Is belief in God a choice

[Edwardo Piet]

In EvF's point, faith is ruled out, I suspect because EvF innocently cannot entertain the idea because it is outside of his understanding. .

What exactly do you mean by 'ruled out'?

Now - I accept that some people do of course believe 'on faith', IOW - without evidence!

Okay, and so - if by I 'rule it out' you mean that I don't consider "Faith" to be in any way rational, and nor can it be...you would be correct.

Because I think it's irrational to believe without reason...and evidence is a reason to believe, because it's a reason to believe that a belief is true, the reason outside just a placebo effect - it actually deals with the truth of the matter!

And so to believe without evidence is to believe without a reason to believe that the belief is true, because that's what evidence is - that which gives credence to beliefs...

So Faith is indeed ruled out in the scope or rationality IMO - because as I have hoped I have clarified here....it's not rational - it's irrational!

Oustide of my understanding? I understand that perhaps it could be 'wise' to believe something untrue if the placebo effect of the belief is great enough for it to be worthwhile! But since it's against the truth, insofar as we can ever possibly 'know' the truth - through evidence, then I think it could never be said to be 'rational'. I think to say it can be is to engage in an irrational judgement

I say Faith is irrational by defininiton because it's the opposite of evidence which is how we actually deal with 'the truth' to the best of our ability as humans.

As I said on another thread, one that I started a while back - the term 'rational faith - is an oxymoron!

No fr0d0, I never said that atheists or theists never change their minds, and that they stay in one stance forever...that would be ridiculous.

Apologies for the misunderstanding.

No problem.

BTW How can you tell me? From what authority?

Not authortiy...appealing to authority is fallacious anyway, it's not evidence in and of itself

I'm saying there's no evidence that beliefs are voluntrary in any way, are somehow a 'choice'...we know that you're either convinced or not, and you may say that you choose them...but that's not evidence that you do...just that you think you do. To say it is in any way evidence that you do, would of course be circular reasoning, and not be evidence. It would be invalid therefore - evidence=reason to believe, it gives credence to a belief, no evidence/faith...=no reason to believe, because there's no credence given to the belief. K? Lol.

How do you choose a belief? We have evidence for beliefs, and we have evidence for beliefs changing to other beliefs (that's all obvious) - but do we actually have any evidence that we in any way 'choose this' - is that belief required? I need evidence for to believe that additonally.

If we choose a drink to order at a bar, we can mull it over and think 'I'll have X drink please'...that's a 'choice', that's voluntary but when it comes to beliefs...

....how about this: just try forcing yourself into a belief.....force yourself to believe that the moon is made of cheese, right now!

Can't do it? Well, at least I hope not! So when is there an exception to this then....when do we ever actually 'choose' a belief? And why after 'mulling it over' and your belief changes...would that in anyway be more of a 'choice' simply because it wasn't immediate? How would time make a difference to immediately trying to force yourself? Isn't that merely self-evidence of taking longer to be convinced...? Where's the evidence that just because you took longer and thought it through...that you then somehow 'chose to believe' ?

We just have evidence that we have beliefs and that they change, right? Where does choice come in?

???

So how can beliefs ever be a choice? Because [b]believing you choose, believing that you think you 'thought it through' and then voluntarily 'chose' to believe in God... - is not evidence that you did....that's circular!!.

Hopefully my idea should be more correct than yours, me actually having the belief

How does this follow in any way, shape, or form? How does having a belief make a belief any more reasonable?

My answer?: Well, no evidence that it does, is there?

If a million people believed that Goblins exist literally, would that be evidence because more believe? No. Belief is not evidence for a belief being true! That's circular! So what are you on about?

Not that I claim to be right without question, so I'm happy to entertain your thoughts. Thoughts which I think are very good (not in a condescending way either).

Okay lol...if you think my thoughts are 'very good', I don't see how that's condescending :S...

And I'm glad that you are seemingly genuinely interested in my difference of opinion

You could life your whole life having reasoned the logic for belief, but then never actually 'choose' to believe.

Choose not to? If the logic doesn't convince you...then it just...does't convince you! - that's all that is known to me...where is the evidence that you somehow choose to 'not be convinced'...you're not convinced already...how are you choosing the state you are already in???

And even after experiencing the proof, it is possible to reject it and not believe, as I did.

Well if you reject it, then you in other words... already dont' believe it right? So you're unconvinced...so it's not 'proof' to you...if on the other hand it convinced you, then you would in other words - believe it! So it was then 'proof' to you.

So where does the choice part come in??

EvF