Spirituality
28 Sep 16
Originally posted by DeepThought... so there are constraints on what one can talk oneself into believing.Of course. Humans are pliable though. There are creationist geologists for example.
There's a feedback thing going on. We pick different justifications at different times for different reasons. See the feedback? We have reasons for the justifications we choose, and so those reasons become justifications themselves. For which we must have even more reasons.
It's like the childhood game of 'why'. Eventually we tire and settle on 'just because'.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
02 Oct 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI consider my ability to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, something of a miracle that has taken place in me.
There are some people on here who think we can't choose any of our beliefs. They say that you can only believe something that you find believable and that you can't choose to believe something that you don't find believable. This seems to indicate that we do not have the ability to decide whether something is believable or not. The way I see it, we are t ...[text shortened]... o light. Also I believe that even if something is 'convincing' we have the ability to reject it.
Now if you press me and ask how did I choose to believe if I needed a miracle to believe, I would say, I don't know.
Obviously, I think the miracle can happen to other people or else I would not be a preacher of the Gospel.
Originally posted by sonshipIf not everyone has the ability to choose to believe in God, wouldn't that have to mean that only a select few have been predestined to believe in God?
I consider my ability to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, something of a miracle that has taken place in me.
Now if you press me and ask how did I choose to believe if I needed a miracle to believe, I would say, I don't know.
Obviously, I think the miracle can happen to other people or else I would not be a preacher of the Gospel.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThese are matters which are hard for me to figure out.
If not everyone has the ability to choose to believe in God, wouldn't that have to mean that only a select few have been predestined to believe in God?
I tend to go to the so-called "father of faith" for an example - Abraham. The God of glory appeared to Abraham (Acts 7:2) . He reluctantly followed this God. He dragged his feet. He attempted to take along certain family members. He procrastinated. Eventually, he was completely won over.
Since he is called the father of faith (Rom. 4:16) , i tend to examine his life as a kind of model of all those who follow in his steps.
In a single post I could not hope to really discuss your question. Firstly, I do not know if anyone in themselves has the ability to believe in the Son of God apart from some kind of appearing to them of God.
I would only say this Fetch. To people who say they just cannot believe in Jesus Christ , i would encourage them to go where faith can be obtained. And that is to the word of God.
Romans 10:17 says the word of God can furnish us with faith. So I would say I know where to go to get faith. I think you must come to the word of God - the word of Christ with a willingness to be changed by God.
I would say to read the word of Christ until the God of glory appears to you and somehow beams this faith into your heart.
King James 2000 Bible
So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
American King James Version
So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
American Standard Version
So belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI would like to share more about Abraham the so-called father of faith. But it occurs to me that you may be talking mostly about the belief in God just on the level of His existence.
There are some people on here who think we can't choose any of our beliefs. They say that you can only believe something that you find believable and that you can't choose to believe something that you don't find believable. This seems to indicate that we do not have the ability to decide whether something is believable or not. The way I see it, we are t ...[text shortened]... o light. Also I believe that even if something is 'convincing' we have the ability to reject it.
Of course Romans says that no one has an excuse not to believe in God's existence because of the very creation of the universe. We may not know anything about His economy, His Son, His salvation or His plan. And maybe people may not know about other things. But the divine characteristics of the Creator and the eternal power of the Creator are clearly seen by the things made.
For this kind of belief God's word says we have no excuse not to have.
"Because that which is known of God is manifest within them, for God manifested it to them. For both the invisible things of Him, both His eternal power and divine characteristics, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being perceived by the things made, so that they are without excuse." (See Rom. 1:19,20)
I don't believe the passage of time effects this at all. It was true 4,000 years ago, It was true 1,000 years ago. And if Christ tarries and 1,000 more years of scientific knowledge should increase exponentially, it will still be the case.
The invisible things of God - His divine characteristics and eternal power will always be perceived through the things God has made. I think He has seen to it that no amount of encrease of human understanding of the creation can erase that intuitive revelation.
04 Oct 16
Originally posted by apathistNo, you disingenuously redescribed my view, precisely as I already pointed out. And now you've resorted to lying about it.
No, I saw a contradiction and pointed it out. The rest is from your imagination.
Let's see if you persist in this silly “I spy a contradiction” charade. This should be fun. I've clarified my view at some pain in answer to your questions (you know, the ones where you feigned an interest). So, please point out the contradiction therein. Contradictions are of the form (P & not-P). So, explicitly state what the P is here.
Originally posted by LemonJello
... Again, my view is that, generally speaking, deliberative belief formation is handcuffed to cognitive verisimilitude; and, again generally speaking, that is in turn not within one’s control. ...
Originally posted by apathist
But 'deliberative belief formation' is certainly within one's control. What does 'cognitive verisimilitude' mean, and how does it make 'deliberative belief formation' become non-deliberative?
So I saw a contradiction, pointed it out with a question so you could clarify, you answered with a solid wall of text that points out " there's nothing conceptually indicating that the outcome of such effort [deliberation] is of one's choosing".
I replied by asking "Who said that applying the will guarantees the desired result?"
Then you went ballistic.
You should be able to pick out the p and not-p. 'Deliberative belief formation' is a willed action, why would that change just because it is 'handcuffed' to 'cognitive verisimilitude'?
An honest debate should keep the he-said-she-said crap to a minimum. (This site doen't have a very useful search function anyway. Posts aren't even numbered!) The style around here seems to be all about personal attacks instead of honest discussion. But whatever, as long as everyone is having fun.
05 Oct 16
Originally posted by apathistI'd say there is plenty of honest discussion going on around here and that the personal attacks ~ when they crop up in those discussions, and where they are not just part of the general banter that's going on (and always has been) ~ more often than not indicate where the honest discussion is not going someone's way.
The style around here seems to be all about personal attacks instead of honest discussion. But whatever, as long as everyone is having fun.
When it comes to honest discussion v personal attacks, I think the dynamics of this place are too complicated for it be seen as an either-or situation or one in which the latter happens instead of the former.