Believing in God is a free will choice

[rikuoamero]

What exactly does the title mean? I'm on another website right now, and in a debate, a Christian said

Believing in God or Jesus is completely voluntary. (for those who are curious, the topic of conversation there is "Why are you convinced God is real?")

To which I want to ask...what does that mean? Is it possible to choose to believe in things, even if all the evidence points in that direction? Is it possible to see Andy point a gun at Bob, see the bullet leave the gun, see the wound, the blood loss, see Bob stop breathing and moving, see Bob being buried/cremated...and yet choose to believe that Andy didn't shoot and kill Bob, as in make a choice that that didn't happen in your mind?

Does the phrase mean that belief is ultimately divorced from evidence?

[ttruscott]

Believing in God is a free will choice might be better expressed for Christians as: putting one's faith in GOD as our GOD and in HIS claims as true without proof (is) must be by a free will decision...

[FarWanderer]

What exactly does the title mean? I'm on another website right now, and in a debate, a Christian said

Believing in God or Jesus is completely voluntary. (for those who are curious, the topic of conversation there is "Why are you convinced God is real?")

To which I want to ask...what does that mean? Is it possible to choose to believe in things, even if all the evidence points in that direction? Is it possible to see Andy point a gun at Bob, see the bullet leave the gun, see the wound, the blood loss, see Bob stop breathing and moving, see Bob being buried/cremated...and yet choose to believe that Andy didn't shoot and kill Bob, as in make a choice that that didn't happen in your mind?

Does the phrase mean that belief is ultimately divorced from evidence?

For once I agree with trusscott.

It’s an equivocation error on the word “believe�, made frequently by theist and atheist alike. The kind of belief you are talking about is in reference to facts and judgment, but the other kind of belief is something more like “hope as a self fulfilling prophecy�. The imperative “believe in yourself� is such an example.

[Tcg]

What exactly does the title mean?

It seems to me that it is a reflection of the attitude that some theists hold. They don't want to admit the fact that for many the story of God quite simply doesn't add up. It may help them pretend that it does and that some folks reject it because they are evil and want to deny their maker or some such reasoning like that.

I know for myself that I couldn't choose to believe in God no matter what was offered in exchange for that belief. I know this unquestionably because I tried to do so for a while.

Once you have seen the fact that the story of God is nothing but smoke and mirrors supported by smoke and twisted mirrors, there is no way to believe in such a story no matter what the prize of belief would be.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 8 by William]

Generally where one would expect to find examples...coming from the Abranites themselves.

Surely you can guess my dissatisfaction with this answer? Surely you understand I'd want an answer that references something other than the Abranites?

But that assumes the evidence is not circumstantial. Are you saying that in relation to the Abramite idea of GOD, we are to presume the evidence is not circumstantial, but empirical?

The evidence [against] is substantial, since that is the position I am in.

Generally speaking, when it comes to belief, people do so by act of their own will.

So it's not like when one chooses between strawberry or chocolate mint ice-cream? It's not that kind of a choice?

"Are such things as virgins births and resurrections of 3-day (and more) dead bodies something that CAN be believed, IF the [relative] free will of the individual was truly active in the process"?

My question isn't that can it be believed, but does believing it involve a voluntary or free will choice. It seems that, according to what you are saying, it is not a voluntary or free will choice as one would think about in terms of choosing between flavours of ice cream, but something else.

No. They have no requirement to BELIEVE. They KNOW. The evidence is simply not refutable or anything which can be debated.

They would likely vary on their subjective points of reference but not on the overall outcome of the event.

So within the show Sherlock...Dr Watson saw him die. He saw Sherlock stand at the precipice of a tall building, he heard Sherlock speak a goodbye message through a phone, he saw Sherlock step off the edge, he saw Sherlock hit the ground, he saw a dead body, he saw lots of blood, he was present at Sherlock's funeral (presumably).

All this evidence means knowledge, Dr Watson knows Sherlock is dead.
And yet, as the show reveals in Season 3...what Dr Watson knew was not true. In Dr Watson's case, the evidence is in fact refutable, in that what he thought he knew due to evidence seemingly being irrefutable was wrong.

If, for example, the voice that only they can hear tells them something contrary to what the bible claims, they would have to assume the 'voice of the enemy' somehow got through and pretended to be the voice of GOD...perhaps as some form of test in order to gauge how much bible they believe and understand etc...rationalizing everything based upon 'the word of god' as they are lead to believe the bible to be.

A couple years back, I started a thread where I asked something along the lines of "Think of a hot topic issue you take a stance on, such as abortion or gay marriage, whether pro or anti. In your view (you being Christians) does God match what you believe, or if God apparently says the opposite of your view, do you change your stance to match his i.e. if an anti-abortion person believes God is pro-abortion, do they now become pro-abortion?"
I'll have to dig up that thread, will be difficult since I can't remember the wording...but anyway, the Christians all said that what God says goes. Their stance would change, even if before learning what they now think God's position is on that hot topic is, they had had (what they would have described) as good reasons for having that stance.

Anyway, if a "voice of the enemy" gets through, this presents an interesting scenario. They're relying on a magical voice to confirm or deny the Bible, as per their claims...and yet apparently a voice that is not God is able to get through and they are able to tell this is not a voice of God because...they use the Bible to judge the voice? So they are in a situation where they use a voice to judge the Bible, and use the Bible to judge a voice...?

So the question is...are they really operating with their own [relative] free will or are they actually forgoing that natural attribute in order to place organized religions interpretations of life the universe and everything as the best instructional authority to place ones trust in?

This puts me in mind of a caller to the Atheist Experience some years back, who claimed that humans have a broken moral compass, he doesn't trust his own...but yet, he is somehow able to describe God as being moral. The host of that episode, Tracy Harris, quite correctly pointed out the contradiction.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 10 by PinSeeker]

You can use either term. The Bible affirms both (states them both as facts) and confirms both (establishes the truth and correctness of both).

How can it be described as "confirming" when it is from the Bible we get the initial claim?
You're essentially saying the Bible confirms itself.

What you gave me is a non-answer, and possibly just a cop-out.

Then I hope you don't mind if (or should I say whenever) other Christians give me that response, I call it as you do here, a cop-out?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Yeah, yeah, seeing is believing; I getcha. But you're still thinking on a lower, purely natural plane. There's nothing wrong with that, and I'm not saying that's "dumb," or that anybody is "more intelligent" than anybody.

The natural plane is all I have access to. As far as I can see, there is nothing beyond the natural plane, or if there is, I cannot observe it. Why should I think in terms of a super-natural plane when I honestly don't "see" it or believe there even is one?
I can hyothesise of course, think in terms of a "What if..." scenario...but to give actual credence to the idea?

At some point in the future, it may become irrefutable and your ability to truly deny it may cease to exist because you may be given a new nature -- by God by His Spirit. If that happens, you would then realize and confess, "Hey, there is a God, and Jesus is His only begotten son, and I need to repent of my sin, die unto myself, and live unto Him." Your new nature would drive that.

That may indeed happen...but today, I give that a likelihood close to zero. A future state of mind of the person behind the handle rikuoamero, where he believes there is a God, there is a Jesus, Jesus is his son, and I, rikuoamero, need to repent of sin, is an extremely different mind to the mind I have today. In fact, the two minds are so different they may as well be two different people.
For to believe all what you have in quotes just up above, I would have to be convinced not only there is a God (whatever that is) and that Jesus is his son (whatever that means, it presumably means something else different to me being the son of my biological parents), I would also have to be convinced there is a sin(s) I need to repent of.
In other words, it's not just a historical question I need to be convinced of, it's a problem of philosophy too. I have stated numerous times on this forum that I predict that, if ever I did become convinced there is a Christian god, then my stance on morality, ethics and philosophy would compel me to reject worshiping/obeying it.

It works the same way the other way around. You say you were a Christian once. And I believe you fully believe you were.

I get the implication that "Pinseeker doesn't believe rikuoamero actually WAS a Christian".
To which I respond with, I walked the walk and talked the talk. If I don't count...who does? No-one, that's who.
Your line of thinking has that those who once called themselves Christian but "fell away" don't count as ever having been real Christians in the first place, to which I have to point out that this means literally NO-ONE can ever count as a real Christian ever...since of course, at some point in the future, a future neither you nor I can see, any person could go from believer to unbeliever.
Why it could be that you and I will be talking next year, and at that time, you will have a "Former Christian" among your usergroups underneath your user name. Wouldn't that have to mean, according to your present day logic that although you believe yourself now to be a Christian that you actually weren't?

But at some point, you became more fully aware of your inner self, your nature. You came to a point where you said (or realized), "Hey, that's just not right."

For your information, the one moment where I "woke up" (as it were) (although I had been having thoughts like this) was at a Christian mass and the priest said something along the lines of "You now have the Holy Spirit in you" or "The Holy Spirit is now within you" or "among you"...only for me to notice and/or feel nothing different and to think "...this guy doesn't know what he's talking about".

You're nature, which has always been in you since birth, drove that. And so you renounced your "belief" in God and Jesus.

I would describe it more as "realizing my belief had no justification".
Anyway, what does this mean for your own theological beliefs? Isn't God the author of us, of our natures? Doesn't this mean God is the author of my nature of disbelief in him?

In either case, who you are in your inner self, your core being, drives your mind and causes you to make the decisions you make.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

One must be born again, Nicodemus:

The difference between myself and Nicodemus is that I don't say
Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.�
I don't say regarding Jesus that I "know he has come from God as a teacher, that you can't do these things unless God is with you".
That just isn't something the 2018 rikuoamero is going to say.

So something outside us must give us a new nature so that then, subsequently, we will believe -- of our own free will -- in God. And if we are given that new nature, we will not fail to at some point, in a very reasoned and evidence-based decision, believe in God.

How can it be a free will decision if its overriding our natures? What I'm seeing is a person saying "Hey, rikuo, you know how your nature, your inner nature is basically to be skeptical of all these God claims? Well, if God overrides or gives you a new nature, one that isn't skeptical, this would count as a free will decision to believe in God".
I'm seeing a contradiction here.

[William]

[Replying to post 14 by rikuoamero]

So within the show Sherlock...Dr Watson saw him die. He saw Sherlock stand at the precipice of a tall building, he heard Sherlock speak a goodbye message through a phone, he saw Sherlock step off the edge, he saw Sherlock hit the ground, he saw a dead body, he saw lots of blood, he was present at Sherlock's funeral (presumably).

All this evidence means knowledge, Dr Watson knows Sherlock is dead.
And yet, as the show reveals in Season 3...what Dr Watson knew was not true. In Dr Watson's case, the evidence is in fact refutable, in that what he thought he knew due to evidence seemingly being irrefutable was wrong.

No. The fact that the Dr. was eventually shown by more evidence that he had been wrong does not in itself mean the initial evidence didn't provide initial irrefutable evidence - even that the knowledge was subsequently proven to be incorrect by more irrefutable evidence.
Until the time that the knowledge was refuted by more evidence, the Dr's knowledge was reliable. The Dr. didn't believe the detective was dead. He knew (by the evidence) that the detective was dead. At least that is what I am assuming, since I haven't watched the series and simply watched the clip you posted.

So they are in a situation where they use a voice to judge the Bible, and use the Bible to judge a voice...?

As I said in my last post, the bible takes precedence to any internal voice they might hear. If the voice is contrary, then the voice is 'the enemy'. This is in fact WHY most Christians in this position are not able to be reasoned with (debate for such is not really for the purpose of listening to possible reason) because like a contrary internal voice, and contrary external voice is 'the enemy'.

This puts me in mind of a caller to the Atheist Experience some years back, who claimed that humans have a broken moral compass, he doesn't trust his own...but yet, he is somehow able to describe God as being moral. The host of that episode, Tracy Harris, quite correctly pointed out the contradiction.

Again, the idea that the bible is the word of GOD gives the believer the moral compass they need to replace their broken one. The thought that the bible may have been compiled (even in part) by those with broken moral compass is countered by the belief that GOD would not allow this to happen to his WORD.
Thus, even thinking that this might be the case, is to internally hear the voice of the enemy. To believe (or otherwise consider) that this might be the case is adhering to the 'voice of the enemy'. Like Eve with the fruit...

[PinSeeker]

You're essentially saying the Bible confirms itself.

Well, yes, but everything and everyone (intentionally or unintentionally, and voluntarily or involuntarily) confirms the Bible, also. You're reject that, I'm sure. No matter.

Then I hope you don't mind if (or should I say whenever) other Christians give me that response, I call it as you do here, a cop-out? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Well, I said it was a non-answer, and possibly a cop-out. I didn't call it a cop-out straight up. But yeah, call a spade a spade; that's perfectly okay with me, regardless who you're talking to. But try to make sure it's a spade, first.

The natural plane is all I have access to.

Right. No doubt.

As far as I can see, there is nothing beyond the natural plane, or if there is, I cannot observe it. Why should I think in terms of a super-natural plane when I honestly don't "see" it or believe there even is one?

Because you can see all the attributes of the supernatural in the natural. Or through observing the natural. Everyone can.

That may indeed happen...but today, I give that a likelihood close to zero.

Agreed. But with God, all things are possible.

A future state of mind of the person behind the handle rikuoamero, where he believes there is a God, there is a Jesus, Jesus is his son, and I, rikuoamero, need to repent of sin, is an extremely different mind to the mind I have today. In fact, the two minds are so different they may as well be two different people.
For to believe all what you have in quotes just up above, I would have to be convinced not only there is a God (whatever that is) and that Jesus is his son (whatever that means, it presumably means something else different to me being the son of my biological parents), I would also have to be convinced there is a sin(s) I need to repent of.
In other words, it's not just a historical question I need to be convinced of, it's a problem of philosophy too. I have stated numerous times on this forum that I predict that, if ever I did become convinced there is a Christian god, then my stance on morality, ethics and philosophy would compel me to reject worshiping/obeying it.

I understand. But again, with God, all things are possible. One clarification: If you ever did become convinced of God, then your stance on at certain moralities, ethics, and philosophies would change, thereby compelling you to worship/obey Him.

I get the implication that "Pinseeker doesn't believe rikuoamero actually WAS a Christian". To which I respond with, I walked the walk and talked the talk. If I don't count...who does? No-one, that's who.

Well, I think one of two things is possible. Either:

1. rikuoamero was never really a Christian in the first place (surely you agree that anyone can think or say anything -- and actually believe it for a time -- but then come to the realization that he was in error all along; just walking the walk and talking the talk does not indicate true belief; as the Bible puts it, the [sinful] heart is deceitful above all things)

Or:

2. (by the same token as #1 above) rikuoamero is really a Christian, but his new nature has not sufficiently overcome his original sinful nature yet to the point where his belief has visibly (to himself, at least) manifest itself yet.

But yeah, I'm leaning strongly towards #1 above at the present. Just because of what all you've said.

Your line of thinking has that those who once called themselves Christian but "fell away" don't count as ever having been real Christians in the first place...

Well, I don't think I would use the language "don't count," but yes, my line of thinking on this matter (which is in line with the apostle John's) is that those who called themselves Christian, or were "with us" in word and deed, but fell away proved themselves never to have been "of us," or fellow Christians.

...to which I have to point out that this means literally NO-ONE can ever count as a real Christian ever...since of course, at some point in the future, a future neither you nor I can see, any person could go from believer to unbeliever.
Why it could be that you and I will be talking next year, and at that time, you will have a "Former Christian" among your usergroups underneath your user name. Wouldn't that have to mean, according to your present day logic that although you believe yourself now to be a Christian that you actually weren't?

Absolutely. Again, I don't think I would use the "counting" or "not counting" language, as I think that's rather clumsy. But to your point, not even Christians truly know if other people who call themselves Christian are really Christians, and that's because only God sees and knows the heart of individuals.

And by the same token, Christians can't truly know if other people who call themselves atheist or agnostic or anything opposing Christianity are really non-Christians, for the same reason. As I said before, someone may have received the Spirit and been reborn with a new nature, but it may not have sufficiently overcome his original sinful nature yet to the point where his belief has visibly (to himself, at least) manifest itself.

It's a limiting thing being human, isn't it?

But at some point, you became more fully aware of your inner self, your nature. You came to a point where you said (or realized), "Hey, that's just not right."

For your information, the one moment where I "woke up" (as it were) (although I had been having thoughts like this) was at a Christian mass and the priest said something along the lines of "You now have the Holy Spirit in you" or "The Holy Spirit is now within you" or "among you"...only for me to notice and/or feel nothing different and to think "...this guy doesn't know what he's talking about".

Exactly. That's what I said, is it not?

...what does this mean for your own theological beliefs? Isn't God the author of us, of our natures? Doesn't this mean God is the author of my nature of disbelief in him?

Nope. It means He allowed it to become our natural nature, because of our own choice. Yes, Adam made the choice, but we all made it in him as the federal head of the human race and inherited it from him at our birth. He told Adam (and us, in Adam) what the consequences would be, but Adam (and we) did it anyway. Now God has to make that all right. And He will. In His time.

In either case, who you are in your inner self, your core being, drives your mind and causes you to make the decisions you make.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

Good. That's a little progress between us at least. A little.

The difference between myself and Nicodemus is that I don't say
Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.�
I don't say regarding Jesus that I "know he has come from God as a teacher, that you can't do these things unless God is with you".
That just isn't something the 2018 rikuoamero is going to say.

Sure. But that's beyond the point, really. You are exactly like him in that you have not been reborn of the Spirit. Or, at least, you don't yet know you have been. If you're worried about it at all, or troubled about whether you are or not -- as Nicodemus obviously was -- then that's a good sign. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

How can it be a free will decision if its overriding our natures?

It's not "overriding our natures." It's giving you a new nature, which is of the Spirit, that will override your old nature, which is not of the Spirit, so that then you, because of your new nature will then freely and willingly choose the right. This is God setting right what we (in Adam), of our own choice (in his choice), made wrong.

Free your mind, Neo.

I'm seeing a contradiction here.

Yeah not surprised.

[1213]

Have you watched the BBC series Sherlock, starring Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch?

No.

Assuming yes...could Dr. Watson have chosen to believe or not to believe that Sherlock committed suicide?
Would Watson have been able to make a choice, like choosing which flavour of ice cream he'd like (strawberry or mint chocolate) to eat, that Sherlock is dead?

I think people have always possibility to choose what they believe, until the matter is really proven fact and even then, some can refuse to believe it.

[Tcg]

I think people have always possibility to choose what they believe...

You could demonstrate that fact. Choose for one week to believe that God is nothing but a fictional being and that Bible is the most flawed book ever composed by humankind.

I've asked dozens of Christians to do this, none have ever taken me up on my challenge. Will you be the first?

[1213]

You could demonstrate that fact. Choose for one week to believe that God is nothing but a fictional being and that Bible is the most flawed book ever composed by humankind.

Sorry, I don’t want to do thing that I think is not reasonable. It is against my free will to choose to do stupid thing and reject truth.