption in line 1 is wrong.People very rarely believe in something by evaluating evidence. The vast majority of the time, people believe something because they were told by someone else that it is true. That is the case for both atheists and for Christians, which is why you should tell people to go and read the Bible for themselves (John chapter 3 is a good place to start).

As for reasoning and evaluating evidence, there are 2 ways you can come to know if something is true:

1) Deductive, which is used in maths, philosophy, and computer science. E.g. All men are mortal. Kass is a man. Therefore, Kass is mortal.

2) Empirical (AKA the scientific method), which is used in physics, chemistry, biology, and other sciences. E.g. Think of a theory that could be false: "smoking causes cancer". Observe some evidence: "out of random sample of 10,000 people, smokers were x% more likely to get cancer.". Estimate (guess) the probability the observation could have happened by pure chance: "only y% chance the observation could have been coincidental." Then if y% is smaller than some threshold, you publish a paper for peer review and you say your theory is (probably) true.

Now, the atheists you see on the internet don't actually use either of the methods above. Instead they tend to have blind faith in the non-existence of God (often from prejudices and peer pressure), then they google search for quotes and theories some other man/woman came up with, then copy and paste to pretend they are smarter than you.

 

[BukiRob]

I am afraid I am too dense. Please point it out to me.

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.

Our understanding of nature and the universe today is vastly different than it was 100 or even 50 years ago. Thinks that we are fairly certain of today would have been considered crock pot, voodoo silliness 100 years ago.

Evidence of the creator is all around us but most reject it. To this day science has no clue what so ever as to what actually caused the spark of life to happen on earth.

No answer to the most basic questions like: Which came first, proteins or DNA? Some rush to panspermia as the answer but of course, all that does is push the question to space...RNA thought to be a possible answer only poses more questions with few answers.

Perhaps the problem lies with the concept that Gd has always been and will always BE.... a concept of eternal flies in the face of everything around us... which HAD a beginning and WILL have an end.

 

[Cosmic Zamboni]

Without the assumption of methodological naturalism, science as we know it would not be possible, since all known physical laws would be invalidated as unreliable. Furthermore, scientists have no tools to test for causation by supernatural agency, as the very concept is incoherent.

But what of string theory, and its 10 or 11 dimensions? Can we as creatures who can perceive only three dimensions fully deal with things that happen in those other dimensions based primarily on our own observations of the universe? Do we discount those who might have some sense of perception of occurrences that are rooted in those other dimensions? Taking your definitional / assumptional approach, such inquiry into the possible is itself impossible.

 

[BukiRob]

But what of string theory, and its 10 or 11 dimensions? Can we as creatures who can perceive only three dimensions fully deal with things that happen in those other dimensions based primarily on our own observations of the universe? Do we discount those who might have some sense of perception of occurrences that are rooted in those other dimensions? Taking your definitional / assumptional approach, such inquiry into the possible is itself impossible.

This speaks to what I was alluding too....

Science is ever changing and often what is considered to be truth is later shown to be error upon further illumination. Clinging to scientific method as the foundation of all truth is dubious at best

 

[Truly1999]

I came to believe that God exists through evaluating the evidence. The evidence for me is all around, in nature and in people. The complex design of the universe made me believe that there is a Supreme Being behind it - God. Believing is easy - knowing is different. Believing in God based on evidence will carry you only so far on your journey. Believing in Jesus based on the testimony of others - through evaluating the evidence - is an essential next step, but that, too, will only take you so far.

But you cannot force faith. You cannot become a Christian simply by wanting to be one and taking all the appropriate steps. You cannot evaluate the evidence and then become a Christian simply because you want to be a Christian. We cannot approach the throne and demand to be made a Christian. We cannot become Christians simply by going to church, as daft as that might sound.

God makes the first move. But we cannot argue that God made the first move when he sent Jesus to die on a cross more than 2,000 years ago once and for all - what more do we want. Yes, for all time and it's a daily thing for all time. God develops a personal relationship with each person - he did 2,000 years ago and he continues to make the first move today. I read the New Testament and I believed that Jesus was the Son of God, and I liked the idea of following Jesus. But that didn't make me a Christian. But he doesn't leave us to flounder in our weak and helpless state. For me, I cried out in a desperate moment - not to God - but just cried out. And he responded. He sent an angel who appeared in a bright light - it was dark and I was outdoors - and he wrapped his arms around me. I felt a supernatural love flood my whole body - from feeling totally alone one minute to feeling absolutely loved the next. The angel spoke to me in a clear and calm male voice, "Follow Jesus." Then the bright light stopped and the angel was gone.

I knew I was not alone anymore. I evaluated the evidence - I knew it was real. But I knew I had to do more. I had to follow Jesus. The evidence was so compelling that I couldn't ignore it. I wasn't exactly sure what I was supposed to do, but I knew I had to go to my local church on the next Sunday. So I went in anticipation. I expected something to happen. The only local church was the Anglican church. It was a Holy Communion service. I felt out of place, yet I knew God was there. I showed up and took part in the service, wondering when Jesus would show up. For the first time in my life, I spoke directly to God through making a statement of faith as set out in the service. I sang the Nicene Creed. I was saying: Here I am, I am a miserable sinner and I cannot do anything to change that by myself, and I declare that I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and takes away the sin of the world, and I will follow him. At the end of the service, I felt a great weight being lifted off my body and I couldn't help myself, I couldn't stop myself from weeping. In an instant, I was mourning the death of my old life and rejoicing my new life in Jesus. I now had a personal relationship with Jesus. I now knew God through Jesus.

 

[JGG]

Wow. This thread has turned into pure awesome!

 

[RSLancastr]

I have no read through this entire thread, so my apologies if I am simply echoing what others have already posted.

I am an Agnostic, but currently attend a First Baptist church with my wife. I attend (adult) Sunday School classes, a Men's Bible Study group, and sing in the choir.

My non-belief is pretty well-known within the congregation, and there are many there (including my wife) who are praying for my "salvation".

A number of people there have urged me to just "choose to believe", but I don't see how I could do so. I'd like to think that I come to believe that something is true by examining the evidence (although I know that there are some things I examine more rigorously than other things), so "choosing to believe" something seems to be a bit of an oxymoron to me.

-RSL

 

[Aner]

The reality is that you are not going to believe in the Creator unless He imparts faith to you - based on election - and, likewise, in His Son, Jesus Christ. In addition, Paul is pretty clear that we need our faith to be based in the POWER of God - ICor1,2 somewhere - so all this intellectual wrangling is silly and a waste of time. I don't do it - my faith is NOT based in Geisler's apologetics or Josh McDowell's or whomsoever's reasons to believe in the resurrection, etc. My faith is squarely the result of the impartation of faith by God and the manifestation of His power in my life. Exactly as scripture states.

 

[paulm50]

There are countless people who believe there is other life, and even intelligent life, in the universe. There is not a scintilla of evidence to support such a belief. Therefore, some beliefs are based on a desire to believe rather than evidence.

I came to faith in Christ by revelation that was consistent with my prior belief. My beliefs were sound, and they were based on solid evidence, but they did not constitute faith. Faith and salvation are not the same as belief, although without belief they are probably not possible.

There are countless people who claim to have met Aliens, more of them recently than people claiming to meet god, Jesus, or Mary, etc. Doesn't make it true.

Most scientists are thinking that there's a mathematical probability of intelligent life out there, or more likely was or will be.

They have calculated that the odds of it being intelligent to the level we were at the time of Moses, is extreme. Even more extreme is it being like we see in Star Wars or even able to visit the earth.

Relating the life of the Earth to a day. Brings humans on Earth to a period of 1 minute 17 seconds. Of which we had 500,000 years as cavemen or less. And at the rate we're going, it's unlikely we will exist another 500 years. That's the difference between believing and knowledge.

And with all this in mind, do you think just belief is enough? What was your solid evidence? Without referring to scriptures wrote in the last few seconds, of life on Earth. That can't be backed up.

 

[Truly1999]

Hi RSL, I think you are brave to admit your non-belief on the forum. I imagine that you attend the First Baptist church in order to please your wife. I'm sure you enjoy some aspects of the church, which is enriching. Some Christians argue that Church is not a Social Club - I would argue different. Church is there for the whole community - Christians, Agnostics, Unbelievers, believers of other faiths. How to include the community without changing the Church from a Christian place of worship into a secular community centre dominated and run by the community and not the Church must be a balancing act at times.

You have chosen to associate yourself as a member of the Church, RSL. By singing in the choir, you are choosing to believe. You are addressing God, you are singing to Jesus in the songs. You are undoubtedly inviting the Holy Spirit into your life. But you haven't seen the evidence of God's existence, from what you've written. I wonder if your church is a hindrance to you reaching faith. Maybe you will always "attend" church and never become a Christian.

 

[Davian]

This speaks to what I was alluding too....

Science is ever changing and often what is considered to be truth is later shown to be error upon further illumination. Clinging to scientific method as the foundation of all truth is dubious at best

I'll be sad when semiconductor theory is falsified and all of the computers stop working.

 

[Davian]

...

A number of people there have urged me to just "choose to believe", but I don't see how I could do so. I'd like to think that I come to believe that something is true by examining the evidence (although I know that there are some things I examine more rigorously than other things), so "choosing to believe" something seems to be a bit of an oxymoron to me.

-RSL

I would concur, belief is not a conscious action.

Welcome to CF.