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

[SentinelofTruth]

StFrancis:

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.

I was not implying that reason can disprove the existence of God.

 

[KingCoil]

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…

Faith is founded on reason.

Before you can believe you must have the use of reason.

Now, it is the doctrine of the Catholic Church that man can know God exists as the creator of man and the universe.

Ryrge

 

[KingCoil]

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!

Before anyone can prove that nothing exists he must first exist.

All words intended to prove nothing exists is just a lot of words which seek to psychologically make unthinking folks feel that nothing exists and therefore not even God, and wherefore they need not care for anything but can do all kinds of irrational and even absolutely abominable depraved things.

Ryrge

 

[KingCoil]

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…

There is no fallacy in circularity or tautology, it is just a way to emphasizing or introducing another aspect of the same essentially same identical thing.

Now, circularity or tautology is not verbally a repetition of the same word, like God is God, unless there is a difference introduced like in the loudness of the sound God in the second instance of the term God, or in capital large letters of the second instance of the term God.

Ryrge

 

[The_Walrus_1]

Yes.

We would not be able to gain theological knowledge if our souls and the natural order were not amenable to the laws of reason. As such, it is theoretically possible that if such an argument did exist it could persuade me of the truth of atheism. I just do not think such an argument exists. I count 20 arguments for the existence of God in my apologetics book. There’s only one argument for atheism - the problem of evil. And this can be dismissed easily on the grounds of our own epistemological limitations as mortals.

 

[NextElement]

Having been someone highly doubtful of a God or meaning to life at all, I can say that nothing we say will ever persuade someone who has no belief. Faith is something you need to feel from deep inside you, and if it’s not there, it’s not there.

The best we can do as Christians and as Catholics is to show everyone love and compassion, so when they DO see the light, they’ll remember exactly who helped them through

 

[Bagheera]

For an argument to be persuasive, it needs to start from a rational ground, which implies that the God-concept it wishes to establish must not have logical problems. (No argument can convince me that a “married bachelor” exists.) The problem is that I have never seen a logically sound definition of God. Some attributes are simply incoherent, others are mutually exclusive, and yet others are contradicted by the physical reality. (I will not give examples, since those would derail the thread.) Many believers assert that God cannot be defined, or can only be defined in a negative fashion. (Negative theology.)

A deistic type of “faceless first cause” could be established (theoretically), if the arguments would start from the physical reality, employ the so-far established laws of nature and would not contain logical fallacies (like unwarranted generalizations from the particular to the whole). Just like the existence of a new planet could be established logically, before visually verifying its existence.

But of course a physical evidence would trump them all. Physical evidence cannot be disputed. This cannot be waved aside by the excuse that God is not a physical entity. It is stipulated by the believers that God can and did assume a physical form. There is no reason why God could not come down and establish his existence beyond any doubt whatsoever. (Such a manifestation would not compel anyone to start to worship God, so please keep any “free will” cop-out to yourself).

 

[Reperio]

For an argument to be persuasive, it needs to start from a rational ground, which implies that the God-concept it wishes to establish must not have logical problems. (No argument can convince me that a “married bachelor” exists.) The problem is that I have never seen a logically sound definition of God. Some attributes are simply incoherent, others are mutually exclusive, and yet others are contradicted by the physical reality. (I will not give examples, since those would derail the thread.) Many believers assert that God cannot be defined, or can only be defined in a negative fashion. (Negative theology.)

Hi again Bagheera! I still find logical sense in the “definition” of what I call God as that which is contingent on nothing else for its existence (ala Aquanis). This is the most bare bones I can come up with at the moment. As to Gods biology? Have to say I never thought about it…thanks to you though it now interests me . Initially I can assume that may be far beyond our comprehension and of little importance actually.

Now to answer the original thread question: No. I cant be persuaded away from my faith. I know this because looking back at my life, the times I was a practicing Catholic-I was happy and had such comfort and peace. Compared to the years and years I wasted indulging in this sick world (and believe me, I indulged) and away from the Church and my suppressed core belifs, I did not have a moment of peace…not one single moment…and a self loathing that was wasting me away. This is a real, tangible proofs for me, strengthened by…dare I say it…faith.

 

[crochet_lady]

We DO have God’s Word – He’s telling us that 'in the beginning, God created…"

Either God exists or He Doesn’t. We can’t have it Both ways / that Sometimes He Does and sometimes NOT. When Good things happen “Praise God”, but when Bad things happen " If Your God is so Great – Why does He allow such horrible things to happen – so I’m Not going to believe He exists any more"
Well - do we ‘disown’ our parents because the house they’ve provided for us burns down or gets caught in a tornado or a flood? Of course not, we work together to rebuild - relocate – Been there, done that. Of course we Could get mad – shake our fists – have a temper tantrum. But - in this world – Bad things Do happen. We feel a Need to Blame – but the act of Blaming – indicates the existence of the thing/ person we Are blaming.

The ‘intellectual world’ says that a Reasonable person Will choose evolutionary development of this universe ‘evolutionary Thought’ RATHER than what a ‘book of fables, fairy tales’ says. Well – those books have taken 1600 years to ‘develop’ and have stayed around for Hundreds of years. Especially the KJV.

Some people Want an alternative to an all-knowing God – a Boss of the universe. to be responsible to.

College / university professors ridicule Bible-believing students. Higher education is Supposed to Broaden our education. Not hinder students who Do Choose to believe in God from being able to pursue their chosen field in Whatever field of study. And a couple of low grades Will affect a student’s GPA.

So - Why do people either Dislike or Love God’s Word? Because it gets to our very inner being. It’s both Convicting And Soul satisfying.

 

[N0X3x]

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

I think you misunderstand me. I identify as Catholic not because of an intellectual or faith-based certainty that it is true, but because I practice Catholicism and want God to exist.

If a patient has a 95% probability of having a successful heart surgery, He’s likely going to have it done. Likewise, if I find Catholicism as likely being true, I’m going to practice it. That doesn’t mean that I don’t also consider the possibility that it is false, any more than the heart surgery patient ponders the consequences of an unsuccessful surgery.

Or perhaps you mean that the probability I ascribe to God’s existence is faith-based. This is not the case. I think God probably exists because of certain philosophical arguments, not because of faith.

 

[dmar198]

The ‘intellectual world’ says that a Reasonable person Will choose evolutionary development of this universe ‘evolutionary Thought’ RATHER than what a ‘book of fables, fairy tales’ says. Well – those books have taken 1600 years to ‘develop’ and have stayed around for Hundreds of years. Especially the KJV.

Keep in mind that, before the KJV existed, Catholics were producing and distributing English and other-language Bibles that have a deeper history than any Protestant bible. (The 1609 Douay-Rheims, for example, was published before the 1611 King James was, and the KJV translators used it to as a comparison text to help them make the KJV better.)

 

[Rhubarb]

If confronted with a valid, sound argument that I could find no major problems in I could believe, yes.

If you have one, send it along. Id be happy to look it over.

 

[drac16]

No, because there is no substance to questions/arguments against there being a God. More often than not, they are based on appeals to emotion, which is not satisfactory.

 

[crochet_lady]

dmar198

The KJV came from a combination of the Bishops Bible and the Tyndale Bibles plus the available Greek / Hebrew manuscripts available at the time.

The Tyndale Bible – translated the New Testament from Greek 1525 – moves to Germany and rpints Bibles – 1535 publishes part of the Old Testament from Hebrew – called the “Father of the English Bible” because his translation forms the basis of the KJV.
The Bishops Bible – it’s a new translation - in answer to the Geneva Bible – printed in `1560 - a complete revision of the Great Bible – brought to America by the Pilgrims in 1620 - The 1640 edition is the first English Bible to omit the Apocrypha and it contained theological notes from Protestant scholars John Calvin, Beza, Knox and Whittingham.

And the Rheims-Doual Bible was translated into English from the Latin Volgate in 1582 and 1609.

 

[ColdComfort]

If presented with an argument that had me bamboozled I would assume it was wrong because my reason was deficient. I would look to brighter minds then mine.

 

[wanstronian]

No, because there is no substance to questions/arguments against there being a God. More often than not, they are based on appeals to emotion, which is not satisfactory.

As far as I’m aware, most arguments against the existence of gods are based around a lack of evidence rather than any particular emotion. It’s true to say that a common misconception amongst theists is that atheists are “angry at God” or something similar, but this is simply an ad hominem fallacy. It’s not possible to be angry at something that doesn’t exist.

 

[CrossofChrist]

No, because there is no substance to questions/arguments against there being a God. More often than not, they are based on appeals to emotion, which is not satisfactory.

I agree. I still have yet to see a satisfactory rebuttal against Aquinas’ first mover argument or how life can come from nonlife.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

I agree. I still have yet to see a satisfactory rebuttal against Aquinas’ first mover argument or how life can come from nonlife.

There are a few. First, there’s nothing to suggest that the “first cause” has a consciousness of its own or had any continued interaction with the world afterwards. The argument makes no attempt at linking the so called first mover with the Christian deity.

Second, what caused the first cause? If you’re comfortable with the first cause having always existed, why not save a step and say that the universe always existed? Maybe we’re caught in a never ending chain of big bangs and big crunches.

 

[judynurse]

A neverending cycle of big bangs & crunches I find terribly depressing. It leaves life with no purpose at all, and no hope for better.

Belief in the Creator, and the afterlife, on the other hand, not only explains creation and life, but gives hope for something beyond this life which can be so much better. For those who do not believe, God help them, they are going to face a terrible Truth when the time comes!

 

[crochet_lady]

Just because there a lot of people who Don’t Want God to exist – for Whatever reason – certainly doesn’t make Him disappear. – and we Will All be acknowledging Him at some point in the future.