Is Believing in God(s) a Choice?

[mikkel_the_dane]

No need to get into all that.

If something doesn't have convincing evidence in its favour, I'm just not going to be convinced. My brain doesn't work any other way.

So you have evidence that the world is natural?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, whatever exists, is natural. What is your doubt there?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, whatever exists, is natural. What is your doubt there?

I want evidence and not you saying so. By that standard God exists, because God exists, makes it a fact.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I want evidence and not you saying so. By that standard God exists, because God exists, makes it a fact.

You determine for yourself what you find convincing or not.
We all do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You determine for yourself what you find convincing or not.
We all do.

So if you are convinced that the world is natural, it makes it a fact. And if I am convinced it is unknown, that is a fact. Okay, that can work.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So if you are convinced that the world is natural, it makes it a fact. And if I am convinced it is unknown, that is a fact. Okay, that can work.

I'm talking about whether or not we're convinced there is a god and whether being convinced (or not) of something is a choice.

Being convinced of something doesn't make it a fact. It just means you're convinced of something.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm talking about whether or not we're convinced there is a god and whether being convinced (or not) of something is a choice.

No, you were talking about evidence in general. You made a general statement.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, you were talking about evidence in general. You made a general statement.

We're talking about whether being convinced of something is a choice or not.


Being convinced of something doesn't make it a fact. It just means you're convinced of something.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We're talking about whether being convinced of something is a choice or not.


Being convinced of something doesn't make it a fact. It just means you're convinced of something.

Yeah, and you brought up evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But your being convinced or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something can or can't, or does or doesn't exist.

Yep.

Your convictions are all about you presuming yourself to be right, are they not? And yet, especially regarding an idea like "God", you really have no possible way of being logically convinced of anything. Not that God exists, or that God does not exist. And there is no evidence that you can look for, or find or not find, that would logically conclude either of those options being true.

I'm convinced of something, or I'm not. Being convinced of a thing doesn't make someone right. It just means they're convinced of a thing.

I'm not convinced that god(s) exist because I haven't seen anything that convinces me that they exist. That doesn't mean I say they don't exist. Or that I'm right. It just means I'm not convinced. I didn't make a conscious choice to be convinced or not.

I think you must be aware of this, so why keep insisting that you're all about the evidence? When there is no evidence but what we invent for ourselves.

There is plenty of evidence we don't "invent ourselves."
I'm just talking about whether being convinced of something is a choice or not. I don't think it's a conscious choice.

The point being that the only answer we humans can get is "we don't know". We cannot determine the nature or existence of God via evidence. It's simply not possible. So if we are going to address the question of the open possibility of God existing, we are going to have to find another way of doing so.

We can determine the nature of existence (or some God(s)) via evidence. And we have and continue to do so.
This thread is about whether believing in God is a choice or not. I say I don't have a choice in determining whether or not I am convinced of something. I am, or I'm not. Or, I just don't know.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah, and you brought up evidence.

Because you asked me what would convince me to believe (or not).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because you asked me what would convince me to believe (or not).

Well, we are different as skeptics, because I don't believe in evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, we are different as skeptics, because I don't believe in evidence.

I find that to be a nonsensical position. But, to each his/her own.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I find that to be a nonsensical position. But, to each his/her own.

I find your position to be a nonsensical position. So, yes, to each her/his own.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I find your position to be a nonsensical position. So, yes, to each her/his own.

If you don't believe in evidence, then on what basis do you accept anything as factual (or not)? Do you just believe in everything? Do you believe in every God every human has ever proposed?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you don't believe in evidence, then on what basis do you accept anything as factual (or not)? Do you just believe in everything? Do you believe in every God every human has ever proposed?

I use pragmatism in practice. If it works for me and my understanding of the world, then it works.
And no, I am an atheist.
I don't believe. I use beliefs that work for me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I use pragmatism in practice. If it works for me and my understanding of the world, then it works.
And no, I am an atheist.
I don't believe. I use beliefs that work for me.

Figuring out what works for you would require some element of evidence that it works for you. Otherwise, how are you determining whether or not something "works" for you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Figuring out what works for you would require some element of evidence that it works for you. Otherwise, how are you determining whether or not something "works" for you?

I use in general all 5 theories of truth for where they fit individually, but since I also believe in Agrippa's Trilemma, I can't justify them.

In the end if it makes sense, it works and thus is "true".

 

[SkepticThinker]

I use in general all 5 theories of truth for where they fit individually, but since I also believe in Agrippa's Trilemma, I can't justify them.

In the end if it makes sense, it works and thus is "true".

How do you determine something works if it's not based on evidence that it works?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How do you determine something works if it's not based on evidence that it works?

Okay, you are a skeptic. So you know Rene Descartes and you know how to solve the problem of the evil Demon. Then do that.