Belief

[POI]

This thread is not to discuss many of the specifics about Christianity. Instead, it is to discuss one seemingly required element for salvation, which is belief. Sure, one can believe that the Bible god exists and still reject that believed upon god (and/or) be rejected by that god. But a fundamental and necessary element looks to be belief in this Bible god.

And sure, I guess a case could also be made that belief is NOT required too. This topic has already been examined here (viewtopic.php?t=39327). for anyone who cares to push back here -- (in that belief is not necessary or required).

And some others may argue that all humans secretly believe and that fundamental belief is already had by all.

All this aside, there exists a Christian populous who thinks that not all believe, and that the Bible god gives us free will to choose. Hence....

...For all intents and purposes, and to address the Christian folks who are under the impression that belief is a minimum requirement for salvation, I have a topic to propose.

For debate: Isn't the Bible god aware that true belief is not a choice?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #9]

You are still just asserting your claim, not supporting it. You say these aren't under our control, but aren't showing it.

I have both shown and supported it and so have you. Case and point, let's review my last response in post 9 -- (regarding the <two> elements for belief).

1) We likely already agree that you cannot simply 'will' yourself into a believe that "the earth is flat", (which is your given example BTW), no matter how hard you try. Further, no amount of (reward or punishment) incentivization can sway you.

2) "Belief preservation" is a choice, but it's likely not a free choice. You have demonstrated this with the "Justice" topic alone. You likely still believe your god is just, even though I have objectively demonstrated that the Christian god cannot be. See here for details (https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/belief-perseverance). If you are able to follow the three listed steps below, in the provided link, to overcome your belief preservation about your god 'being just', then you will demonstrate that beliefs are somewhat controllable. But you will only then shoot yourself in the foot because you will have to denounce your Christian god, as he is unjust. Hence, you are stuck in between a rock and a hard place here.

(From the link) - "Overcoming belief perseverance requires a combination of 1a) self-awareness, 2a) deliberate action, and 3a) embracing humility. It's not just about changing our own minds – it’s about fostering an environment in which everyone can be open to new evidence."

*****************

As for me, regarding (1) and (2) above, I do not and cannot believe that a rotting corpse rose again to save humanity. In regard to (2), the 'evidence' is unconvincing. Is this due to lacking self-awareness, deliberate action, and/or lacking humility? I doubt it?

In the meantime, why would god punish some humans for a trait, (belief), in which we have no actual control over?

[lastdaysbeliever]

For debate: Isn't the Bible god aware that true belief is not a choice?

Hi POI,

Good question. In my opinion, and not philosophying and projecting the blame on God for choices we all make, and assuming you've heard or read the gospel (have you?), you do make a choice. Either to accept the free gift God offers in the gospel, that you have heard or read (have you?), or rejection of what God offers of your own volition. So, the choice is yours. All God does is honor your choice.

I hope that makes sense...

Blessings,

ldb

[POI]

For debate: Isn't the Bible god aware that true belief is not a choice?

Hi POI,

Good question. In my opinion, and not philosophying and projecting the blame on God for choices we all make, and assuming you've heard or read the gospel (have you?), you do make a choice. Either to accept the free gift God offers in the gospel, that you have heard or read (have you?), or rejection of what God offers of your own volition. So, the choice is yours. All God does is honor your choice.

Blessings,

ldb

The 'choice', for me, is a non-starter, as I do not belief a postmortem Jesus exists. As I just explained to The Tanager, and prior, (in posts 3, 9, and 11), (2) elements look to exist for a belief. Are you under the impression that I can 'choose' to believe the Christian god exists? If so, how?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #11]

I have both shown and supported it and so have you. Case and point, let's review my last response in post 9 -- (regarding the <two> elements for belief).

1) We likely already agree that you cannot simply 'will' yourself into a believe that "the earth is flat", (which is your given example BTW), no matter how hard you try. Further, no amount of (reward or punishment) incentivization can sway you.

No one is claiming that a free will means being able to choose belief in this way.

2) "Belief preservation" is a choice, but it's likely not a free choice.

Okay, let’s see the support for this claim.

You have demonstrated this with the "Justice" topic alone. You likely still believe your god is just, even though I have objectively demonstrated that the Christian god cannot be.

You may believe you have objectively demonstrated that, but that assertion isn’t proof that you actually did. Thus, this isn’t rational support.

See here for details (https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/belief-perseverance). If you are able to follow the three listed steps below, in the provided link, to overcome your belief preservation about your god 'being just', then you will demonstrate that beliefs are somewhat controllable. But you will only then shoot yourself in the foot because you will have to denounce your Christian god, as he is unjust. Hence, you are stuck in between a rock and a hard place here.

(From the link) - "Overcoming belief perseverance requires a combination of 1a) self-awareness, 2a) deliberate action, and 3a) embracing humility. It's not just about changing our own minds – it’s about fostering an environment in which everyone can be open to new evidence."

I don’t have to demonstrate beliefs are controllable; you have the burden to show they are absolutely not controllable. Asking me to change any and every belief isn’t rational support for that. You’ve got to show that none of my changed beliefs were due to choices I made that I could have made differently.

After I became a Christian, I believed in young earth creationism. But I eventually became self aware that I was holding that simply because other Christians said that was the only option for Christians, I took deliberate action to look further into it, embracing the humility that I and these other Christians could be wrong, and possibly other steps to where my belief there changed. You have the burden of proving that I could not have done otherwise for your theory to go through. You have the burden to prove that I had to make every decision I did along the way.

[lastdaysbeliever]

For debate: Isn't the Bible god aware that true belief is not a choice?

Hi POI,

Good question. In my opinion, and not philosophying and projecting the blame on God for choices we all make, and assuming you've heard or read the gospel (have you?), you do make a choice. Either to accept the free gift God offers in the gospel, that you have heard or read (have you?), or rejection of what God offers of your own volition. So, the choice is yours. All God does is honor your choice.

Blessings,

ldb

The 'choice', for me, is a non-starter, as I do not belief a postmortem Jesus exists. As I just explained to The Tanager, and prior, (in posts 3, 9, and 11), (2) elements look to exist for a belief. Are you under the impression that I can 'choose' to believe the Christian god exists? If so, how?

You can either chose to believe or not. I'm not here to convince you either way. The decision, the choice you make is between God and you. Whatever you chose He will honor your decision as He's not making anyone chose Him.

Blessings POI,

ldb

[POI]

You may believe you have objectively demonstrated that, but that assertion isn’t proof that you actually did. Thus, this isn’t rational support.

The proof is in the pudding Tanager. You are the example, demonstrated in the 'Justice' thread.

I don’t have to demonstrate beliefs are controllable

If you think that beliefs are controllable, which is the opposite of my position, then you certainly do. Otherwise, we agree and this topic is already over; which then sets the running score as:

POI: 3
Tanager: 0

you have the burden to show they are absolutely not controllable.

I have. You still somehow believe that the Christian god is just, when he is clearly demonstrated to you not to be.

Asking me to change any and every belief isn’t rational support for that. You’ve got to show that none of my changed beliefs were due to choices I made that I could have made differently.

1) After I became a Christian, I believed in young earth creationism. 2) But I eventually became self aware that I was holding that simply because other Christians said that was the only option for Christians, I took deliberate action to look further into it, embracing the humility that I and these other Christians could be wrong, and possibly other steps to where my belief there changed.

This is why I expressed, prior, about deeply held beliefs, as it relates to topics like (politics and religion).

1) Explained at the top of post #3. (i.e.) - "Presented evidence, which convinces a person, is what propels a belief. I'm not saying the evidence has to be any good, but it has to convince that person. Case/point, a mother can tell their child that god exists, and the child might then believe. In this case, the evidence is the mother, whom the child trusts, which is telling the child. The mother's authority is evidence enough to convince the child."

2) Newly found/presented evidence, to the contrary, forced your hand to no longer be convinced that the earth was young. It wasn't a choice to then be convinced that the earth was older. It was beyond the scope of 'belief preservation.' (i.e.) - Going back to my example to bjs1 in post #3 and beyond... Evidence may have even been thrust upon him, which absolutely forced his hypothetical hand in being convinced that his wife is actually cheating on him.

********************

But luckily for you, in this case, Christianity is still safe. You merely pivoted to another position within the same set of beliefs. You found that accepting an "old earth creationist view" carries just as much 'weight' as the "young earther", or maybe even more. The "belief preservation" comes in here with the justice topic. And I doubt you are freely choosing to still believe that the Christian god is just, (despite me demonstrating otherwise). This might be where you, again, want to evaluate 1a, 2a, and 3a from post #11 to see why you still believe the Christian god is just?

So again, quite the pickle you are in Tanager. At best, you can win the battle, but loose the war. Maybe you can demonstrate that some beliefs are chosen, and win the battle. But then the war will be lost, in that you must then reconcile an unjust god, rendering the war lost.

[POI]

You can either chose to believe or not.

It's not a choice. Just like it is not actually a choice as to (whether or not) you can believe in the existence of Thor.

I'm not here to convince you either way.

I'm not claiming that you are. I'm claiming that the Bible god is under the assumption that belief in his existence is a choice when it is not a choice. Just like it is not a choice as to (whether or not) you or I can choose to believe in the existence of Thor.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #16]

The proof is in the pudding Tanager. You are the example, demonstrated in the 'Justice' thread.

You asserting that you objectively demonstrated that your view was correct is not rational evidence that you did actually objectively demonstrate such a thing. I could easily say that I objectively demonstrated your view was wrong. Both would be empty rhetoric.

I don’t have to demonstrate beliefs are controllable

If you think that beliefs are controllable, which is the opposite of my position, then you certainly do. Otherwise, we agree and this topic is already over;

The question you put up for debate in this thread was “For debate: Isn't the Bible god aware that true belief is not a choice?“ That is what we are analyzing. You (or anyone that agrees with you) alone have the burden in this thread. Shifting the burden is not a rational move.

POI: 3
Tanager: 0

I’ll let my content speak for itself rather than piling on empty rhetoric.

This is why I expressed, prior, about deeply held beliefs, as it relates to topics like (politics and religion).

1) Explained at the top of post #3. (i.e.) - "Presented evidence, which convinces a person, is what propels a belief. I'm not saying the evidence has to be any good, but it has to convince that person. Case/point, a mother can tell their child that god exists, and the child might then believe. In this case, the evidence is the mother, whom the child trusts, which is telling the child. The mother's authority is evidence enough to convince the child."

2) Newly found/presented evidence, to the contrary, forced your hand to no longer be convinced that the earth was young. It wasn't a choice to then be convinced that the earth was older. It was beyond the scope of 'belief preservation.' (i.e.) - Going back to my example to bjs1 in post #3 and beyond... Evidence may have even been thrust upon him, which absolutely forced his hypothetical hand in being convinced that his wife is actually cheating on him.

Even assuming that is correct, many young earth creationists choose not to look at the evidence at all when they could and possibly have their belief changed. I didn’t have to look at the new-to-me evidence, but I chose to. That decision (even assuming your 3-step account of belief formation) affected what belief I now have. So, you’ve got to show that I was determined in that prior choice to get your question in this thread off the ground.

[lastdaysbeliever]

You can either chose to believe or not.

It's not a choice. Just like it is not actually a choice as to (whether or not) you can believe in the existence of Thor.

I'm not here to convince you either way.

I'm not claiming that you are. I'm claiming that the Bible god is under the assumption that belief in his existence is a choice when it is not a choice. Just like it is not a choice as to (whether or not) you or I can choose to believe in the existence of Thor.

Just so I'm clear, did you not write "I do not belief a postmortem Jesus exists". Was that a choice you made, or not? Seems it a choice to me. No need to answer, As I move along, since we are at am impasse. In closing, your decision, your choice to not accept God is between He and thee. He will honor your decision because He doesn't force anyone to believe in Him.

Bless you POI,

ldb

[POI]

You asserting that you objectively demonstrated that your view was correct is not rational evidence that you did actually objectively demonstrate such a thing. I could easily say that I objectively demonstrated your view was wrong. Both would be empty rhetoric.

It would only be empty if the "Justice" topic did not exist, with posts 65, 67, and 69 to demonstrate.

The question you put up for debate in this thread was “For debate: Isn't the Bible god aware that true belief is not a choice?“ That is what we are analyzing. You (or anyone that agrees with you) alone have the burden in this thread. Shifting the burden is not a rational move.

I've already demonstrated that beliefs are not freely chosen. Your belief preservation in the Christian god, in spite of being demonstrably shown that your Christian god is unjust, is a testament to that reality.

Even assuming that is correct, many young earth creationists choose not to look at the evidence at all when they could and possibly have their belief changed. I didn’t have to look at the new-to-me evidence, but I chose to. That decision (even assuming your 3-step account of belief formation) affected what belief I now have. So, you’ve got to show that I was determined in that prior choice to get your question in this thread off the ground.

This goes right back to post 9, in the expressed subtopics of 1) and 2). Openly and earnestly exploring evidence to a claim means you are not plagued by belief preservation (here). Great. However, (whether or not) evidence convinces you is not a choice regardless.

I reckon that if you had applied the 3-step approach in the "Justice" topic, we never would have needed to trek on to topic 2) and beyond.

***************

The quandary between two unfavorable options still remains, as we harken back to topic 1), in the "Justice" topic.

Uncomfortable option 1) - Succumb to the conclusion that the Christian god is unjust, based upon clear demonstration; which would prove you do not possess belief preservation here, and that maybe it is a free choice after all.

(or)

Uncomfortable option 2) - Continue in the position that the Christian god is just, proving that belief preservation is not a free choice acter all.

Either way, I win the over-all "war."