Originally posted by SwissGambit
No.

I am glad we cleared that one up.

The Instructor

Originally posted by Suzianne
In no way is "just in case" any form of belief. It's a hope to fool the final Judge, which isn't going to happen.

That's interesting. Can you hope to fool the final judge without believing in the existence of a final judge? Alternatively, would you need to fool the final judge by professions of belief if you do believe in the existence of a final judge?

Originally posted by twhitehead
That's interesting. Can you hope to fool the final judge without believing in the existence of a final judge? Alternatively, would you need to fool the final judge by professions of belief if you do believe in the existence of a final judge?

You do not understand what she is saying, because of your unbelief. Let me repeat what she answered in replay to your question, if she believed just in case.

"In no way is "just in case" any form of belief."

She is saying that one either believes in God or does not believe in God. There is no use trying to pretend to believe in God, for the most you can hope for without sincerity is to fool man. Therefore "just in case" is not a belief at all, but an unbelief. That is you.

The Instructor

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Word specific is great, but fixating on the way something was said rather than the content of what was said is a convenient way to avoid discussion.

Fixated on the way something was said? You know that's not true. I was fixated on WHAT you said. Still am, but now you've run off on another tangent. No doubt soon twhitehead will join in and give a helping hand.

I'll try again. You said, "I do not think we can directly choose what we believe."

What does that mean? Are you saying we don't have a free will? Choice involves free will does it not? Please explain what you mean by the quote above.

Please excuse all my previous comments and replies. I apologize for causing any misunderstanding.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That's interesting. Can you hope to fool the final judge without believing in the existence of a final judge? Alternatively, would you need to fool the final judge by professions of belief if you do believe in the existence of a final judge?

Non sequitur.

"It does not follow."

Originally posted by RJHinds
You do not understand what she is saying, because of your unbelief. Let me repeat what she answered in replay to your question, if she believed just in case.

[b]"In no way is "just in case" any form of belief."

She is saying that one either believes in God or does not believe in God. There is no use trying to pretend to believe in God, for the mo ...[text shortened]... re "just in case" is not a belief at all, but an unbelief. That is you.

The Instructor[/b]

Yes, I guess that is what I am basically saying.

God is smarter than humans. Believing in God "just in case" makes NO sense.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Non sequitur.

"It does not follow."

I see that as usual, you know you are wrong, but won't admit it.

Originally posted by josephw
Fixated on the way something was said? You know that's not true. I was fixated on WHAT you said. Still am, but now you've run off on another tangent. No doubt soon twhitehead will join in and give a helping hand.

I'll try again. You said, [b]"I do not think we can directly choose what we believe."

What does that mean? Are you saying we don't have a ...[text shortened]... excuse all my previous comments and replies. I apologize for causing any misunderstanding.[/b]

I think we have free will; I think we can make choices in many ways. I just don't think our beliefs fall into the category of things we can directly choose.

Maybe some examples will help. There was a poster on here who was gay and yet believed acting on it was morally wrong. He said he had not acted on it (ever?) because of his strong belief. I think that guy would have chosen not to believe acting on his impulses was morally wrong if was at all possible.

A friend once said that her ex-husband badly wanted to believe in God, but couldn't quite get there. There are many cases like this with Spirituality. People struggle for years, trying to make themselves into something they are not. Why would they put themselves through all this pain if they could simply choose different beliefs?

Imagine a guy catches his girlfriend cheating on him - a one-time thing, yet devastating. Perhaps they have a very good relationship, and it would be so much easier to just believe her when she claims it won't happen again, or better yet, believe it did not happen - in spite of the clear evidence to the contrary. And yet, we can't do this. The evidence convinces us, and we have no way to just decide to become un-convinced.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I think we have free will; I think we can make choices in many ways. I just don't think our beliefs fall into the category of things we can directly choose.

Maybe some examples will help. There was a poster on here who was gay and yet believed acting on it was morally wrong. He said he had not acted on it (ever?) because of his strong belief. I ...[text shortened]... o this. The evidence convinces us, and we have no way to just decide to become un-convinced.

Yes. I see your point. Now that you have defined the terms and have given more descriptive details.

But let's use that same reasoning in an inverted way. If one knows that a(the) creator exists, but chooses to disbelieve in spite of what his heart and mind tell him, would you still insist that he has no free will to choose whether there be a creator or not?

And even if he doesn't know it in his soul that he was created, doesn't he have a choice in deciding whether there is ample evidence for a creator. Doesn't he have the free will to decide to disregard the evidence one way or the other?

People do it all the time. They lie to themselves and to others as readily as one breathes.

We have a free will to choose whether ignorantly or in truth.

If there be a creator He will be just to judge the one who chose to ignore Him. If God doesn't exist, then life would be boring, and death means nothing.

Originally posted by josephw
Yes. I see your point. Now that you have defined the terms and have given more descriptive details.

But let's use that same reasoning in an inverted way. If one knows that a(the) creator exists, but chooses to disbelieve in spite of what his heart and mind tell him, would you still insist that he has no free will to choose whether there be a creator or no se to ignore Him. If God doesn't exist, then life would be boring, and death means nothing.

If I know a creator exists, it is not possible for me to disbelieve it, by definition. "I know X" is generally a stronger claim than "I believe X". If I know that 2 + 2 = 4, it is utterly impossible for me to believe it equals 5. If I came up to you and said, "I know the sky is blue; I just don't believe it." - you would call me crazy, and rightly so.

Sure, people can (and do) lie to others, and themselves, about their own beliefs. But that's why they are called lies. If they really had been able to not believe (in the creator, or that 2+2=4, or whatever), it would not be a lie anymore (in this case, defining lie as a deliberate falsehood and not just a statement that turns out to be false). In other words, despite their many protestations to the contrary, in their own mind, they still believe.

To answer your other questions:

1) No, he doesn't have a choice in deciding whether there is ample evidence for a creator (his deliberations determine that).
2) Yes - he has some capability of disregarding evidence. You can avoid reading or hearing people that would supply you with evidence you don't want to hear. You can even read something and then try not to let it sink in. But once it does sink in, it enters the deliberation process and choice bows out.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
If I know a creator exists, it is not possible for me to disbelieve it, by definition. "I know X" is generally a stronger claim than "I believe X". If I [b]know that 2 + 2 = 4, it is utterly impossible for me to believe it equals 5. If I came up to you and said, "I know the sky is blue; I just don't believe it." - you would call me crazy, and ...[text shortened]... t once it does sink in, it enters the deliberation process and choice bows out.[/b]

"I do not think we can directly choose what we believe.*

* - would be interested to hear from LJ or other philosophically-inclined poster if there are successful arguments to the contrary."

In response to the opening statement; Believing is of the mind. We believe with the mind. One sets ones' own thoughts upon an idea or concept and with certain deliberate determination chooses what to believe about some thing.

The trick though is to know whether what one knows is merely ones' opinion, belief or firm conviction. We choose our own mindset of our own free will.

Originally posted by josephw
The trick though is to know whether what one knows is merely ones' opinion, belief or firm conviction. We choose our own mindset of our own free will.

Aren't those just different strengths of the same thing, and what do you mean by 'free will'? Do you mean you can choose arbitrarily without any form of deliberation or do you mean your deliberation is not forced by external factors, and if the latter, do you mean your deliberation does, or does not depend on information available to you?

I generally find that people mean different things by the term 'free will' so it helps to clarify what you mean exactly.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Aren't those just different strengths of the same thing, and what do you mean by 'free will'? Do you mean you can choose arbitrarily without any form of deliberation or do you mean your deliberation is not forced by external factors, and if the latter, do you mean your deliberation does, or does not depend on information available to you?

I generally f ...[text shortened]... mean different things by the term 'free will' so it helps to clarify what you mean exactly.

"Aren't those just different strengths of the same thing,.."

If I understand you correctly, yes. Each is the settling in ones' own mind, by the act of the will, to what degree one believes a thing is true or not.

My opinion is, blue is the prettiest color, but that is subjective.
My belief is, something is true, but new information can modify or change it.
My conviction is, so strong that I would stake my life on it.

"...and what do you mean by 'free will'?"

Everyone wants to know what 'free will' means. It's too simple sir. We humans are separated from the rest of all living things by the attribute of volition.

What that means is, and I'm saving this for another thread, we can judge between good and evil.

"Do you mean you can choose arbitrarily without any form of deliberation or do you mean your deliberation is not forced by external factors, and if the latter, do you mean your deliberation does, or does not depend on information available to you?"

Certainly not arbitrary, but maybe it can be depending on what it is one is talking about.

Certainly by and through some degree of deliberation we exercise the will and choose to resolve within our minds about whether a thing or an idea is true or false.

It means that a matter or an idea or concept exists objectively and independently of our will. That we must examine all the information we can grasp and make a sound judgement of the worthiness or truthfulness of said idea or concept.

Such as the existence of a Creator God. Is it true because we judge it to be based on subjective experience or objective observation? Or both? Either way, the decision we make is the act of a free will. Whether there be a God or not.

Originally posted by josephw
My opinion is, blue is the prettiest color, but that is subjective.
My belief is, something is true, but new information can modify or change it.

I wouldn't really include something you know to be subjective in the list. After all, just because I prefer red to blue, it doesn't make the fact that you like blue better wrong.

What that means is, and I'm saving this for another thread, we can judge between good and evil.
So when you choose what you believe, you do so by judging between good and evil? What about when you choose which is the prettiest color? Did you make a good choice or an evil choice when you chose blue?

It means that a matter or an idea or concept exists objectively and independently of our will. That we must examine all the information we can grasp and make a sound judgement of the worthiness or truthfulness of said idea or concept.

Such as the existence of a Creator God. Is it true because we judge it to be based on subjective experience or objective observation? Or both? Either way, the decision we make is the act of a free will. Whether there be a God or not.
So you seem to be saying the same thing as SwissGambit, you just disagree on the definition of certain words. So its a case of miss-communication rather than disagreement.
So the question SwissGambit asks is given that you judge based on the information you can grasp, are you morally accountable for you choice? If so, why? You do not choose the information, nor your ability to judge do you?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Aren't those just different strengths of the same thing,.."

If I understand you correctly, yes. Each is the settling in ones' own mind, by the act of the will, to what degree one believes a thing is true or not.

My opinion is, blue is the prettiest color, but that is subjective.
My belief is, something is true, but new information can modify o ...[text shortened]... ay, the decision we make is the act of a free will. Whether there be a God or not.[/b]

Everyone wants to know what 'free will' means. It's too simple sir. We humans are separated from the rest of all living things by the attribute of volition.

What that means is, and I'm saving this for another thread, we can judge between good and evil.

I'll be looking forward to your other thread. I don't think 'free will' as it is commonly employed is well-captured by something like 'the ability to judge between good and evil', so I will be countering your arguments in that thread.