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

[SentinelofTruth]

If the question is taken literally, as phrased in the OP, then no, there is no such valid argument. But if what is meant is “Would you doubt faith in favor of reason?”, then yes, I would.

 

[HardRockGTR]

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

1. Pascal’s Wager

Although I admire Pascal and am upset at how many people completely miss the point of the wager, the best you can get out of the wager is what I go by; it’s better to believe in something than in nothing, pragmatically. Also, just because it’s “better” to believe in something (in Pascal’s case, God, or Catholicism), doesn’t mean you do. That’s actually a criticism Voltaire proposed against the wager; that it doesn’t serve much of a purpose and doesn’t count as an argument for Catholicism or the existence of God.

1. Following Christian ethics and religious practices seems like a good way to live, regardless of whether it’s premisses are true.

Although I agree somewhat, it depends on how you interpret certain passages. Also, that’s an opinion. There are people who would disagree such as Bertrand Russell and Nietzsche (and I happen to, for the most part, disagree with their philosophies).

1. Realising that the whole experience of doubt may be a trial from God, which purifies faith of wrong elements.

But an agnostic doesn’t have faith in God. The agnostic believes God could be true, but I wouldn’t count that as faith.

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

I’m agnostic and am certainly not an atheist. I think of myself as “ignorant” but I feel it more likely and pragmatic to disbelieve what you call “atheism” (a term I dislike because it could refer to Buddhism or other eastern spiritualities when the layman in actuality usually refers to a naturalist or materialist), but also I feel it pragmatic and ethical not to be so fast as to adopt a religion that, at the time being, I think makes sense, because I’ve had various moments in my life where I considered radically different paths. If I adopt Hinduism and the Christian faith is the right one, I am practicing idolatry, breaking the first two commandments. Same can be applied to virtually any other religion.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Only if, someday, the universe begins randomly spitting apples from the sky, jettisoning hot models into my bedroom, and materialising fountains of rum from the bottom from the middle of the Pacific Ocean, or in general materialising random anythings from random patches of nothing at random times, and there is no explanation for any of it but that something really and truly came from nothing, then I will believe something can truly come from nothing.

 

[meltzerboy]

Only if, someday, the universe begins randomly spitting apples from the sky, jettisoning hot models into my bedroom, and materialising fountains of rum from the bottom from the middle of the Pacific Ocean, or in general materialising random anythings from random patches of nothing at random times, and there is no explanation for any of it but that something really and truly came from nothing, then I will believe something can truly come from nothing.

I would think that particularly the second random event you describe might make you believe even more in the existence of G-d.

 

[DCNBILL]

That would be akin to being dissuaded from believing in my parents.

 

[St_Francis]

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.

Sorry, I put that badly. They usually believe that they themselves exist, but they “prove” other things outside themselves do not.

OTOH, they take pen in hand to write on paper they have proven doesn’t exist their ideas so other people, whom he has proven do not exist, can learn from him…

Just trying to point out that philosophical proofs are worthless, so I don’t care of someone can prove God does not exist, I will continue to believe in God, who I *know *exists, just like the chair I am sitting upon.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

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

If an atheist knew of such an argument then wouldn’t s/he no longer be an atheist?

 

[TarkanAttila]

If an atheist knew of such an argument then wouldn’t s/he no longer be an atheist?

Good point.

Perhaps in another light, if you are an atheist, what data would have to receive in order for you to believe God exists?

 

[Nelka]

Nothing would ever stop me believing.

 

[wcknight]

No such argument could ever exist. They would have to prove that Jesus never existed, that all of Church History, both in the Old and New Testament was false, that all the miracles and miracle workers throughout history were charlatans or frauds, They would have to prove that my kids were never born, that I never met my wife and fell in love. Basically I would have to wake up from the matrix and found out that I swallowed the blue pill instead of the red one, or was that the other way around ???

ANd even IF they could, then why bother to go on ??? LIfe would be meaningless, no Heaven would exists and we all might as well go out and party until our meager 100 years of futile existence expired.

 

[wanstronian]

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

I voted yes - I wouldn’t be much of a skeptic if I was so closed-minded that I concluded a priori that nothing could ever change my mind.

That said, I’m not sure an argument could change my mind. There have been centuries of arguments for the existence of God, and none of them are remotely convincing - they’re all fundamentally flawed in some way.

No, I’d need some actual evidence. But if it was provided, of course I’d change my mind. I’d be a fool not to.

 

[wanstronian]

If an atheist knew of such an argument then wouldn’t s/he no longer be an atheist?

That too.

 

[thequietsinger]

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.

I guess you and I are just different, then.

I’m sorry if my post was more personal then it should have been. Really, if it was, I am deeply sorry. Perhaps, if I may suggest it, you might want to think about what it is that makes you feel taunted. Is it because you don’t know what/who to believe, or is it deeper then that? I’m not judging you, or telling you what you should/shouldn’t believe in, because that isn’t for me to decide, or judge.

Of course we’re different! And I don’t mean to sound mean or anything, I promise. None of us on here are the same. I mean, unless one user has multiple accounts and uses them constantly, but I don’t think that would count. My point is that we all have different ways of thinking, beliefs, etc. etc. The way we use those things to help others is what counts.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

I think you guys are all misunderstanding the question. It isn’t asking if you think there is an argument that could convince you, it’s asking if you’re more loyal to reason than to your belief in God.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Perhaps in another light, if you are an atheist, what data would have to receive in order for you to believe God exists?

I can only conjecture the answer to that, but I would guess conversion may come about from an accumulation of experiences. I’m not sure what those experiences may be, but let’s step back from the question at hand for a moment.

Let’s say that Sue knows Jake, and Jake says he loves Sue. Sue may not believe him at first; embracing the possibility that Jake is trying to play her emotions. But Jake persist in perusing Sue. He remembers her birthday and sends her a gift. Brings her flowers on Valentine’s day. Offers to assist her when she is in need of help, and starts to do things for her that may at time put himself at a disadvantage. Over time as Sue sees Jake do each of these things it contributes to her being convinced that Jake loves her. Any one of the things that Jake had done by itself was not sufficient to convince her. Or if he had done the same things but spread over a much longer time span (let’s say one action per year) the actions might not have culminated to as strong of a conviction.

Getting back to your question, in general I don’t think that people are convinced that the god-concept presented to them is real or not real based off of an argument or collection of some information by itself. Rather, it may occur if there’s an accumulation of experiences, information, questions, and at times a struggle for cognitive harmony. I also thing that at times some one might identify a single event, experience, or argument as the one that was the most convincing to him or herself without realizing that there had been other experiences, events, so on that led up to the person being in a state such that the single element (last straw) convinced them.

 

[St_Francis]

I think you guys are all misunderstanding the question. It isn’t asking if you think there is an argument that could convince you, it’s asking if you’re more loyal to reason than to your belief in God.

My point was that “reason” can disprove the existence of things outside oneself, and so what is considered reason is not necessarily reasonable.

The truth is that one can remain “loyal” to both God and reasonable reason. Your question is like the sorts of questions which ask if one can make a square circle.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Good point.

Perhaps in another light, if you are an atheist, what data would have to receive in order for you to believe God exists?

The burden of proof would be relatively high, at least for me. An event which couldn’t be faked or the result of a temporarily altered state of mind that I can go back and verify (dreams, for example, don’t count).

 

[KingCoil]

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

I really don’t see what this poster is saying, does anyone here at all know what he is saying?

 

[KingCoil]

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

I have read up to the above post.

Addressing WmJackP:

You are talking about the concept of God.

Tell me, do you have at all any information of the concept of God in the Christian faith in God’s relation to man and the universe?

If you do not have any information, then I would propose that you read up the Catholic Catechism for getting to know the information of the concept of God in the Catholic faith in His relation to man and the universe.

Anyway, tell me, you bring up ‘unicorns’, do you have at all any information on what is a unicorn?

I know the existence of unicorns, they are animals with one horn in their head.

That is my information of the concept of unicorn, and unicorns exist.

Is that also your information of the concept of unicorn?

Ryrge

 

[KingCoil]

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.

You identify yourself as Catholic, based on faith, but not on logical certainty: because you say:

• I rest easier in the belief that God probably exists.*

That seems to be that faith for you replaces probability.

Now, tell me what is the difference between you saying:

that God probably exists,

and a heart surgeon saying:

that his patient has 95% probability of a successful heart bypass operation.

Ryrge