Suppose I was to tell you: "I believe in God." You then ask me, "why?" and supposed I should answer, "I just do."

Undoubtedly, even a Christian would find this concept troubling. If you continue to press me, I admit I possess no reason to believe, but believe simply because I choose to and nothing backs me up in that assumption.

Now let's suppose that I am a heathen and you, after having strapped me down to a lie detector, put a gun to my head and declare: "Repeat after me: 'I believe in the existence of God.'" If I am found to be lying and do not, in fact, believe, then you proceed to pull the trigger. Could I, in that moment, decide to believe in the existence of God and truly mean what I say?

Of course not! It would be ridiculous to assume that I could merely choose to believe and disregard all my reasoning not to. And yet, that is precisely how many Christians think such things work.

If we should take my two examples and fully ponder on them, we will undoubtedly come to the conclusion that- unless I find some strong reason to dismiss my prior reasoning against- I will never be able to change my beliefs and do so in a heartfelt manner. Rather, it would take strong evidence to sway me.

Can anyone really choose what they believe, or are we all bound by our reason?

Now let's say that I, still being a heathen, am approached by a Christian who proclaims that my atheist beliefs are false and that God truly does exists. Could I then honestly change my beliefs?

No. Although I have been given a reason to believe, it was not a good reason. Why should I believe him? His words simply are not enough to sway my reason in favor of God's existence. Even should I honestly want to believe him, no amount of willpower will shift my convictions unless I have good reasons to do so. Regardless of my will to believe, reason is a force not subject to my choice.

This, naturally, brings us to a very real problem: there are likely many people who genuinely want to believe in God, but nevertheless cannot. As such, they are hell-bound due to no fault of their own, for even if they completely dismissed their reasoning, their heart would still not be in it. Unless they should somehow manage to forcibly sway their reasoning, they will never be able to commit to God with their full being- and thus, they will never be able be able to enter the kingdom of God.

How are Christians supposed to deal with this issue? What thoughts do you have on the matter?

I might as well be honest: I like the Cosmological Argument. Out of all the Philosophical arguments for God's existence, this one makes the most sense. Unlike the Ontological Argument, which was a "reductio ad absurdum" argument, the Cosmological is a variant of the AB setup, which looks something like this:

P1: Either A or B
P2: Not A
Therefore B

Before we can launch into the argument, I must first present the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which simply states: "there is an explanation for the existence of every being and of any positive fact." If you think about it, this makes sense. It's really hard for anyone to imagine a being which simply is. Unfortunately, this same principle throws a major problem in the argument, but we'll get to that later, eh?

Now let's move on to term-management and the definitions we're operating under. A dependent being is one whose existence is explained by something else, and a self-existent being is one whose very existence explains itself (...). Here's the basic gist of it:

P1: Every being is either a dependent being or a self-existent being.
P2: Not every being can be a dependent being
P3: Therefore, a self-existent being must exist
P4: Call the self-existent being "God."
Therefore God must exist (we're not specifying which god).

Unlike the Ontological Argument, this one is pretty is easy to understand. The term "dependent being" explains just about everyone who is reading this; if you were born into this world then you are a dependent being since your existence depends upon your parents. But then, your parents are also dependent beings since their existence depends upon their parent, and they are also dependent being as well (I could clearly go on).

Now some philosophers have proposed that dependent beings don't necessarily need a self-existent being for their existence. This is an interesting rebuttal in that, if it were true, we have two options: one is that every dependent being's existence is based on an earlier dependent being, and it has always been this way- an infinite line stretching forever onward in either direction in a model looking somewhat like this:
(For these models, DB means "depend being" and SE means "self-existent being")

<-DB<-DB<-DB<-DB<-You->DB->DB->DB->DB->

The other possibility is that of a cyclic model, where a single dependent being is responsible for every other dependent being, and the first dependent being's existence is explained by one of the latter. Kind of like the song "I'm my own Grandpa", except without the exemptions of step-parents. Either way, in either model, we are faced with an absurdity, since both models require that dependent beings must somehow be self-existent in groups even though they are dependent by themselves... and let's be honest, does that even make sense?

Now let's compare this to the model proposed by the Cosmological Argument:

SE->DB->DB->DB->DB->You

Ah, so much simpler, eh?

The only problem then is whether the concept of a self-existent being like that of God is even a coherent possibility?! Could there be a being that is the source of its own existence? I'm not sure that makes any more sense than a bunch of dependent beings being self-existent. As such, whether one takes the theistic or atheistic route, either one is completely illogical... but hey, we Christians can still pull the "we won't know till heaven" trick, right?

Anyway, what do you think of this argument?

I have, over the course of this week, developed this whole series of interrelated blogs I intend to post on the philosophy of Christianity (truly fascinating subject) and all the different philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God. This, however, necessitates that I first explain the components of what makes up a logical argument in Philosophy.

Loaded question.

According to Wikipedia, an argument is simply a series of declarative statements, called premises, followed by a conclusion drawn from those statements. Something looking a little like this:

Premise #1
Premise #2
Conclusion

This is all built upon the idea that truth confirms truth: if we know that Premise #2 is true and Premise #1 contradicts #2, then it naturally follows that Premise #1 is false. Simple, right? Here's an example:

P1: All birds fly.
P2: An ostrich is a bird, but it can't fly.
Therefore, either P1 or P2 is incorrect.

The second thing to talk about in a logical argument is the difference between a "true" argument and a "valid" argument. The first is self-explanatory: it's true- it cannot be incorrect. The second, however, can be a little tricky: it basically just means that the conclusion (logically) follows from the premises. An important thing to remember is that, in a valid argument, if the premises are true than the conclusion must be true. To illustrate this, here's an example:

P1: All men are sinners.
P2: Jesus is a man.
Therefore, Jesus is a sinner.

Technically, this is a "valid" argument, but I know several Christians who will be quick to point out that it is not a "true" argument. The conclusion may naturally follow from the premises, but it is nonetheless false. This is because premise #1 is incorrect: not all men are sinners since, clearly, Jesus is an exception that makes the word "all" untrue.

This illustration, of course, points out just how easy it is to make broad generalizations that ultimately fall apart. The unwritten rule is simply: don't make a broad statement, unless it is absolutely true.

Now, finally, I must explain the more advanced principle of an "assumed premise". An assumed premise is something that is not directly stated in the argument, but is nevertheless inferred. For example:

P1: Bigfoot don't exist.
P2: But John saw Bigfoot with his own eyes.
Therefore, Bigfoot must exist.

The assumed premise here is twofold: in order for the argument to be valid, we must assumed 1. that John was not lying and 2. that John was not delusional (brain in a vat, living in the matrix, etc.). So even though these premises are not clearly shown in the argument, they are nonetheless implied and- in fact- we can even imagine the argument with these premises included:

P1: Bigfoot don't exist.
P2: But John saw Bigfoot with his own eyes.
  -P2a: John cannot be lying.
  -P2b: John is not having delusions.
Therefore, Bigfoot must exist.

As you can expect, there are a lot of arguments that people make (Philosophers included) which have these assumed premises hidden "between the lines", if you will, and may sometimes require one to go excavating. One of the most common forms of an assumed premise is that of the Uniformity of Nature Principle, or UN-Principle for short. Here's an example of the UN in action:

P1: Today, the sun rose in the east.
P2: The sun rose in the east yesterday too.
Therefore, tomorrow, the sun will rise in the east.

In order for this argument to be true, we must assume the aforementioned UN-Principle, which simply states: nature operates in predictable patterns and what happens one day will be mirrored in the next (or former).
I can always go into the UN-Principle at a later date, but let's just that if you try to prove the Uniformity of Nature Principle in a logical argument, you have you assume the UN-Principle somewhere in the premises- and this is called "begging the question" which is always a big no-no.

Well, hopefully I've done a pretty good job of explaining the whole subject matter here and succeeded in preparing everyone for future posts. The logical argument is basically just a tool, one that can be used by anyone- both the Philosopher and the layman alike. My next posts (as I'm planning them now), should be about the Ontological and Cosmological arguments for the existence of God. Some interesting stuff. And at the end of it all, maybe I'll even throw in an argument I've managed to compose myself. That should be interesting, especially since you all know I just love to stir things up....