There is no Hope without Jesus

[Kenny]

No Kenny, in this conversation about a belief in God, both 1 and 2 apply. But let's do the scenario above, with the #1 definition, if it makes it easier for you to see my point.

Do you choose to accept your wife's statement that she will pay the bill?

Using the scenario you presented, I do believe she will do as she said. I would prefer the term; faith, or trust. To say I choose to believe her would suggest I could just as easily choose NOT to believe her; and when I consider her track record of such things, along with our history of interactions; I don’t think I could simply choose to believe she would not follow through with her word.

Kenny, choosing to accept your wife's statement is the same thing as saying that you believe her or trust her.

But if I choose to accept her statement, doesn't that also mean I could choose to not accept her statement? I've already explained why I could not choose to not accept her statement

No. You look at the evidence, including past reliability of your wife. Then you choose to trust her/accept her statement as reliable. If she was always reliable in what she said she would do, it may be an easy choice for you to believe her. If sometimes she forgets to do what she says, you may have a harder time choosing to trust her word.
Just because you choose to trust her, that doesn't necessarily mean her past behavior would lead you to a choice of not accepting her statement. The point is that after going through the evidence in your mind, you choose one over any other possible choices. Even if all evidence overwhelming leads you to choose to believe her, you are still consciously making a choice to believe her. You used your intellect to gather evidence, which allows you to make a choice. That's just how it works.

Perhaps this is something where we may just have to agree to disagree on, Choice is a two way street. As I said before; I cannot choose to believe something that I am convinced is not true; and if I am unable to believe something, there is no choice involved.

[RickD]

So if I understand you correctly, you make a choice to believe "X" is true, before you see evidence that it is true or not. Is this correct?

That's not what I was saying.

Okay; let me try again;
So you see the evidence that “X” is true, and the moment you determine the evidence is believable, you immediately make the choice to believe the evidence you determined as true, is true. Is this what you are saying?

No. I was disagreeing with the wording of what you said.

Would you mind rephrasing what I said using the correct wording?

Ok, I'll try. This is what you said:

Not in the context of this conversation; in this discussion, to believe is to become convinced something is true. Once you become convinced, the idea of making a choice to believe or not is no longer an issue.

Since I think that "belief" comes sometime after weighing the evidence and becoming convinced something is true, then I disagree that "to believe" is the same as "to become convinced something is true". Once you become convinced by thinking about the evidence, you may be compelled to believe. So even if the evidence doesn't lead you to directly choose to believe, the evidence indirectly leads you to choose to believe. In other words, if after weighing the evidence, it's so overwhelming that you couldn't possibly not believe, you are still indirectly choosing to believe, because of how you choose to process the evidence. Does that make any sense?

[Kenny]

That's not what I was saying.

Okay; let me try again;
So you see the evidence that “X” is true, and the moment you determine the evidence is believable, you immediately make the choice to believe the evidence you determined as true, is true. Is this what you are saying?

No. I was disagreeing with the wording of what you said.

Would you mind rephrasing what I said using the correct wording?

Ok, I'll try. This is what you said:

Not in the context of this conversation; in this discussion, to believe is to become convinced something is true. Once you become convinced, the idea of making a choice to believe or not is no longer an issue.

Since I think that "belief" comes sometime after weighing the evidence and becoming convinced something is true, then I disagree that "to believe" is the same as "to become convinced something is true". Once you become convinced by thinking about the evidence, you may be compelled to believe. So even if the evidence doesn't lead you to directly choose to believe, the evidence indirectly leads you to choose to believe. In other words, if after weighing the evidence, it's so overwhelming that you couldn't possibly not believe, you are still indirectly choosing to believe, because of how you choose to process the evidence. Does that make any sense?

The part in Bold is where you've lost me. In what way am I processing the evidence, that leads to an indirect choice of believing?

[RickD]

kenny wrote:
Perhaps this is something where we may just have to agree to disagree on, Choice is a two way street. As I said before; I cannot choose to believe something that I am convinced is not true; and if I am unable to believe something, there is no choice involved.

I think I see what you're saying. I think you're saying that by the time you've processed the evidence, you just believe whatever it is that the evidence points to. So, as I said in my last post, in this case you are not directly choosing to believe, because you've already gotten to the point of just going where the evidence leads.

But with that, I'd still say you are indirectly choosing to believe, because of the choices you made while processing the evidence.

Let's see if I can use the example of belief in God to show you what I mean.

You look at evidence or proof presented for and against the existence of God. You process that evidence or proof, and using logic and your intellect, you choose what makes sense and what doesn't make sense. After weighing the available proof or evidence, you believe God doesn't exist.

So, in one way, you have no choice but to not believe. But in another way, after choosing which evidence or proof makes the most sense to you, you don't believe in the existence of God.

Thoughts?

[RickD]

Okay; let me try again;
So you see the evidence that “X” is true, and the moment you determine the evidence is believable, you immediately make the choice to believe the evidence you determined as true, is true. Is this what you are saying?

No. I was disagreeing with the wording of what you said.

Would you mind rephrasing what I said using the correct wording?

Ok, I'll try. This is what you said:

Not in the context of this conversation; in this discussion, to believe is to become convinced something is true. Once you become convinced, the idea of making a choice to believe or not is no longer an issue.

Since I think that "belief" comes sometime after weighing the evidence and becoming convinced something is true, then I disagree that "to believe" is the same as "to become convinced something is true". Once you become convinced by thinking about the evidence, you may be compelled to believe. So even if the evidence doesn't lead you to directly choose to believe, the evidence indirectly leads you to choose to believe. In other words, if after weighing the evidence, it's so overwhelming that you couldn't possibly not believe, you are still indirectly choosing to believe, because of how you choose to process the evidence. Does that make any sense?

The part in Bold is where you've lost me. In what way am I processing the evidence, that leads to an indirect choice of believing?

It's indirect because you choose which evidence is reliable, which leads you to believe.

[Kenny]

No. I was disagreeing with the wording of what you said.

Would you mind rephrasing what I said using the correct wording?

Ok, I'll try. This is what you said:

Not in the context of this conversation; in this discussion, to believe is to become convinced something is true. Once you become convinced, the idea of making a choice to believe or not is no longer an issue.

Since I think that "belief" comes sometime after weighing the evidence and becoming convinced something is true, then I disagree that "to believe" is the same as "to become convinced something is true". Once you become convinced by thinking about the evidence, you may be compelled to believe. So even if the evidence doesn't lead you to directly choose to believe, the evidence indirectly leads you to choose to believe. In other words, if after weighing the evidence, it's so overwhelming that you couldn't possibly not believe, you are still indirectly choosing to believe, because of how you choose to process the evidence. Does that make any sense?

The part in Bold is where you've lost me. In what way am I processing the evidence, that leads to an indirect choice of believing?

It's indirect because you choose which evidence is reliable, which leads you to believe.

Do you see "choice" as a two way street? Or a one way street.

[Kenny]

kenny wrote:
Perhaps this is something where we may just have to agree to disagree on, Choice is a two way street. As I said before; I cannot choose to believe something that I am convinced is not true; and if I am unable to believe something, there is no choice involved.

I think I see what you're saying. I think you're saying that by the time you've processed the evidence, you just believe whatever it is that the evidence points to. So, as I said in my last post, in this case you are not directly choosing to believe, because you've already gotten to the point of just going where the evidence leads.

But with that, I'd still say you are indirectly choosing to believe, because of the choices you made while processing the evidence.

Let's see if I can use the example of belief in God to show you what I mean.

You look at evidence or proof presented for and against the existence of God. You process that evidence or proof, and using logic and your intellect, you choose what makes sense and what doesn't make sense. After weighing the available proof or evidence, you believe God doesn't exist.

So, in one way, you have no choice but to not believe. But in another way, after choosing which evidence or proof makes the most sense to you, you don't believe in the existence of God.

Thoughts?

I would replace (Bold) choosing with "determining", but I agree.

[Kurieuo]

The decision to believe can be a choice where truth is concerned. Jesus claimed to not only be the way, but the truth.

[RickD]

kenny wrote:
Perhaps this is something where we may just have to agree to disagree on, Choice is a two way street. As I said before; I cannot choose to believe something that I am convinced is not true; and if I am unable to believe something, there is no choice involved.

I think I see what you're saying. I think you're saying that by the time you've processed the evidence, you just believe whatever it is that the evidence points to. So, as I said in my last post, in this case you are not directly choosing to believe, because you've already gotten to the point of just going where the evidence leads.

But with that, I'd still say you are indirectly choosing to believe, because of the choices you made while processing the evidence.

Let's see if I can use the example of belief in God to show you what I mean.

You look at evidence or proof presented for and against the existence of God. You process that evidence or proof, and using logic and your intellect, you choose what makes sense and what doesn't make sense. After weighing the available proof or evidence, you believe God doesn't exist.

So, in one way, you have no choice but to not believe. But in another way, after choosing which evidence or proof makes the most sense to you, you don't believe in the existence of God.

Thoughts?

I would replace (Bold) choosing with "determining", but I agree.

You do realize that choose and determine are synonyms?

[RickD]

Would you mind rephrasing what I said using the correct wording?

Ok, I'll try. This is what you said:

Not in the context of this conversation; in this discussion, to believe is to become convinced something is true. Once you become convinced, the idea of making a choice to believe or not is no longer an issue.

Since I think that "belief" comes sometime after weighing the evidence and becoming convinced something is true, then I disagree that "to believe" is the same as "to become convinced something is true". Once you become convinced by thinking about the evidence, you may be compelled to believe. So even if the evidence doesn't lead you to directly choose to believe, the evidence indirectly leads you to choose to believe. In other words, if after weighing the evidence, it's so overwhelming that you couldn't possibly not believe, you are still indirectly choosing to believe, because of how you choose to process the evidence. Does that make any sense?

The part in Bold is where you've lost me. In what way am I processing the evidence, that leads to an indirect choice of believing?

It's indirect because you choose which evidence is reliable, which leads you to believe.

Do you see "choice" as a two way street? Or a one way street.

Not sure what you mean exactly. After research there may be only one logical choice, if I feel the evidence or proof is that strong. Other times my choice is only slightly more logical than other choices. Or anything in between.

In other words, there may be instances where I feel the evidence is so overwhelming, that it almost doesn't even feel like a choice.

Does that answer your question?

[PaulSacramento]

Let me put it this way:
Without free will there IS NO justice system that is NOT corrupt.


I believe in free will because without it, society falls apart.
I believe in free will because I choose, everyday.
Without free will there is no personal responsibility.

[PaulSacramento]

As I said before; I cannot choose to believe something that I am convinced is not true; and if I am unable to believe something, there is no choice involved.

You can't choose to believe something that you are convinced is not true BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALREADY CHOSEN to believe something else.

Seriously...

[Nils]

Nils, yes, I'd agree with much of what Sam Harris says that free will is illusory. We have no real agency, not to the extent that we can rise above external and physical influences to do other than what we're predisposed to do by such influences.

We're just in for the ride really, like Spinoza's stones being thrown:

• conceive, I beg, that a stone, while continuing in motion, should be capable of thinking and knowing, that it is endeavoring, as far as it can, to continue to move. Such a stone, being conscious merely of its own endeavor and not at all indifferent, would believe itself to be completely free, and would think that it continued in motion solely because of its own wish. This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined.

Ok, then I misunderstood you. But how do you relate to sin. It is difficult to explain without free will or are you a Calvinist?

PS. Trust your knowing better.

I have to trust myself, who else should or could I trust?
(or do I miss something?)

Nils

[Nils]

Let me put it this way:
Without free will there IS NO justice system that is NOT corrupt.

Why not? How do you argue?

I believe in free will because without it, society falls apart.

Certainly not. I my society free will is not an important component. Some believe in it but some don't.

I believe in free will because I choose, everyday.

Yes, we choose all of us, but that's an illusion that your choice is free. You can deliberate and chose between alternatives but what you chose depends on how you and your environment are.

Without free will there is no personal responsibility.

Yes, there is no true desert. But we can hold each other responsible without desert. Responsibility is needed to have a functioning society. In my opinion we get a better, more human, society without the concept of desert.

Nils

[Kenny]

kenny wrote:
Perhaps this is something where we may just have to agree to disagree on, Choice is a two way street. As I said before; I cannot choose to believe something that I am convinced is not true; and if I am unable to believe something, there is no choice involved.

I think I see what you're saying. I think you're saying that by the time you've processed the evidence, you just believe whatever it is that the evidence points to. So, as I said in my last post, in this case you are not directly choosing to believe, because you've already gotten to the point of just going where the evidence leads.

But with that, I'd still say you are indirectly choosing to believe, because of the choices you made while processing the evidence.

Let's see if I can use the example of belief in God to show you what I mean.

You look at evidence or proof presented for and against the existence of God. You process that evidence or proof, and using logic and your intellect, you choose what makes sense and what doesn't make sense. After weighing the available proof or evidence, you believe God doesn't exist.

So, in one way, you have no choice but to not believe. But in another way, after choosing which evidence or proof makes the most sense to you, you don't believe in the existence of God.

Thoughts?

I would replace (Bold) choosing with "determining", but I agree.

You do realize that choose and determine are synonyms?

Choose

verb (used with object), chose; chosen or (Obsolete) chose; choosing.
1.
to select from a number of possibilities; pick by preference:
She chose Sunday for her departure.
2.
to prefer or decide (to do something):
He chose to run for election.
3.
to want; desire:
I choose moving to the city.
4.
(especially in children's games) to contend with (an opponent) to decide, as by odd or even, who will do something:
I'll choose you to see who gets to bat first.


Determine

verb (used with object), determined, determining.
1.
to settle or decide (a dispute, question, etc.) by an authoritative or conclusive decision.
2.
to conclude or ascertain, as after reasoning, observation, etc.
3.
Geometry. to fix the position of.
4.
to cause, affect, or control; fix or decide causally:
Demand for a product usually determines supply.
5.
to give direction or tendency to; impel.

(Dictionary.com)