Could an argument ever persuade/dissuade you from believing in God?

[WmJackP]

Theists: Is there any way a valid argument could “prove” there is no God?

Atheists: Is there any valid argument that could convert you?

I don’t believe a negative can be “proven” if by “proven” you mean to establish a proposition as corresponding to reality within a probability range close to certitude. Hence, the statement “there are no unicorns” cannot be proven because to do so, one would be required to rule out more possibilities than are testable.

As for proving the existence of God to an atheist by rational argument, I would have to say that depends on what one means by “God”. If you mean a “Person” who responds to prayer and sacrifice, who has a plan for salvation and condemns certain people to hell while rewarding others, then I hardly think any rational argument could sustain such a belief. However, certainly, there is the sense of the profound when one contemplates the cosmos and its possible origins. Atheists experience the same profundity as the religious. So, atheists can surely connect to this sense of a “spiritual reality” as does Sam Harris and as did Albert Einstein. It is just that the interpretation subscribed to this “profound condition” by Christians is taken to mean things which are not accepted by atheists. I believe Stephen Hawking to be a spiritual person and a person who could be persuaded that there is some ultimate set of principles which describe reality in some deep and mysterious way; however, not in the sense that most Christians would call “God”.

 

[N0X3x]

I voted yes.

I was an intellectual athiest for a short time, and I am not proud to admit that during a time in my life where all the rational signs I was aware of seemed to point away from God, I was not able to follow them in my lifestyle because I was afraid of what it would that they were true. Fortunately, I came across C.S. Lewis, and though I’ve been an intellectual agnostic ever since, I rest easier in the belief that God probably exists.

I have not yet come across any arguments I’ve considered valid which prove irrevocably God’s necessity or impossibility. But if I ever come across the latter, I would hope that I would have the courage and intellectual integrity to follow where reason leads, regardless of the way I feel about it.

 

[Ion]

There is difference between “I believe God exists” and " I believe in God" ;
Also there is no “one size fits all” so to speak about people.

 

[Qoeleth]

For every argument, it is always possible to compose or an invent an equal opposing one.

Furthermore, argument are only a play of words, flatus vocis, and have no necessary relation to reality. Possibly.

Furthermore, an ‘argument’ is only a perceived thing, and there is no reason to believe the phenomenal world has any relation to the noumenal world- and if there is a relationship, we don’t know what that is.

Furthermore, why should I have confidence in my own brain’s ability to evaluate the truth of arguments? Perhaps I am in total error in my opinion that any given argument is true…

Furthermore, do arguments exist at all? It is only be argument that I can support the existence of arguments, and hence it the case is circular and therefore invalid.

Furthermore, why trust our reason? It is concievable that our system of reason is entirely wrong or based on fallacies, so what argument could I possibly place confidence in? Also, it is only reason which supports the validity of reason, and hence the whole thing is circular.

Furthermore, for any given theory, there could be a more convincing one that will be discovered in the remote future, that ‘proves’ the exact opposite.

Et cetera…

 

[St_Francis]

I noticed this question the other day, shortly after being reminded of philosophers who “prove” that nothing exists, all of whom, I notice, continued to eat, sit in chairs, and generally act as if things do indeed exist!

So even the progenitors of the idea of the non-existence of things do not act according to what they have proved.

Thus it seems that proving something doesn’t necessarily lead anywhere.

If someone “proved” to me that God doesn’t exist, I would still believe in God. Just because someone can prove something doesn’t mean it’s true, or even that the propounder of the “proof” believes it!

 

[meltzerboy]

For every argument, it is always possible to compose or an invent an equal opposing one.

Furthermore, argument are only a play of words, flatus vocis, and have no necessary relation to reality. Possibly.

Furthermore, an ‘argument’ is only a perceived thing, and there is no reason to believe the phenomenal world has any relation to the noumenal world- and if there is a relationship, we don’t know what that is.

Furthermore, why should I have confidence in my own brain’s ability to evaluate the truth of arguments? Perhaps I am in total error in my opinion that any given argument is true…

Furthermore, do arguments exist at all? It is only be argument that I can support the existence of arguments, and hence it the case is circular and therefore invalid.

Furthermore, why trust our reason? It is concievable that our system of reason is entirely wrong or based on fallacies, so what argument could I possibly place confidence in? Also, it is only reason which supports the validity of reason, and hence the whole thing is circular.

Furthermore, for any given theory, there could be a more convincing one that will be discovered in the remote future, that ‘proves’ the exact opposite.

Et cetera…

Isn’t the “whole thing…circular” only if you actually believe in the validity of reason? IOW, don’t you have to believe in reason to point out the fallacy of an argument that is not rational? If you don’t believe in reason, then the argument is not necessarily circular, or anything else.

 

[mikekle]

It is said near the end times, some discovery will be made on earth prior to a major earthquake, that will make mankind question Gods existence, or at least him being our creator and this will lead to organized religion being criminalized, and the antichrist will take over. I could see something like this happening actually, and how the world is today, it would not take much to sway people.

I think we are kind of heading into a time when scientists and others will claim and may even be able to show what they consider proof an extraterrestrial civilization created us, if that ‘proof’ is good enough, it will convince majority of people and we will have a major falling out within the church, they will claim the bible was nothing more than a group of stories and all made up. Darwin evolution theory has been shown to have alot of holes in it, so even scientists and other atheists know they cannot give credit to God for this, so they will have to come up with another explanation for our creation…IMO, extraterrestrial civilizations millions of years more advanced than we are, would be right up their alley.

while I have doubts about some things in the bible, in my heart I know God did create us and is responsible for all that we see around us…To convince me something else is the reason, would have to be extraordinary, like actually seeing for myself how this was done.

 

[Qoeleth]

Isn’t the “whole thing…circular” only if you actually believe in the validity of reason? IOW, don’t you have to believe in reason to point out the fallacy of an argument that is not rational? If you don’t believe in reason, then the argument is not necessarily circular, or anything else.

Exactly.

If reason is valid, then circularity of reason is a valid objection to reason, and hence reason is not valid. Therefore, if reason is valid, reason is not valid.

But if reason is not valid, then are the reasonable grounds for not accepting reason are not valid.

If this issue cannot be determined, then clearly nothing pertaining to reason can be determined. And if nothing can be determined, even the statement that ‘nothing can be determined’ can scarcely be determined.

So, the argument against the existence of God doesn’t have much chance of being convincing…

 

[Qoeleth]

I noticed this question the other day, shortly after being reminded of philosophers who “prove” that nothing exists, all of whom, I notice, continued to eat, sit in chairs, and generally act as if things do indeed exist!

So even the progenitors of the idea of the non-existence of things do not act according to what they have proved.

Hmm… But if nothing exists, then the philosopher who makes such a statement, but continues to act is if it weren’t true, necessarily also maintains that neither he, nor his actions, exist. And hence there is no inconsistency, since neither the action nor the actor, nor even the argument, ever existed in the first place.

 

[Barbara_Ann_Bau]

There is difference between “I believe God exists” and " I believe in God" ;
Also there is no “one size fits all” so to speak about people.

To say I believe God exists God does not “exist” God is Existance, To say I believe in God is not enough. One must say God is my existance.

 

[Bahman]

You are missing agnostic, meaning that human does not have the requisite knowledge to prove that God exist or not.

 

[inocente]

Theists: Is there any way a valid argument could “prove” there is no God?

Pope Francis spoke recently about certainty and faith:

“If a person says he has met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of doubt then it’s not good. For me this is a major key. If someone has the answers to all the questions, that’s proof that God is not with him. It means he is a false prophet, who uses religion for himself. The great guides of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You have to leave room for the Lord, not to our certainties; you have to be humble. In uncertainty there is in every true discernment that is open to the confirmation of spiritual consolation.” - laciviltacattolica.it/articoli_download/3216.pdf

 

[Barbara_Ann_Bau]

Pope Francis spoke recently about certainty and faith:

“If a person says he has met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of doubt then it’s not good. For me this is a major key. If someone has the answers to all the questions, that’s proof that God is not with him. It means he is a false prophet, who uses religion for himself. The great guides of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You have to leave room for the Lord, not to our certainties; you have to be humble. In uncertainty there is in every true discernment that is open to the confirmation of spiritual consolation.” - laciviltacattolica.it/articoli_download/3216.pdf

I love this quote from Pope Francis. It says what I have been trying to say for many years. Now I have a person of authority to quote

 

[CrossofChrist]

There are too many proofs to deny God’s existence. So no.

Everything else is slightly harder though.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Pope Francis spoke recently about certainty and faith:

“If a person says he has met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of doubt then it’s not good. For me this is a major key. If someone has the answers to all the questions, that’s proof that God is not with him. It means he is a false prophet, who uses religion for himself. The great guides of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You have to leave room for the Lord, not to our certainties; you have to be humble. In uncertainty there is in every true discernment that is open to the confirmation of spiritual consolation.” - laciviltacattolica.it/articoli_download/3216.pdf

That’s actually a great quote. A total certainty is likely a sign of pride.

 

[polytropos]

Hmm… But if nothing exists, then the philosopher who makes such a statement, but continues to act is if it weren’t true, necessarily also maintains that neither he, nor his actions, exist. And hence there is no inconsistency, since neither the action nor the actor, nor even the argument, ever existed in the first place.

He can’t maintain that his actions don’t exist. If he refers to his actions, then he is referring to that which he does not think exists, ie. his statements are vacuous since the referents are empty concepts (to the speaker). As such, it’s necessarily incoherent for one to provide an argument for non-existence, especially if one continues to hold that he and his actions do not exist.

 

[Ion]

Did anybody meet a real agnostic who is practicing a religion, and not practicing atheism?

 

[Qoeleth]

Did anybody meet a real agnostic who is practicing a religion, and not practicing atheism?

I know many priests and monks who admit that they often doubt the whole faith, or have reconciled their minds to the possibility that it might all be wrong. Now, a person who doubts (even if these doubts happen in moments of weakness or discouragment) must recognize that there is at least some uncertainty.

There are three good reasons for agnostics to be, or to continue as, Christians:

1. Pascal’s Wager
2. Following Christian ethics and religious practices seems like a good way to live, regardless of whether it’s premisses are true.
3. Realising that the whole experience of doubt may be a trial from God, which purifies faith of wrong elements.

 

[GLam8833]

Hello,
I would like to share a Hymn with you: (By John Bowring)

In the cross of Christ I glory,
Towering o’er the wrecks of time,
All the light of Sacred story,
Gathers round it’s head sublime.

you see, the Cross gives evidence that
THERE IS a God, given the evil and
suffering in the World, And furthermore
that this God is Love, because he
created man with freedom of choice to do
His will or not, that’s why the Cross
was necessary!!!

 

[HardRockGTR]

Everyone here is talking about personal experiences and God revealing Himself to them. I feel taunted. Within the past year, because of personal events, I’ve probably needed the truth about reality (which could be God) more than anything else, and the most I got was Kafka writing a novel about my life.

No, because I believe in God, and no one and nothing will ever, ever change that.

I guess you and I are just different, then.

Anytime I have doubts, I just need to look at non-Catholics and it’s self explanatory. Excuses and rationalizations stemming from personal selfishness are abundant.

Well that’s not offensive or unfounded at all.

I don’t know, that they sell cottage cheese on purpose comes pretty close…

LOL!