Would you belive in God if you didn't want to?

Let’s assume for a second that you would prefer for whatever reason for there to be no God. Would you still believe God existed? If so what evidence would you find clearly supported the existance of God, such that you just have to belive he exist?

That is an interesting, but confusing question. To believe is to choose to believe and is oppositely true as well. If someone would find reason to disbelieve the proposition: God exists, then they have made a choice not to believe—there is no counter proposition, outside of themselves, that can make them choose otherwise.

I am not sure where, or how Jesus said it exactly but he stipulated that his miracles were only real through faith. It is similar to the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. Something can only be considered an authority if it is indeed considered an authority. Someone can quote the Bible, for instance, but it does not render the Bible an authority, or truly relevant to both parties.

So to disbelieve in God automatically precludes belief in God and vice versa. Evidence outside of self-acknowledgement (used as: to acknowledge something, excluding outside influence) is almost meaningless.

In conclusion, an atheist cannot disbelieve in God and accept evidence supporting something that is not real to him or her. It renders the evidence unrealistic. God is [real] to those who believe God is real. And that point renders God real, as an existence as well. But it does not make God real—universally.

I don’t know what I said… maybe I’ll try to clarify some time in the possibly potential near-distant future.

If someone offered you 1 million dollars to believe that your birthday was January 1st (assuming it's not), could you take the money, provided they had access to a set of infallible lie-detectors?

you don’t believe anything you don’t want to, realy. of course, thing’s that you know, or at least your mind tells you you know, are near imposable for most people to truely convince themselves that ether something that is true is false, or false is true. but it is, in theory, possable.
you were talking about God anyway. with thing’s like god, whatever you want to believe you can beleive.

Now really. I believe I’m going to fail French this semster. I want to pass it but I haven’t showed up to class enough. I can’t be said to know that I won’t pass, I can imagen situations in which I do. (Applying for an incomplete, the proffessor going mad, ect.) Want is not normally required for beleif.

In this case, I’d like to believe in after life, but I can’t bring myself to do it. I have the want but not the belief. Am I really supposed to suspect that a beautiful sunset or the consruction of an eye comprises strong inductive support for an omnipotent being?? Not even my desire to think everything will be okay can do that.

I suggest you stop worrying about god and show up to french class.

c’est la vie.

He makes a good point.

also, i was speaking in terms of theory. things only happen or are only real because you believe they are. if you could change your beliefs, down to the lowest level of conscious, then it would be true, in theory.

back to the subject of god and the afterlife, it is doubtfull that any human is fully confinced ether way. as strange and unbelieveable as thinking that there is an all-knowing, all-seeing being who has existed since before ecistance began, it is equaly as strange and unbelievable to claim that the universe has existed forever. I have never argued against the Big Bang or similar theories, but something must have existed before to cause it, wether it was random matter floating in space, or some entity that threw it all together, you don’t get something from nothing, and both ways of thinking take faith.
but currently, we have no way of proving any of this anyway, so it’s a useless argument to go over and over again and again. like it has for so long. but then you can go into if this was meant to be discovered, is it related to the meaning of life, etc. etc. and so on and so forth… it’s a vast subject to speak of

Why do you think that beleif of humans effects reality directly?

Why do you think that ‘Nothing can come from nothing’?


Yes, I could take the money. Should I take the money? No, I shouldn’t.

But, to believe something implies that it is true for a specific person or group of persons. It’s like asking a theist whether God exists and testing them with your infallible lie-detector test. I assure you they will pass. So, if I believed that my birthday was on January 1st, that would imply that that date was true for me, regardless of the infallibility of the detector–for it can still only detect lies. And as illustrated by the above example, a belief cannot be a lie for/to the believer.

To go further, I currently believe that my birthday is October 7th (which it really is). I believe it is on that day because there are documents which I hold to be an authority, and my parents supplement this by their statements, and practices by celebrating my birthday on the 7th of October. So, with this, I can also say that “I know” that my birthday is on October 7th.

Apply that to theists. They hold certain documents to be an authority, and their beliefs are supplemented by others’ statements and practices. Therefore they can then claim that “they know” God’(s) existence is an undeniable truth as well. They have made the decision to believe what has been told to them, and practiced with them, and conclude that it is true.

bada bing.

I think you missed the point.  Suppose your birthday is October 7th.  Suppose you know this, you believe it, you affirm it, whatever other terminology you want to use.  Suppose further, that while you are in this state of belief, you are approached and offered 1 million dollars to believe that your birthday is instead on January 1st.  With that huge incentive, could you simply decide to believe your birthday was on January 1st, and take the money? It seems obvious to me that you could not- I know I could not.  Perhaps with the proper amount of psychological manipulation, you could be made to believe it, but then it's not about the incentive anymore.  I make this point because a few people seem to be saying that it's up to the individual what the individual believes, and I think it's obvious there are non-voluntary factors in belief.

Uccisore: I didn’t miss the point. The problem with your question lies in the word “belief”. To answer the question, though, yes; with the “proper incentive” I could believe otherwise. If I were the kind of person that found money to be the proper incentive then it would be entirely probable that I would change beliefs. Which is where your personal dilemma occurs: being unable to do it. All one needs is the proper incentive.

Scythekain: At the same time, your acknowledgement of that particular statement agrees with the conclusion: God is an undeniable truth to the theist, and cannot, therefore, be a false assertion or inference. To argue the validity of God with a theist would be like arguing over someone’s name—whether or not they believe their name is what it is. It is, in itself, a circular discourse that leads neither party anywhere.

The only rational basis for belief in the truth of a proposition is a reason to believe that the proposition is true.

aye, I know. hence the reason we get on the merry go round called “i love philosophy.”

hold still it’s coming around again!