Why did you start believing?

[biggandyy]

The ontological argument of Anselm, and the Tennis Shoe argument of Sproul.

 

[Lux Veritatis]

The ontological argument of Anselm, and the Tennis Shoe argument of Sproul.

The ontological argument tries to argue that you can logically assume something exists based solely on its definition. Just because you can conceive something mentally doesn't mean it must necessarily exist in real terms.

For example, Anselm insists that by definition, because "God" is the greatest conceivable thing, and that its actual existence would be even greater than the concept, "God" must therefore exist. However, I assert that the existence of two gods is even greater than one, so two gods must exist. Except that three are even greater. See where I'm going here?

 

[biggandyy]

That is where Sproul picks up the slack with the Tennis Shoe argument.

 

[Lux Veritatis]

That is where Sproul picks up the slack with the Tennis Shoe argument.

I'm not familiar with Sproul. What is the argument presented?

 

[FearNot]

FearNot,

re: "I know it's quite popular among non-believers to say that 'you can't choose to believe', but that's simply not true."

　

Perhaps you can help me, then. I have never been able to consciously CHOOSE any of the beliefs that I have, and I would like to be able to do that. Since you seem to imply that you can consciously choose to believe things I wonder if you might demonstrate that ability?. Perhaps you could use something like leprechauns to demonstrate your ability and technique. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, leprechauns are "fairies peculiar to Ireland, who appear in the form of an old man of minute stature, wearing a cocked hat and a leather apron" and who store away their gold in a pot at the end of a rainbow, and If ever captured have to grant three wishes to the person who captures them. So, assuming that you don't already have a belief in them, how about right now, while you are reading this, CHOOSE to believe - be convinced without a doubt - that they exist. Now that you believe in leprechauns, my question is, how did you do it? How did you make the instantaneous transition from lack of belief to belief?

How does one choose to believe?

The exact same way juries do it every day in court. They get evidence presented to them and are asked to choose whether to believe someone is guilty or not. They don't have to believe it beyond all doubt, but they have to believe it beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is the standard we argue with Christianity. For instance, you believe there is no Christian god, but you certainly can't know that (beyond all doubt), so you haven CHOSEN to believe there is no Christian god (beyond what you consider to be a reasonable doubt). Your biggest problem is that while Christians have lots of evidence to support our belief, you have absolutely none.

By-the--way, if you really never had to make a choice of what to believe about anything in your whole life time, then I guess you will probably never have to worry about jury duty!

 

[rstrats]

FearNot,

re: "How does one choose to believe? The exact same way juries do it every day in court. They get evidence presented to them and are asked to choose whether to believe someone is guilty or not."


If beliefs can be obtained by simply CHOOSING to have them, then evidence is not necessary - prudent in certain cases, perhaps - but not necessary. But even if it were necessary, such as in a trial, how would you know when you had it? What would be the indicator that would allow you to say: "OK, I have obtained evidence with regard to the guilt of a defendant, and while I still don't have a belief with regard to the defendant's guilt, I am going to CHOOSE to believe that the defendant isn't guilty and --- poof --- I now believe that the defendant isn't guilty"?

re: "They don't have to believe it beyond all doubt, but they have to believe it beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is the standard we argue with Christianity."

So then John 3:16 could be written: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever thinks there is a chance that it is true - even though one has doubts about it - should not perish but have everlasting life."?

　

re: " For instance, you believe there is no Christian god..."

That is not true. Why do you think that?

　

re: "... you haven CHOSEN to believe there is no Christian god..."

Again, that is not true. But even if I did believe that there is no supreme being, it wouldn't be because I consciously CHOSE that belief.

 

[biggandyy]

The Tennis Shoe argument adds the notion of ex-nihilo to the ontological argument.

 

[Lux Veritatis]

The Tennis Shoe argument adds the notion of ex-nihilo to the ontological argument.

What is the gist of the argument?

 

[FearNot]

If beliefs can be obtained by simply CHOOSING to have them, then evidence is not necessary - prudent in certain cases, perhaps - but not necessary. But even if it were necessary, such as in a trial, how would you know when you had it? What would be the indicator that would allow you to say: "OK, I have obtained evidence with regard to the guilt of a defendant, and while I still don't have a belief with regard to the defendant's guilt, I am going to CHOOSE to believe that the defendant isn't guilty and --- poof --- I now believe that the defendant isn't guilty"?

Beliefs don't need evidence, but that is the "blind faith" so many atheists condemn. But Christians have what we call a "reasonable faith" based on lots of evidence I have already alluded to. Evidence doesn't HAVE to prove something, but it can also LEAD one to believe something.

Have you never had to make a choice of what to believe? I'm sure you have, but you're reluctant to admit it.

Here's another example: I tell you it's NOT raining outside...another guy tells you it IS. He's been right before on this, so you choose to believe him and take the umbrella. In this case, the only evidence you have is the other guy's reputation--Evidence that leads to a choice to believe him.

re: "They don't have to believe it beyond all doubt, but they have to believe it beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is the standard we argue with Christianity."

So then John 3:16 could be written: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever thinks there is a chance that it is true - even though one has doubts about it - should not perish but have everlasting life

If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. 24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
Mark 9:23-24 (KJV)

The spirit helps us where we lack.



re: " For instance, you believe there is no Christian god..."

That is not true. Why do you think that?

Because we believe there is a Christian god, and the opposite of that is to believe there is no Christian god.
I know why you disagree with this statement...I've heard so many of theses debates...the problem is you equate "belief" to "knowledge" and they are not the same. 　This is the basic cause of our disagreement in this whole exchange.

You guys like the "world is flat" story. OK...so many people (not all by-the-way) BELIEVED the world was flat along time ago. Then we got in a spaceship and now we KNOW the world is round.


re: "... you haven CHOSEN to believe there is no Christian god..."

Again, that is not true. But even if I did believe that there is no supreme being, it wouldn't be because I consciously CHOSE that belief.

Ok then, please submit the proof you have that there is no Christian God.

 

[rstrats]

FearNot,

re: "Have you never had to make a choice of what to believe?"

I probably have, but once I would have decided what I wanted to believe, I would not have been able to then go ahead and actually consciously engender the belief.

re: "Here's another example: I tell you it's NOT raining outside...another guy tells you it IS. He's been right before on this, so you choose to believe him..."

That would not be the case since I've never been able to consciously CHOOSE to believe things.

　
re: " Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief."

What is your point?

　

re: "Because we believe there is a Christian god, and the opposite of that is to believe there is no Christian god."

You're leaving out the third option. The option of having no belief either way.

　

　
re: "...the problem is you equate 'belief' to 'knowledge' and they are not the same."

I am not doing that.

　

re: "Ok then, please submit the proof you have that there is no Christian God."

I have no proof for the non-existence of a supreme being. Why do you ask?

 

[homo sapien]

Actually I don't believe anything. I either know, or I don't know and anything that I know can be proven.

Whilst I have no objection what so ever with all of the people who choose to believe without proof, really they should be honest and say that. But then tend not to. They seem to take the stance that because they believe in something, it must therefore be correct. So it then follows that anyone who does not follow their beliefs to the letter, must be wrong. So they have to be either reducated or killed.

Christianity has a long history of killing people who didn't go along with the word of the day.

Religions are quite often at the base of any dispute. Better maybe to have no religion and believe nothing if you religious people can't lean to live together and understand the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.

 

[biggandyy]

meh...

 

[FearNot]

FearNot,

re: "Have you never had to make a choice of what to believe?"

I probably have, but once I would have decided what I wanted to believe, I would not have been able to then go ahead and actually consciously engender the belief.

Just like the flat earth people, the best evidence they had at the time led them to believe that the earth was flat, and lived their lives based on that belief.

re: "Here's another example: I tell you it's NOT raining outside...another guy tells you it IS. He's been right before on this, so you choose to believe him..."

That would not be the case since I've never been able to consciously CHOOSE to believe things.

I don't know how to make my point any clearer. A guy who has so far never lied to you tells you it's raining outside, but your lying friend says no. You react on your *chosen belief* in the guy with the good reputation and take an umbrella. Belief doesn't equal knowledge.

　
re: " Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief."

What is your point?

Christians do not claim to "believe" beyond all doubt. Christian doctrine is that the Holy Spirit "bridges the gap" for any doubt we may have.

　

re: "Because we believe there is a Christian god, and the opposite of that is to believe there is no Christian god."

You're leaving out the third option. The option of having no belief either way.

Put aside your "third option" for a second and prove to me that the phrase "I believe God does not exist" is NOT opposite of "I believe God exists".

　

　
re: "...the problem is you equate 'belief' to 'knowledge' and they are not the same."

I am not doing that.

OK, then let me test you on that...let's say someone who has never lied to you before tells you that they killed a fox last nite. Could the fact that they have never lied to you before lead you to believe their confession even though you don't know it to be true for sure?

 

[rstrats]

FearNot,

re: "I don't know how to make my point any clearer. A guy who has so far never lied to you tells you it's raining outside, but your lying friend says no. You react on your *chosen belief* in the guy with the good reputation and take an umbrella."

I still don't see your point with regard to having the ability to consciously CHOOSE to believe things.

re: "Christians do not claim to 'believe' beyond all doubt."

So then John 3:16 could be written: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever thinks there is a chance that He exists, even though they have doubts about it, should not perish but have everlasting life" ?

　
re: "...prove to me that the phrase 'I believe God does not exist' is NOT opposite of 'I believe God exists'.

Where have I said otherwise?

　
re: "OK, then let me test you on that...let's say someone who has never lied to you before tells you that they killed a fox last nite. Could the fact that they have never lied to you before lead you to believe their confession...?

It very well might. But if I did realize that I had a new belief, it wouldn't be because I consciously CHOSE to have it.

 

[FearNot]

FearNot,

re: "I don't know how to make my point any clearer. A guy who has so far never lied to you tells you it's raining outside, but your lying friend says no. You react on your *chosen belief* in the guy with the good reputation and take an umbrella."

I still don't see your point with regard to having the ability to consciously CHOOSE to believe things.

re: "Christians do not claim to 'believe' beyond all doubt."

So then John 3:16 could be written: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever thinks there is a chance that He exists, even though they have doubts about it, should not perish but have everlasting life" ?

　
re: "...prove to me that the phrase 'I believe God does not exist' is NOT opposite of 'I believe God exists'.

Where have I said otherwise?

　
re: "OK, then let me test you on that...let's say someone who has never lied to you before tells you that they killed a fox last nite. Could the fact that they have never lied to you before lead you to believe their confession...?

It very well might. But if I did realize that I had a new belief, it wouldn't be because I consciously CHOSE to have it.

Christians have looked at the evidence supporting the claims of Jesus Christ and it has led us to believe that they are true. Jesus really is the son of God! Can I prove it to you, I don't believe so. However, I will pray for you! Blessing on you!

 

[rstrats]

FearNot,

Any particular reason for quoting my comments from post #34 and then not addressing any of them?

 

[FearNot]

FearNot,

Any particular reason for quoting my comments from post #34 and then not addressing any of them?

Well, I've tried to explain our view several times and you don't seem to be accepting it. You know what they say about someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over again and expects different results?? I prayed for you as promised and I'm moving on. Have a nice day.

 

[lforrest]

I became a Christian when I was a boy. The first sermon in Church that caught my attention was one about the wrath of God against sinners, and the savior Jesus Christ who died for our sins. That day I accepted Jesus into my heart, and there he stays. I didn't do much else to improve the relationship until years later when I needed him again.

I doubted much up to that point, but meditation on God and his Word shed new light on experiences I already had. I had heard from God, and seen miracles and didn't even know it! Before trusting in God I thought myself wise, but was a fool!

In a world of cripples, I am the man with a crutch.

 

[homo sapien]

The bottom line is that you cannot prove the existence of your God, any God. Then you ask me to follow your beliefs because feel strongly they are correct!
There are only reasons for reliogion and only 2 are valid:
1. To control the population. No you only need a \n army
2. To explain away natural events (thunder etc0No you need science
3 to have a set of rules to live by. No, you need society
4. To be able to wear "Ceremonial dress" and perform acts with your peers. No, buy a pair of cowboy boots and go line dancing
5. To have a believe in an after life. Yes for that you need religion
6. To have a nice warm feeling someone is watching over you. Yes you need religion.
Most religious societies utilise items 1-5 inclusive
5It a programming problem, part of the chip is missing! and 6 just exist due to people with a certain mental make up not being able to cope with an open ended situation. So they invent an answer God Did It...
If we all dies at midnight where would your God be then? He wouldn't exist and mankind had died along with it's beliefs.

 

[rstrats]

FearNot,

re: "Well, I've tried to explain our view several times and you don't seem to be accepting it."


I don't see how that is a reason for quoting my comments from post #34 and then not addressing any of them. Perhaps you could explain?