Hello Truth Seekers

[fr0d0]

You can test the truck is real. Try to walk through it and you may end up with a sore head. God is not, by his nature, that sort of reality.

I'm not talking about testability here. Whether it can be tested or not is irrelevant to whether you are compelled to believe or not. You are still compelled or not, I still don't see where the choice comes in.

So if you're saying it's a mechanical choice... then I agree with that. If you're not, I have no idea what you mean by 'compelled'. You mean compelled in the same way you're compelled to believe in the truck's existence? That would be ridiculous do you agree?

And if it's mechanical, then mechanically reasoning can (and does) change.

I think you're making unnecessary hard work of this. Either that or please try to say precisely what you mean, because it's not clear.

Sounds to me like you're speaking of 'belief in belief', when you 'choose belief' becasue it's a 'good belief to have', but that's not literally believing, that's just believing in belief.

WTF

So I believe to believe in God right? What does that mean? More psychobabble I guess?

My belief is first person & not 3rd person. My belief is direct. I choose to believe or not believe. It seems very simple to me.

I've said before.. IMO belief doesn't really apply to things we're sure exist.

I believe something either does or does not exist. So yes it does.

MY use of the word belief is different. That's why I bring up transcendentalism. You don't accept transcendentalism. I believe in a transcendental God. You cannot then understand the choice to believe. Simple.

You're trying to understand my statement, not assert your own beliefs.