Is belief that a god exists a choice?

[2PhiloVoid]

Davian

Quote button still broken for you?

I purposely refuse to be hemmed in by the strictures of the QUOTE button. I will slice and dice, copy and paste, as I so see fit...

If you do not like my style of response, then you can move on. I'm not responsible for your lack of adaptability.

Sure.

Excuse - 1 attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify:

Citing a dictionary denotation is a far cry from 'demonstrating' that what I've presented is an "excuse."

When asked for evidence for the existence of gods, you fell back on the 'what do you mean by "evidence"' line, as a defence, or justification for your failure to provide such evidence.

From the other side, it looks like you admit to the same fallacy that many atheists commit by assuming that the 'nature of evidence' is self-evident. No, before claiming or disclaiming evidence, you have to establish BEFOREHAND what could count as evidence and why. If you can not do this, if you cannot establish an epistemological method and/or praxis before engaging the 'evidence,' the whole project becomes a guessing-game and a power play.

lol. Diversion tactic, and a straw-man at that. Where have I claimed infallibility? Try to stay on task.

No, it's not a diversion tactic.

No, you have done no such thing. You have simply made claims of "water" (gods) but failed show that they are anything more than characters in books. You claim to have discovered a god, so show your work.

No, there's water. It's just that you want something else to drink.

Labels tell me little. Again, show me how you "recognize" those "limits" in a manner that allows for "gods" but does not also leave the Earth covered in giant, invisible, immaterial marshmallows.

I gave you the scientific nomenclature. If you're too lazy to look up the concepts I gave you, and you expect me to waste my time and do for you what I don't require for you to do for me, then no wonder you make the responses you do.

Fairy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Allow me to paraphrase: "There must be something more to gods compared to fairies and pixies, because gods have references to them in history books". Stories of gods in history books does not necessarily make them real.

I never said they exist merely because history books might describe them.

Did you ever go to college? Did they allow you to make these kinds of responses?

 

[Ken-1122]

"Convincing myself" would not be the right term. There was no conscious intent on my part.

link.

I find it difficult to believe any adult of sound mind could be so obtuse as to believe a guy in a shopping mall wearing a red suit is Santa; after a simple conversation. But I will not doubt your claim, all I can say is; when it comes to adults; you are a rare case.

Ken

 

[juvenissun]

Can you choose to believe that there are 50,000 tiny orange men crawling around in the center of Jupiter?

I CHOOSE not to believe.

 

[juvenissun]

One problem. Many non-believers became agnostics or atheists from doing just that; reading the bible. The more they read and investigated the book, the less believable the story became.

They CHOOSE to do that. Many do not.

 

[Eudaimonist]

They CHOOSE to do that. Many do not.

There was no choice in that for me. It was the content of the Bible that made it less believable.

It may be that different people react in different ways, but choice isn't needed to explain that. Individual differences are enough.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

Choosing to begin something is a choice. Believing something exists might be a result of one choosing to read something. But it isn't directly a choice.

For example, let's say you didn't know your cousin Fred had been to the moon. It was just something you had heard about. But from your knowledge of Fred, his being to the moon didn't add up right. So you choose to investigate further, reading lists of explorations to the moon and watching videos about this. Then you discover your cousin Fred is featured just as prominently in the videos as Neil Armstrong. Now your reaction would be that your belief is involuntary revised.

1. You need to make the choice first.
2. You have to be right on your investigation.

Regards to the Christianity, you choose not to start the step 1.

 

[juvenissun]

I've read the bible...it didn't work. Maybe the bible I read didn't have the magic brainwashing powers that yours has, but I have a hard time believing that is actually how you think it works. Just read the bible and suddenly you'll believe! Lol

You CHOSE to give up.
Many others did not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You CHOSE to give up.
Many others did not.

Juvenissum,

I agree with you that, from a practical, even philosophical point of view, you and I can say that we, and atheists, "choose" our faith, but we have to remember too, from a theological perspective, that God/Christ somehow does the choosing of us as well.

I think we can argue this all day with atheists and go virtually nowhere. The reason being is that at some level each side is "right" about their relative perspective on the matter.

This particular issue is a little different than some other categories of thought...there's not a clear structure for any of us to "climb" to get to the top. All we each have is our own particular epistemological attempts, which in and of themselves have to be completed by God for us to actually ascend the structure.

Which means, we can't just argue with atheists repeatedly, but we do have to pray for them.

Peace

 

[Ana the Ist]

You CHOSE to give up.
Many others did not.

Lol I chose to give up? Give up what?

I didn't believe in god or christianity... I read the bible...I still didn't believe in god or christianity.

What exactly would the next step be?

 

[Non sequitur]

They CHOOSE to do that. Many do not.

Did you choose to believe god exists before or after your belief that god exists?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lol I chose to give up? Give up what?

I didn't believe in god or christianity... I read the bible...I still didn't believe in god or christianity.

What exactly would the next step be?

The next step would be to challenge your own axioms, and ask God to give you more understanding of His revelation to the world.

 

[Davian]

Davian
I purposely refuse to be hemmed in by the strictures of the QUOTE button. I will slice and dice, copy and paste, as I so see fit...

If you do not like my style of response, then you can move on. I'm not responsible for your lack of adaptability.

You rebel, you.

Citing a dictionary denotation is a far cry from 'demonstrating' that what I've presented is an "excuse."

Is the definition not apt?

From the other side, it looks like you admit to the same fallacy that many atheists commit by assuming that the 'nature of evidence' is self-evident. No, before claiming or disclaiming evidence, you have to establish BEFOREHAND what could count as evidence and why. If you can not do this, if you cannot establish an epistemological method and/or praxis before engaging the 'evidence,' the whole project becomes a guessing-game and a power play.

Actually, I make an effort not to presume anything about the 'nature of evidence'. I am just watching to see how long you will run in circles before you get to, if ever, presenting what you consider to be evidence, and how you use that to support your hypothesis for the existence of your god.

No, it's not a diversion tactic.

Yes, it is. The methodology I use for exploring reality is not on the table at this point.

No, there's water.

Where?

It's just that you want something else to drink.

Are you telling me what I am thinking?

I gave you the scientific nomenclature. If you're too lazy to look up the concepts I gave you, and you expect me to waste my time and do for you what I don't require for you to do for me, then no wonder you make the responses you do.

Giving me the labels for the 'tools' that you may use does not *show* me how you use them, which is what I asked. Again, show me how you "recognize" those "limits" in a manner that allows for "gods" but does not also leave the Earth covered in giant, invisible, immaterial marshmallows.

I never said they exist merely because history books might describe them.

Then what did you imply by your "historical evidence" comment?

Does the bible qualify as "historical evidence"? It is my understanding that it does not.

The question at hand is, what else do you have? On what did you base your "decision" to believe?

Did you ever go to college? Did they allow you to make these kinds of responses?

Yes, and yes. I would ask the same of you, and your responses.

 

[dysert]

How would you go about choosing to believe in a god if there wasn't sufficient evidence to support that such god exists? Can you at this moment choose to believe that gods like Thor and Zeus exist?

I would not choose to believe this, since I do believe the Bible, and it teaches there are no other gods.

Let's remember that this thread is about believing being a choice -- not about whether it makes sense to believe any particular thing.

 

[Davian]

I find it difficult to believe any adult of sound mind could be so obtuse as to believe a guy in a shopping mall wearing a red suit is Santa; after a simple conversation. But I will not doubt your claim, all I can say is; when it comes to adults; you are a rare case.

Ken

Is Santa less believable than the god and YEC concepts etc that get bantered about on this site?

I have nothing to offer in my defence other than, look at that picture. Is that not Santa?

The point was, it was not a "choice" as I understand it.

 

[dysert]

Can you choose to believe in them at will and really believe?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Maybe - I'm not sure. The point of the thread, though, is whether belief is a choice, not whether someone can believe a particular thing.

 

[dysert]

It's nice of you to say this, I'd even bet you believe it. However, if we began a discussion about who/what god is...we'll inevitably end up the same place that conversation always does. You'll claim that god can't really be understood by man.

Edit: I'm willing to consider prophecy as evidence. So, which prophecies do we know were fulfilled after they were written and had no real likelihood or expectations of just occurring?
For example: It wouldn't be much of a prophecy for me to claim that within a couple years, the U.S. will have a new president.

The following prophecies about Jesus were written several hundreds of years before His birth, yet they all came true:

Jesus was to come:
From Abraham – Gen_22:18 & Gal_3:16
From Isaac – Gen_21:12 & Luk_3:34
From Judah – Gen_49:10 & Luk_3:33
From Jacob – Num_24:17 & Luk_3:34
From Jesse – Isa_11:1-5,10 & Rom_15:12

Will be called First and Last: Isa_44:6 & Rev_1:17

Born in Bethlehem: Mic_5:2 & Joh_7:42

Flight to Egypt: Hos_11:1 & Mat_2:15

Killing of the Innocents: Jer_31:15 & Mat_2:16-18

Triumphal Entry: Zec_9:9 & Mat_21:5

Soldiers gambled for Jesus’ clothes: Psa_22:17-18 & Mat_27:35-36

 

[dysert]

I didn't say choosing to believe what the words mean, the sense of the words, their existence, or the validity of them, I said reading these words.

Do you choose to believe you are reading these words or do you believe that you are reading these words?

I can't say I'm choosing to believe, but I can say that lots of stuff happens at the subconscious level.

 

[dysert]

How long did it take for you to decide to believe in a god?

How long would it take for you to disbelieve?

Probably years.

 

[juvenissun]

Juvenissum,

I agree with you that, from a practical, even philosophical point of view, you and I can say that we, and atheists, "choose" our faith, but we have to remember too, from a theological perspective, that God/Christ somehow does the choosing of us as well.

I think we can argue this all day with atheists and go virtually nowhere. The reason being is that at some level each side is "right" about their relative perspective on the matter.

This particular issue is a little different than some other categories of thought...there's not a clear structure for any of us to "climb" to get to the top. All we each have is our own particular epistemological attempts, which in and of themselves have to be completed by God for us to actually ascend the structure.

Which means, we can't just argue with atheists repeatedly, but we do have to pray for them.

Peace

Thanks. I agree.

I was going to give up the repetition in this thread. If they don't get it or don't want to get it, that is not my problem.

As far as who chooses who between God and us, that is a theological question and does not belong to this thread. I do understand what you said. Thanks.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Davian

You rebel, you.

[FONT=&quot]Ah! I see that you’ve finally put your Night-Vision goggles on.
[/FONT]

Is the definition not apt?

[FONT=&quot]“Apt” it may be from your point of view; but conclusively “cogent” it is not.[/FONT]

Actually, I make an effort not to presume anything about the 'nature of evidence'. I am just watching to see how long you will run in circles before you get to, if ever, presenting what you consider to be evidence, and how you use that to support your hypothesis for the existence of your god.

[FONT=&quot]I do not believe that evidence can be “strained” by human evaluation without first identifying its nature and the method by which it will be “strained” and “evaluated.” No method, no conclusions; attempt method, attempt conclusions. It’s that simple.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Moreover, if I think that the Bible was never meant to represent any kind of history writing that we today would be familiar with, or that we require for consideration, then I might also think that God wants us to play the game (or His Rorschach Test) on His terms rather than ours. If it turns out that I cannot play the game on God’s terms, then I can, for the most part, not really be confident that I’ve in fact begun to play God’s game. (Yes, I mean this metaphorically.)[/FONT]

Yes, it is. The methodology I use for exploring reality is not on the table at this point.

[FONT=&quot]Again, as from my previous statements, this is not a diversion tactic, but an insistance that we cannot put the cart before the horse. But, some people like to work within the contexts of futility, I guess.[/FONT]

Where?

Are you telling me what I am thinking?

[FONT=&quot]Would you like some water? I’m all out of Merlot. [/FONT]

Giving me the labels for the 'tools' that you may use does not *show* me how you use them, which is what I asked. Again, show me how you "recognize" those "limits" in a manner that allows for "gods" but does not also leave the Earth covered in giant, invisible, immaterial marshmallows.

[FONT=&quot]Ok. Let us begin. Choose some literature on the “nature of evidence” that you use as a contextual reference for your epistemological evaluations, and I’ll choose mine, we’ll read, compare notes, and have our own discussion. Here’s mine: Kelly, Thomas (2008). Evidence: Fundamental concepts and the phenomenal conception. Philosophy Compass 3(5), pp. 933-955. Here’s a link, if you like.[/FONT]

Then what did you imply by your "historical evidence" comment?

[FONT=&quot]I’m implying that the conceptual “evidence” for God is of another caliber, whether provable or not, than that attached to topics such as fairies, elves, etc.[/FONT]

Does the bible qualify as "historical evidence"? It is my understanding that it does not.

[FONT=&quot]Nor do I think it qualifies as historical evidence in the most modern and strictest of terms. In fact, I would qualify that the intent of biblical writing was not to record some ‘history’ for posterity, but to (to put it simply) place in writing a set of spiritually revealed lessons by which we might know how to interact with God…as we move through history and into the future. Thus, it’s purpose was never to give us a simple historical, political, or scientific written representation of our world, but rather a cognitive doorway by which to reflect upon the God and His Revelation to us. (And if someone doesn’t think my theory fits with the Traditional view of Christianity, …… then they’re welcome to attempt to 'bust a move'!)
[/FONT]

The question at hand is, what else do you have? On what did you base your "decision" to believe?

[FONT=&quot]Oh, about 700 other books, journal articles, life experience, and whatnot.[/FONT]

Yes, and yes. I would ask the same of you, and your responses.

[FONT=&quot]That’s good to hear. Then I can assume you won’t just dismiss things I have to say out of hand, even when you're inclined to disagree. I know that I won't simply dismiss you out of hand. That would be disrespectful...[/FONT]