I just don't *want* to believe!

[JIMINZ]

a) No. There might be some post-modernists or the like who would claim that, but I certainly wouldn't expect a Christian to support that point of view.
b) What the heck does that question have to do with my request for someone to provide evidence for his claim?

Never mind, I'm sorry I bothered you.

 

[SkyWriting]

I can't name such a thing. That's my point. I can't choose not to believe something I know is true. Now, if you'll show me some evidence that all belief is a matter of choice, then I'll have a basis for believing your statement. Until you do, it's just your assertion vs my experience.

All belief is a matter of choice, because there is nothing that you believe is true, that you are not choosing to believe is true. So what you believe is what you choose to believe.

 

[JIMINZ]

Back to "I think therefore I am"....

.
Well I am a Christian because of my experience, and I would venture to say you are as well, but we believe two different things in relation to that Truth we both believe in.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

All belief is a matter of choice, because there is nothing that you believe is true, that you are not choosing to believe is true. So what you believe is what you choose to believe.

I choose to believe what you have said above is true.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

.Well I am a Christian because of my experience, and I would venture to say you are as well, but we believe two different things in relation to that Truth we both believe in.

However our experience comes from an external source (the Spirit of God), involving change in our internal being. This involves the objective and subjective, and it is not in the realm of natural, but supernatural.

 

[GUANO]

How we and the world came to be is not important in the least bit in any way to a Christian It's just not. Most creationists agree that the earth is round when it's clearly described as flat in Genesis so where do you draw the line of compromise? No bible scholars debated whether or not the earth is described as round or flat in Genesis until recently.

Scripture does not concern physical nature... It uses the things we (rather, the ancients) understood about physical nature to describe, figuratively, processes and 'powers' in the 'heavenly realms'...

 

[JIMINZ]

However our experience comes from an external source (the Spirit of God), involving change in our internal being. This involves the objective and subjective, and it is not in the realm of natural, but supernatural.

The point is, both of us have come to the knowledge of the truth, (Salvation) but then our understanding of how far and in what direction that truth actually went, became two different directions.

1Ti. 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

 

[sfs]

All belief is a matter of choice, because there is nothing that you believe is true, that you are not choosing to believe is true. So what you believe is what you choose to believe.

Yes, I get that you believe that, and I take it that you have no evidence to support your belief. Are you aware that some people actually look for evidence or arguments to support their beliefs, and don't just believe whatever they decide to?

 

[Bobber]

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.

I get what you're saying BUT if your biased was so strong that you wouldn't accept whatever theory then that would mean you'd never be conscious that they ever did reach that 100% proof.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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 don't believe it for the reasons you mentioned at the start..it's just ridiculous to think it could happen in spit of the astronomical odds against it. It's actually a complete joke, and goes to show, never underestimate the creativity of those who would rather not believe in God, and want to have things their way, or would rather not believe that God did it...a much more sensible explanation.

Not that "not wanting to" is a bad thing in this case.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Excellent run down. Especially the bolded.

 

[redleghunter]

From the illustration we can deduce several things:

The painting is not the painter
The painter is outside the painting
The painting is subject to the painter (the painter can choose to paint more or not, he can choose to paint over, change colors)
The painter is not limited by the painting (he can paint however many of whatever he chooses)
The painting originates from the painter

With this illustration, the painter is likened to Creator, the interaction of the painter with the painting is likened to the supernatural, and the painting to Creation. Without the painter, there is no painting, it has no beginning, no ability no elements of self-cause in itself, the existence of the painting moves (think on paint moving across a canvas) and has being in the painter. Kinda weird huh?

When we consider the painter actually painted himself in the work (aka Incarnation) it makes it even more interesting.

 

[redleghunter]

It holds up so far as it goes, it's just not a perfect analogy, meaning incomplete. The painter can go in another room and travel far away from his painting though.

Yes the painter is not the canvass nor restricted to the canvass.

 

[dysert]

I get what you're saying BUT if your biased was so strong that you wouldn't accept whatever theory then that would mean you'd never be conscious that they ever did reach that 100% proof.

Maybe not, but the point of the OP is that even if any of the examples I gave turned out to be undeniably true, I still wouldn't believe them because I don't want to believe them. I think belief is a choice, and you can choose based on facts or you can choose based on other criteria (like emotions, for example). Not everyone believes things simply because they're true. Case in point: flat-earthers.

 

[Snappy1]

I don't believe it for the reasons you mentioned at the start..it's just ridiculous to think it could happen in spit of the astronomical odds against it.....

Show me the math.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, I get that you believe that, and I take it that you have no evidence to support your belief. Are you aware that some people actually look for evidence or arguments to support their beliefs, and don't just believe whatever they decide to?

Yup...You said it in exactly the right words:

"people actually look for evidence or arguments to support their beliefs"

 

[pitabread]

it's just ridiculous to think it could happen in spit of the astronomical odds against it.

These "astronomical odds" creationists trot out tend to be a gross misuse of probabilities.

One could probably calculate astronomical odds for one's own birth yet here all of us are.

 

[Tolworth John]

We don't know that to be true.



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



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

we know the universe began. It was either started by something or one is left with there being no begining, matter etc is eternal or that it just came into being.
Which explanation is the more reasonable?

 

[Tolworth John]

evolution has nothing to do with cosmology

Yes you are right and no you are wrong.
Talking about how something evoluved has nothing to do with how the universe begain.
But if evolution believing atheists are unable to explain how the universe begain, just how valid are their ideas about evolution.
If God created the universe, then he also created live and if he created life he created life without using evolution.
So being able to explain why everything brgain is important.

 

[Tolworth John]

In science, unlike theology, it's O.K. for the answer to be "we don't know". It's even O.K. for the answer to be "we'll probably never know".

That is true if the answer is not known, but to say that while also rejecting an answer is not scientfic and is dishonest.