I am baffled, please explain

[PRmerger]

As time goes on, I become “baffled” more and more. On one hand, God’s existence is more self-evident than gravity, on the other hand he does not want to “compel” us by providing actual, irrefutable evidence for his existence.

So… how is it? Yep, I am getting confused more and more.

It’s the formidable Catholic both/and.

That’s what makes Catholicism so redoubtable.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course not, but I thought we were discussing the examples provided, until you chose to change them up and introduce a new one. It was still addressed though.

There’s no evidence, whatsoever, that my list was an exhaustive list.

In fact, common sense would tell any reader that it was not.

No.

Then please offer your evidence for a slaveowner not really believing in slavery.

Primary sources only, please. That is, something from his own pen, please.

A testament to how some people can realize the truth while other who cannot

Annnnnd this presupposes that you believe there is such a thing as an Absolute Truth.

You are implying that anyone who has access to his intellect will affirm the moral absolute: it is wrong to enslave people.

I would say his choice lies with him choosing to follow up on the right thing to do, based on what he saw as the truth. I wouldnt say he chose to believe slavery was wrong.

LOL!

“his choice” and “him choosing”…but he didn’t choose?

Come again?

It sounds like you’re saying something as nonsensical as, “He cooked, and he was cooking, but I wouldn’t say he cooked.”

 

[SonOfMan]

Well, that conflicts with the “Unsure” religious status noted on your profile.

Are you saying you have no choice but to be “unsure” or no choice but “to not believe?”

You seem to be uncertain about whether you have a choice at all or not but are hedging towards not having a choice because you don’t want to make a choice

My religious status fluctuates between Unsure and Not Believing.

I think with the amount of evidence we have, I have no choice but to be deadlocked on my decision. I didnt choose to not have sufficient evidence, thats not in my power obviously.

 

[DCNBILL]

My religious status fluctuates between Unsure and Not Believing.

I think with** the amount of evidence we have**, I have no choice but to be deadlocked on my decision. I didnt choose to not have sufficient evidence, thats not in my power obviously.

So you do believe that we do have some evidence.

Then it would seem that based on that evidence we do have a choice to believe or not believe.

 

[PRmerger]

My religious status fluctuates between Unsure and Not Believing.

I think with the amount of evidence we have, I have no choice but to be deadlocked on my decision. I didnt choose to not have sufficient evidence, thats not in my power obviously.

I always wonder how atheists (or those who are “unsure”) ignore the very, very basic philosophical treatise: whatever begins to exist must have a cause.

 

[SonOfMan]

Annnnnd this presupposes that you believe there is such a thing as an Absolute Truth.

You are implying that anyone who has access to his intellect will affirm the moral absolute: it is wrong to enslave people.

No, I am saying everyone has their ideas of what truth and reality are due to the aforementioned reasons, and they act according to their perception.

LOL!

“his choice” and “him choosing”…but he didn’t choose?

Come again?

It sounds like you’re saying something as nonsensical as, “He cooked, and he was cooking, but I wouldn’t say he cooked.”

Its not nonsensical. A slaveowner who rejected slavery made the choice in acting upon what he saw as the truth, but he had no choice in creating or choosing that truth. He chose to act, he didnt choose to believe or not believe. Big difference.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

How about another approach.

PA do you believe that your mind exists?

The word “exists” has several meanings.

1. My mind does not exist as an ontological object.
2. My mind is the physical (electro-chemical) activity of my brain (which is an ontologically existing object).
3. My mind cannot exist without my brain.
4. My walking does not exist as an ontological object.
5. My walking is the physical (muscular) activity of my legs (which are ontologically existing objects).
6. My walking cannot exist without my legs.

Did that answer your question?

 

[DCNBILL]

The word “exists” has several meanings.

1. My mind does not exist as an ontological object.
2. My mind is the physical (electro-chemical) activity of my brain (which is an ontologically existing object).
3. My mind cannot exist without my brain.
4. My walking does not exist as an ontological object.
5. My walking is the physical (muscular) activity of my legs (which are ontologically existing objects).
6. My walking cannot exist without my legs.

Did that answer your question?

Despite not answering a direct question with a direct answer that will suffice.

Do you believe that your mind is a part of you?

 

[SonOfMan]

I always wonder how atheists (or those who are “unsure”) ignore the very, very basic philosophical treatise: whatever begins to exist must have a cause.

Believers have that very basic philosophical problem too. Positing that God is the cause isnt helpful, because God is something that needs to be explained too.

 

[SonOfMan]

So you do believe that we do have some evidence.

Then it would seem that based on that evidence we do have a choice to believe or not believe or to be unsure.

The evidence we have is not good. Based on the evidence, I have no choice but to not believe or to be unsure. I didnt choose to have poor evidence. I cant choose reality, reality just is.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As time goes on, I become “baffled” more and more. On one hand, God’s existence is more self-evident than gravity, on the other hand he does not want to “compel” us by providing actual, irrefutable evidence for his existence.

So… how is it? Yep, I am getting confused more and more.

How compelling he makes his existence out to be to any particular being depends upon some facts about that being.

You wouldn’t trust just anyone with closely held secrets and the “powers” those secrets might endow to those who are privy to them. You don’t understand that we are in a state of war. Who to trust and who not to is determined by their trustworthiness, not their abilities.

Where God is concerned, the trustworthiness of those who vie for his attention, grace and powers (virtues) is completely dependent upon their faithfulness. (If you had faith the size of a mustard seed…)

Now, you might decide what God has to offer is not worth your time or effort (or your faithfulness,) and THAT is your prerogative, but what is at stake is beyond all comprehension precisely because God is.

The point being, still, that we determine our worthiness by making ourselves worthy by the choices we make (be not just hearers but doers of the Word) to allow God to make us worthy of what we are incapable of bringing about ourselves. This is why faith is a supernatural virtue which is endowed in proportion to our willingness to receive it.

It is not up to us to make ourselves anything but faithful recipients of God’s grace.

The reason you are baffled is because you suppose your role in the matter is be the gatekeeper. The problem, as far as I can tell, is that you assume that means to keep the gate shut against all the things you don’t approve or understand, whereas what it means is that gatekeeping is an apprenticeship, of sorts, where we learn by experience the job of being a faithful gatekeeper.

 

[PRmerger]

Believers have that very basic philosophical problem too. Positing that God is the cause isnt helpful, because God is something that needs to be explained too.

Not at all.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause. That’s pretty obvious, yes?

But God didn’t begin to exist.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Despite not answering a direct question with a direct answer that will suffice.

Do you believe that your mind is a part of you?

Just like my walking is “part” of me. Let’s not play with words. I answered directly: “my mind does not exist as an ontological object”. If you wish to talk about “existence”, it would be necessary to clarify the meanings (plural!) of this word. Otherwise we would be talking past each other.

 

[DCNBILL]

The evidence we have is not good. Based on the evidence, I have no choice but to not believe or to be unsure. I didnt choose to have poor evidence. I cant choose reality, reality just is.

Based on your opinion?

 

[PRmerger]

The evidence we have is not good.

What evidence have you examined?

Have you looked at those 20 arguments I cited?

Out of all of those, which do you find the most compelling? (NB: understood that are not convinced by any of them, but what’s the best of the worst, in your opinion?)

 

[Peter_Plato]

My religious status fluctuates between Unsure and Not Believing.

I think with the amount of evidence we have, I have no choice but to be deadlocked on my decision. I didnt choose to not have sufficient evidence, thats not in my power obviously.

It is in your power to control the amount of time and effort you spend looking for sufficient evidence. It is also in your power to be completely fair-minded about that evidence and what you consider to be a “sufficient” amount of evidence relative to the other things you choose to believe or not.

 

[DCNBILL]

Just like my walking is “part” of me. Let’s not play with words. I answered directly: “my mind does not exist as an ontological object”. If you wish to talk about “existence”, it would be necessary to clarify the meanings (plural!) of this word. Otherwise we would be talking past each other.

Walking is absolutely nothing like the mind, please do not resort to absurdities, they are not conducive to an intelligent conversation.

Can you prove the existence, (however you wish to define that term,) of your mind to me?

 

[PRmerger]

Its not nonsensical. A slaveowner who rejected slavery made the choice in acting upon what he saw as the truth, but he had no choice in creating or choosing that truth.

Very Catholic this.

The truth isn’t created–it already exists and is discovered by those who seek.

And again, the above is nothing but a testament to the existence of Moral Absolutes.

They exist, and are not created.

He chose to act, he didnt choose to believe or not believe. Big difference.

He changed his belief, Son.

Surely you see that? First he believed in slavery (although I am still waiting for your source that affirms your assertion that they didn’t really believe in slavery), then he discerned that it was wrong.

 

[Peter_Plato]

1. My mind cannot exist without my brain.

How do you KNOW your brain exists without your mind telling you that it does?

Speaking of ontological dependency…

…I think the reality is that you have the dependency exactly backwards.

That your mind CANNOT exist without your brain is a presumption. You don’t KNOW that with any degree of certainly and without presuming (on faith) a whole lot of metaphysical naturalism.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

If we can choose our beliefs, then why do we experience surprise or shock?

Consider: I believe I won’t have a surprise birthday party today. Upon coming home, I walk in the door to hear “SURPRISE!!!” coming from all of my friends and family, there is a birthday cake on the table, and confetti everywhere. I experience surprise because my belief * has been violently and suddenly undermined by the overwhelming evidence that I am in fact having a surprise birthday party today. I don’t have the freedom to insist that I am not having a surprise birthday party because the evidence forces me to believe otherwise.

The evidence for Leprechauns has no such force. Therefore, I do not believe in them. If a Leprechaun were to suddenly appear in front of me, I would have no choice but to believe in them. Obviously, there are various degrees of evidence between no evidence at all and direct observation, and our beliefs are formed accordingly with corresponding certitude.

I have a strong belief in God because I have a strong amount of evidence that is convincing to me. I am unable to disbelieve this proposition: “God exists,” because the evidence is compelling. However, I also acknowledge that it is possible that not everyone has been presented with the same evidence. Therefore, I would submit that they are unable to believe. Not “unwilling,” but unable.

Doxastic voluntarism seems likely to be a false epistemological theory. It has been refuted by many of the greatest philosophers, and is contrary to common sense, in my opinion.*