I just don't *want* to believe!

[dysert]

I've been thinking a lot about the whole evolution/creation thing and as a result I recently learned something about myself. I was thinking, even if someone could 100% prove to me that there was a moment in the past where nothing became something, and even if someone could 100% prove to me that there was a moment in the past where non-life gave rise to life, and even if someone could 100% prove to me that irreducible complexity is not an issue with evolution, etc., the fact of the matter is, I still wouldn't accept the theories being taught by the evolutionists. Why? Because I simply don't want to believe it.

This realization has made me wonder if there might be others (on either side of the fence) who refuse to believe something just because they don't want to? Since it's true for me, I imagine it's true for others, too. (It's rather liberating to learn something about yourself.)

 

[Willie T]

So........ Don't.

 

[Southernscotty]

I've been thinking a lot about the whole evolution/creation thing and as a result I recently learned something about myself. I was thinking, even if someone could 100% prove to me that there was a moment in the past where nothing became something, and even if someone could 100% prove to me that there was a moment in the past where non-life gave rise to life, and even if someone could 100% prove to me that irreducible complexity is not an issue with evolution, etc., the fact of the matter is, I still wouldn't accept the theories being taught by the evolutionists. Why? Because I simply don't want to believe it.

This realization has made me wonder if there might be others (on either side of the fence) who refuse to believe something just because they don't want to? Since it's true for me, I imagine it's true for others, too. (It's rather liberating to learn something about yourself.)

I am the same way, I don't wanna believe it and I won't and further I have not to worry, because they cannot prove big bang, because it is a lie...I KNOW God is creator and there not one shred of doubt in me. I see the things in life that most people miss because I am an outdoorsman.
I see things in the wild and in God's creation that are too astounding to be anything other than God :]

 

[Tolworth John]

I still wouldn't accept the theories being taught by the evolutionists

Nothing can be proved to 100% certainity, it is only those who want an excuse not to believe in Jesus who demand proof to a standard of 100%.
Courts expect that something be proved beyound reasonable doubt.

As a Christian that is the level of proof you offer and the level of proof you expect from those you are talking with.

What evolutionist cannot offer is proof of what caused the universe to come into existence and without this all there therories and ideas are simple smoke and mirrors as they seek to evade the consquence of something supernatural having created the universe.

 

[pitabread]

What evolutionist cannot offer is proof of what caused the universe to come into existence and without this all there therories and ideas are simple smoke and mirrors as they seek to evade the consquence of something supernatural having created the universe.

There's no attempt to "evade the consquence[sic] of something supernatural". Rather it's the simple fact that no scientific hypotheses can be based on the supernatural, since the supernatural is not scientifically testable in that fashion.

 

[pitabread]

This realization has made me wonder if there might be others (on either side of the fence) who refuse to believe something just because they don't want to?

There's this idea that belief itself is not a choice. Rather it's the result of influence of various outside factors (education, culture, etc).

I suspect a lot of people who eschew acceptance of scientific theories like evolution are doing so because of cultural influence coupled with normal human behavior when it comes to having one's worldview challenged.

 

[jacknife]

I've been thinking a lot about the whole evolution/creation thing and as a result I recently learned something about myself. I was thinking, even if someone could 100% prove to me that there was a moment in the past where nothing became something, and even if someone could 100% prove to me that there was a moment in the past where non-life gave rise to life, and even if someone could 100% prove to me that irreducible complexity is not an issue with evolution, etc., the fact of the matter is, I still wouldn't accept the theories being taught by the evolutionists. Why? Because I simply don't want to believe it.

This realization has made me wonder if there might be others (on either side of the fence) who refuse to believe something just because they don't want to? Since it's true for me, I imagine it's true for others, too. (It's rather liberating to learn something about yourself.)

what? who's trying to convince you that nothing became something?

 

[Tolworth John]

There's no attempt to "evade the consquence[sic] of something supernatural". Rather it's the simple fact that no scientific hypotheses can be based on the supernatural, since the supernatural is not scientifically testable in that fashion.

Yet something cause everything to come into being.
What was it?
If science cannot answer that question then philosophy or religeon can be asked.
Not to look into this question is evassion.

As is the reluctance to look at the source of ideas.
Modern science has roots in what the greeks etc knew but depends heavely on Christian ideas, as does modern society.

 

[Dave G.]

I see things in the wild and in God's creation that are too astounding to be anything other than God :]

Indeed, me too.

 

[Dave-W]

This realization has made me wonder if there might be others (on either side of the fence) who refuse to believe something just because they don't want to?

Absolutely. We believe what we choose to believe; often even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I've been thinking a lot about the whole evolution/creation thing and as a result I recently learned something about myself. I was thinking, even if someone could 100% prove to me that there was a moment in the past where nothing became something, and even if someone could 100% prove to me that there was a moment in the past where non-life gave rise to life, and even if someone could 100% prove to me that irreducible complexity is not an issue with evolution, etc., the fact of the matter is, I still wouldn't accept the theories being taught by the evolutionists. Why? Because I simply don't want to believe it.

This realization has made me wonder if there might be others (on either side of the fence) who refuse to believe something just because they don't want to? Since it's true for me, I imagine it's true for others, too. (It's rather liberating to learn something about yourself.)

One famous line in philosophy is "Cogito, ergo sum" which means "I think, therefore I am" from Rene Descartes related to the "mind-body problem" of philosophy and out of skepticism. He could doubt all external reality, but could not doubt his own existence, the internal source necessary to doubt all external reality. Now, this of course assumes an autonomy which does not exist, but it does demonstrates several things like the interpretation involved in external facts, and it brings to the forefront the "other minds problem" in philosophy. It is a perspective of pure relativism, that is helpful in so far as it brings out the need for contact with an external reality to indeed give justification and grounds for knowing external or objective that is reality outside of one's own existence. This is where being made in the image of God comes into play, such that our Creator has endowed us with an innate ability to be interpreters of reality, and our justification comes from the point of contact with the mind of God Himself. In this we are as it were, thinking God's thoughts after Him, for every true interpretive thought concerning reality. Of course the anthropological doctrine of being made in the image of God comes from the external Revelation from God in Scripture, it is how our Creator made us, to be dependent on Him, and so it is. All of this is to say that very very little can be proven 100% especially with regards to natural material reality. The only proofs that come to mind which are absurd and insane to deny, are immaterial conceptual reality, such as the laws of logic, mathematics, and so on, which are necessary for language, and interpretation of external material reality. So it is what it is, and what it is, is a kind of Creator-creature dependency that is theonomous, however the fallen nature of creatures such as us lends towards hiding from God, which for the mind amounts to suppressing the truth, while the Heavens declare the glory of God.

 

[sfs]

We believe what we choose to believe;

I don't, at least as far as I can tell. There are all kinds of things I'd like to believe but can't. If anything, the fact that I want something to be true makes me suspicious of any inclination in myself to believe it.

 

[Dave-W]

I don't, at least as far as I can tell. There are all kinds of things I'd like to believe but can't. If anything, the fact that I want something to be true makes me suspicious of any inclination in myself to believe it.

In Mark 1.15 Our Lord tells people to "Repent and believe the gospel."

If we cannot choose what to believe, that command is meaningless.

 

[Paulos23]

I have always followed the mantra that I want to believe in as many true things as posible and as few false things as posible.

Not saying it has been easy follow that, and there are things that get less priority then others in my investigating truth, but it has put me in a good place. It has also allowed me to say "I don't know" about some topics and move on, and be able to revisit them later.

That said, if your faith or worldview requires some basic believe that you don't want shaken, that is fine by me. Just as long as you don't insist you have the truth and everyone else needs to believe it.

 

[pitabread]

Yet something cause everything to come into being.

We don't know that to be true.

If science cannot answer that question then philosophy or religeon can be asked.

Religion and philosophy can be interesting for exploring ideas about existence, but they won't necessarily provide answers about such questions.

Not to look into this question is evassion.

Not necessarily. Not looking into a question doesn't imply deliberate evasion; it could be for any number of reasons.

 

[pitabread]

In Mark 1.15 Our Lord tells people to "Repent and believe the gospel."

If we cannot choose what to believe, that command is meaningless.

I can only speak for myself, but in all my study and examination of Christianity, it strikes me as fundamentally illogical. I cannot honestly bring myself to believe it as a religious faith, because there is part of my brain that won't accept what is inherently illogical to me.

 

[sfs]

n Mark 1.15 Our Lord tells people to "Repent and believe the gospel."

If we cannot choose what to believe, that command is meaningless.

Not meaningless. Urging people to believe us is a rhetorical tactic to encourage belief. It's also not obvious that "believing in" means "believe in the truth of a proposition". And of course there's this: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have always followed the mantra that I want to believe in as many true things as posible and as few false things as posible.

Not saying it has been easy follow that, and there are things that get less priority then others in my investigating truth, but it has put me in a good place. It has also allowed me to say "I don't know" about some topics and move on, and be able to revisit them later.

That said, if your faith or worldview requires some basic believe that you don't want shaken, that is fine by me. Just as long as you don't insist you have the truth and everyone else needs to believe it.

I agree - it seems likely that we can't be certain of anything - but I'm not sure

 

[Dave-W]

I can only speak for myself, but in all my study and examination of Christianity, it strikes me as fundamentally illogical. I cannot honestly bring myself to believe it as a religious faith, because there is part of my brain that won't accept what is inherently illogical to me.

That means you have not properly repented. If someone struggles with unbelief, it is a sign of improper or insufficient repentance.

 

[section9+1]

That's why choices are so important and why there is virtue in them.