How does one come to believe something?

[jonesdon]

To ALL -- esp. to Atheists -- other FYI. I can now see the atheist MO -- to divert from straight answers to their agenda -- to the litany of their predetermined & worn out arguments. Unless I've missed it in their filibustering, they cannot seem to answer which, to me, is a very simple question -- and my choice & reason, my 1st post, #187 -- Is God or no God the better choice? Let alone asking them "why". Is this just their escape hatch? ;-(

 

[zippy2006]

Yes, but how does Pascal respond to this concern?

Read it and see!! Concern yourself with truth rather than mere argument!!

The position that we can choose to believe is known as doxastic voluntarism. Pascal's wager assumes that doxastic voluntarism is possible

No he doesn't. Did you even read my post?

...and that God doesn't care if your belief is sincere.

Although I neglected to mention it, you're wrong on this point too. The first steps to God are always baby steps; they are never made for the "right reasons" in the sense of perfect worship or recognition. Luckily for us, God is merciful, and Pascal doesn't propose that you end at the beginning. (But I'm not going to go into this in any great detail. It's too tangential for the thread.)

 

[Truly1999]

Hi RSL,

People who know Jesus develop a relationship with him through praise and prayer. They declare to the world that Jesus is their Saviour through singing hymns and songs of praise. The choir leads the Church in praise. As someone who does not believe in Jesus, who does not follow him, who chooses not to submit to him, surely your singing in the choir is not benefiting you as it should. In my opinion, your church would do better by having a separate choir, a community choir, which is specifically tailored for people who are not Christians but who love to sing, and to sing non-religious songs, but not to exclude Christians from it; I'm sure there would be many people who would join.

What do you think?

 

[Davian]

= REPLY: Don't change the subject. Is "God or no God" the best choice? P.S. Belief comes later.

I still do not know what you mean by "God".

An undetectable, undefined, untestable "God", of no scientific significance, or no god?

A better question might be, why should I care either way?

 

[AllanV]

Hi RSL,

People who know Jesus develop a relationship with him through praise and prayer. They declare to the world that Jesus is their Saviour through singing hymns and songs of praise. The choir leads the Church in praise. As someone who does not believe in Jesus, who does not follow him, who chooses not to submit to him, surely your singing in the choir is not benefiting you as it should. In my opinion, your church would do better by having a separate choir, a community choir, which is specifically tailored for people who are not Christians but who love to sing, and to sing non-religious songs, but not to exclude Christians from it; I'm sure there would be many people who would join.

What do you think?

Hi, there are some verses that are interesting. There is a way of purifying own self in a time of dedication.

Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

If a person believes what they are saying then there will be a transformation. If a person interacts with the non believing then total belief in God will be somewhat diminished. It takes some effort and dedication to break free of all the spurious thoughts and bonding with family, friends and usual emotional responses.
Faith must be increased and not left weakened by who we interact with.

Co 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
2Co 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds
2Co 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Think about what goes on in your own mind then it would be realized that this needs to be cleared.

Belief has different depths and it is not personal belief but belief in God that is important to being righteous.

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

 

[Wayne R.]

To ALL -- esp. to Atheists -- other FYI. I can now see the atheist MO -- to divert from straight answers to their agenda -- to the litany of their predetermined & worn out arguments. Unless I've missed it in their filibustering, they cannot seem to answer which, to me, is a very simple question -- and my choice & reason, my 1st post, #187 -- Is God or no God the better choice? Let alone asking them "why". Is this just their escape hatch? ;-(

I think you're beginning to realise the "atheists" who come to Christian websites are in fact antitheists. Antitheism is a religion. As a religion they will avoid the logic of God. "Antitheism" speaks of rejecting any belief in God no matter your reason. I refuse to defend my beliefs or reasons for them to antitheists, there's no logical reason to do so, as I think you're finding out.

 

[jonesdon]

I still do not know what you mean by "God". An undetectable, undefined, untestable "God", of no scientific significance, or no god? A better question might be, why should I care either way?

===== RESP: OK, so you STILL refuse to answer my simple Q (Is God or no-God a better choice? Based on post #187). And, obviously, you don't care about our American society or way of life. You are stuck in your own world! Sad! ;-( I guess no answer is your answer.

 

[jonesdon]

I think you're beginning to realise the "atheists" who come to Christian websites are in fact antitheists. Antitheism is a religion. As a religion they will avoid the logic of God. "Antitheism" speaks of rejecting any belief in God no matter your reason. I refuse to defend my beliefs or reasons for them to antitheists, there's no logical reason to do so, as I think you're finding out.

=== RESP: Yes, it seems to be going this direction. What a waste of time & effort when they can only see their own agenda. A very biased, closed-minded position, not worth common sense arguments. How gullible Americans have become! ;-(

 

[jonesdon]

I still do not know what you mean by "God".

== BTW: If you don't know the meaning of God, you need to go back to Mars! You are, certainly, on the wrong blog!

 

[Davian]

===== RESP: OK, so you STILL refuse to answer my simple Q (Is God or no-God a better choice? Based on post #187).

If your god is of no significance, then your question is answered. It doesn't matter.

And, obviously, you don't care about our American society or way of life.

Not being from your country, no.

You are stuck in your own world! Sad! ;-(

Indeed. I call it "reality". You are all welcome to visit!

I guess no answer is your answer.

At least until you can show your god to be of significance.

 

[Davian]

=== RESP: Yes, it seems to be going this direction. What a waste of time & effort when they can only see their own agenda. A very biased, closed-minded position, not worth common sense arguments. How gullible Americans have become! ;-(

"Common sense" would have us believing that the Earth is flat.

(skip to 1m0s)

 

[Davian]

== BTW: If you don't know the meaning of God, you need to go back to Mars!

You have certainly been unable to convey it in a coherent manner.

You are, certainly, on the wrong blog!

This is a forum, not a blog.

 

[Wayne R.]

=== RESP: Yes, it seems to be going this direction. What a waste of time & effort when they can only see their own agenda. A very biased, closed-minded position, not worth common sense arguments. How gullible Americans have become! ;-(

Very true! Just attempt to get one of them to prove the universe created itself, or what forces were involved in the Big Bang and how. You won't get an answer, just more attempts at flipping the question because they can't prove what they believe, they don't even know what they believe. There is no logic in believing in a self-created universe, so logical questions go right over their heads. Mention man having a spirit and see where it goes. lol

 

[Davian]

I think you're beginning to realise the "atheists" who come to Christian websites are in fact antitheists. Antitheism is a religion.

Tell me more about this religion. What are the tenants of this region? What do they use as a bible? What do they worship? Is there wiki page for them? Or are just you making this up?

 

[Davian]

Very true! Just attempt to get one of them to prove the universe created itself, or what forces were involved in the Big Bang and how. You won't get an answer,

I have been an atheist my entire life, and I do not recall at any time of having been informed of being required to be an astrophysicist. Are you an astrophysicist?

just more attempts at flipping the question because they can't prove what they believe, they don't even know what they believe.

Atheism is a lack of belief.

There is no logic in believing in a self-created universe, so logical questions go right over their heads.

Better to believe it was magically "spoken" into existence by a deity that is, by every objective measure to date, indistinguishable from nothing. That logic too eludes me.

Mention man having a spirit and see where it goes. lol

What is a "spirit"? Do you have excuses for why you cannot explain what that is?

 

[AllanV]

God is Spirit.

If someone drinks too much alcoholic spirit their nature and probably character is compromised and this is usually obvious in anti social behavior and also the words that are spoken. The results of this is seen constantly. The impure aspects that reside in their personality are on display. It is difficult to define alcoholic spirit but the chemistry involved in making it is well known.
A person and especially when in a group of people where all their minds are focused on an event have a certain power. A political rally, sports, religion can generate a spirit that is regarded as out of the human as part of a social family all faults accepted.

If the Human can purify the self then another Spirit will overflow from within, and this Spirit is the Spirit of God. The method to acquire this is documented but not many will take it up. It is known by what is produced and the chemistry aspect is how it connects with others in an unobtrusive manner with healing, life giving properties. People generally take the life out of each other in their verbal behavior with each other and when this doesn't work weapons are used.

But the Spirit of God as it flows through a cleaned up personality that is then pure will feed others who are able to receive.

 

[As I was saying]

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?

Yes I do. I have read several books written by these people and have seen the humility and honesty of their ministry. In addition, they are considered people of integrity and not publicity seekers. Plus the fact that when they lived in America, they were quite wealthy and they sold all and gave it away and moved to Mozambique at God's direction with nothing and as their latest book says in the space of time they have been there, they have raised up 6,000 churches across the country from nothing.

As for tests, your question begs the fact that my story was an illustration of what I was saying. I cannot give you what you want because the story is about Mozambique, not countries outside Mozambique and I know nothing about hospitals in America so you will have to do the research yourself. Apart from the fact people who do this sort of thing are not doing it for self aggrandisement so they don't splash across the pages "look at me." The focus was on the baby and the goodness of God.

 

[Davian]

God is Spirit.

If someone drinks too much alcoholic spirit their nature and probably character is compromised and this is usually obvious in anti social behavior and also the words that are spoken. The results of this is seen constantly. The impure aspects that reside in their personality are on display. It is difficult to define alcoholic spirit but the chemistry involved in making it is well known.
A person and especially when in a group of people where all their minds are focused on an event have a certain power. A political rally, sports, religion can generate a spirit that is regarded as out of the human as part of a social family all faults accepted.

If the Human can purify the self then another Spirit will overflow from within, and this Spirit is the Spirit of God. The method to acquire this is documented but not many will take it up. It is known by what is produced and the chemistry aspect is how it connects with others in an unobtrusive manner with healing, life giving properties. People generally take the life out of each other in their verbal behavior with each other and when this doesn't work weapons are used.

But the Spirit of God as it flows through a cleaned up personality that is then pure will feed others who are able to receive.

Why do you believe this?

 

[quatona]

==== RESP: Yes, but, how can we miss on my question "Is God or no God" a better choice? What word(s) here don't you understand.

First of all, I don´t understand the term "God". Please be specific in your description.
2. I am not seeing how the existence of an entity is a choice - it either exists or it doesn´t exist, independently of my or anyone´s choices.
3. I am very cautious when dealing with someone else´s valuing qualifiers (here: "better"). Misunderstandings are kind of preprogrammed. "Better" for whom, "better" for what, "better" in which way...?

 

[lumberjohn]

Read it and see!! Concern yourself with truth rather than mere argument!!

No he doesn't. Did you even read my post?

Although I neglected to mention it, you're wrong on this point too.

I have read it. But so that everyone can follow along, let's see how Pascal responds to the objection that belief is not voluntary:

That is true. But understand at least that your ability to believe is the result of your passions; for, although reason inclines you to believe, you cannot do so. Try therefore to convince yourself, not by piling up proofs of God, but by subduing your passions. You desire to attain faith, but do not know the way. You would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and you ask for remedies. Learn of those who were bound and gagged like you, and who now stake all they possess. They are men who know the road you desire to follow, and who have been cured of a sickness of which you desire to be cured. Follow the way by which they set out, acting as if they already believed, taking holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally cause you to believe and bunt your cleverness.

In other words, Pascal urges us to "fake it until we make it." As I've said before, this assumes that we can somehow cause ourselves to ultimately believe something that conflicts with our sense of reason (doxastic voluntarism). Pascal acknowledges we may not be able to do it right away, but claims we will ultimately be successful by engaging in behaviors consistent with someone having that belief. Unfortunately for Pascal's argument, there is absolutely no evidence that this is so.

Moreover, this passage confirms my second statement which is that it assumes God doesn't care if your belief is sincere. Assuming that a belief could be borne of the above process, it could not possibly be sincerely held. One could articulate no good reasons for it -- no justification or warrant. The only response one could possibly have would be "I believed something completely different, but then over time, for some unknown reason, I started to believe this." Pascal is arguing for faith, in the exact way Christians have been using that word for centuries. You and I have been discussing this matter in another thread, however, so I won't digress here.

Finally why would anyone purposefully set out to convince themselves of something they find to be unreasonable? This gets into my other objections to Pascal's Wager, but it is important to point out here that Pascal is proposing that one begin with the presuppositional position that the Christian God exists and then work forward from that. Unfortunately, he never adequately justifies such a position.

So, overall, I feel I have adequately expressed Pascal's position as well as my objections to it. I would be interested in hearing your response.