Does why a person comes to believe matter?

[Sideline]

Let’s say you have a friend who doesn’t believe in God, and you try and convince him to believe in God. Let’s also say that you are not a great philosopher. You’ve read many of the arguments, but have botched them up. Does that matter? If you can lead your friend to believe in God for false reasons, is that still better than your friend to not believe at all?

From my perspective, it matters a lot. I wouldn’t want anyone to believe or disbelieve based on faulty logic. What do you think?

 

[AgnosTheist]

i agree with you. but theres a lot of folks there who believes that the ends justifies the means.

 

[cpayne]

Someone can certainly believe in God for reasons that don’t have anything at all to do with philosophy or arguments. However, if one IS using philosophy or arguments, certainly the logic should be sound.

Knowing and believing what is true is intrinsically valuable, regardless of its religious worth or lack of worth.

 

[cpayne]

i agree with you. but theres a lot of folks there who believes that the ends justifies the means.

Wouldn’t this be utilitarianism, which the CC does not accept as a guiding moral philosophy?

 

[po18guy]

Let’s say you have a friend who doesn’t believe in God, and you try and convince him to believe in God. Let’s also say that you are not a great philosopher. You’ve read many of the arguments, but have botched them up. Does that matter? If you can lead your friend to believe in God for false reasons, is that still better than your friend to not believe at all?

From my perspective, it matters a lot. I wouldn’t want anyone to believe or disbelieve based on faulty logic. What do you think?

If you use the logic with a pure heart, believeing it to be true, even though it may have been faulty, and a soul is lead to Christ, there is no sin. Do not lie even to bring someone to Christ. For, in lying, you are actually serving the evil one, who is a liar and the father of lies. The Lord has an amazing array of methods to call sinners to Him. He uses “private revelation” to call many to faith, or to increase their faith. I am but one example. However, private revelation is intended solely for the receiver. It may or may not apply to anyone else on earth. Such is God’s Grace.

Christ’s Peace be always with you.

 

[iamscifimike]

The big step is to believe in God. Once you get to the point that God is plausible, even to them believing there is a god, then they will be eager to figure out who God is on their own. You can assist them with that process and this time they won’t be fighting you as much. Once they know God’s true identity he will help them with mistakes made on the path to Him.

 

[AgnosTheist]

its so easy to believe in God.

but believing in the Bible’s version of God, now that is a different matter.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Sideline,

No, it does not matter why a person comes to believe, because faith is a gift of God. Two individuals with the same background, intelligence etc. One believes, the other does not. The arguments you can hear, the people you meet, the reading you do, are but occasions God uses for people of good will to come to Him.

Bergson came to the faith because of his study of Catholic mystics. Now the fact that some people claim to have been in contact with God would not convince me, but it did him. Or rather it moved him towards God. Still he probably believed all his life that this argument was a convincing one.

Apologists should keep in mind that you can’t win an argument. People will be moved much more by your own faith and Christian life - your testimony - than by the solidity of your arguments. You are but an “occasion” that God might use.

Verbum

 

[Keikiolu]

Let’s say you have a friend who doesn’t believe in God, and you try and convince him to believe in God. Let’s also say that you are not a great philosopher. You’ve read many of the arguments, but have botched them up. Does that matter? If you can lead your friend to believe in God for false reasons, is that still better than your friend to not believe at all?

From my perspective, it matters a lot. I wouldn’t want anyone to believe or disbelieve based on faulty logic. What do you think?

Some people believe in God simply by seeing other people, believers, praying silently.

Is THAT using “faulty logic” to convert unbelievers?

If you say something “unGodly” to convert someone, you’ve commited a sin, and you will be dealt with for it.

…but converting others by being “childlike” is a perfectly acceptable way to help others see truth.

In fact, it may be the preferable way,… as we’ve been told and shown.

 

[Sideline]

Some people believe in God simply by seeing other people, believers, praying silently.

Is THAT using “faulty logic” to convert unbelievers?

Why do I feel like someone is trying to bait me into an argument? How could what you suggest be considered faulty logic? There is a world of difference between practicing your beliefs and participating in an argument.

There was once a fairly common belief that one should not discuss the great mysteries with those who were unable to understand them. It was considered dangerous to put ideas into the heads of people without also giving them the mental tools to process them. “A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.”

This is hardly a popular sentiment to those living in the information age. People today are all to aware that knowledge is power, and no one wants to be powerless when they can avoid it.
The idea of “God” is a very powerful one. The idea of there being no god is also a powerful idea. The arguments and justifications of these ideas are complex and sometimes easy to misconstrue.

When I posted originally, I wasn’t thinking about people deceiving other in order to convert them. I was thinking about people who
don’t fully understand an argument using it to try and convince others.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*Some people believe in God simply by seeing other people, believers, praying silently.

Is THAT using “faulty logic” to convert unbelievers?*

Why do I feel like someone is trying to bait me into an argument? How could what you suggest be considered faulty logic? There is a world of difference between practicing your beliefs and participating in an argument.

When someone posts what they are thinking, I assume that they want to talk.

Do you, or do you not, want to talk…?

Praying is seen by many as PURELY ILLOGICAL, therefore to those people, it is “faulty logic” to use that particular tactic to convert people.

There was once a fairly common belief that one should not discuss the great mysteries with those who were unable to understand them. It was considered dangerous to put ideas into the heads of people without also giving them the mental tools to process them. “A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.”

If an uninformed person needs to learn something, then the purveyor of that information should tailor the “good news” to suit the uninformed such that they CAN absorb the “important parts” suitable for them.

If you don’t inform the uninformed of what they need to know in a way that they can understand it simply because you think you are “too cerebral” to be understood by the “savage”, then the “uncharitable snob” level of hell has a nice warm seat waiting for you.

This is hardly a popular sentiment to those living in the information age. People today are all to aware that knowledge is power, and no one wants to be powerless when they can avoid it.
The idea of “God” is a very powerful one. The idea of there being no god is also a powerful idea. The arguments and justifications of these ideas are complex and sometimes easy to misconstrue.

Then try to be clear, and think more of (love) your audience (neighbor) than youself, and do what is necessary to not be “misconstrued”.

When I posted originally, I wasn’t thinking about people deceiving other in order to convert them. I was thinking about people who
don’t fully understand an argument using it to try and convince others.

People who don’t understand something that is true at least understand that they are trying to convey something that is true.

They should then not try to “convince” others that they know what they’re talking about, but rather invite them to take a journey WITH them to more fully understand WHY this truth is a truth.

If they try to beat others over the head with something they can’t hold, they’re liable to hurt everyone involved.

 

[Peregrino]

Let’s say you have a friend who doesn’t believe in God, and you try and convince him to believe in God. Let’s also say that you are not a great philosopher. You’ve read many of the arguments, but have botched them up. Does that matter? If you can lead your friend to believe in God for false reasons, is that still better than your friend to not believe at all?

From my perspective, it matters a lot. I wouldn’t want anyone to believe or disbelieve based on faulty logic. What do you think?

I don’t personally feel that a belief in God is a rational thing. My belief isn’t logical by any means-it makes no sense in terms of logic or empiricism. As someone else said, belief is a gift of grace; I would add that to assume that you can “give” yourself this grace via logic is a disservice to both logic and God.

 

[Keikiolu]

I don’t personally feel that a belief in God is a rational thing. My belief isn’t logical by any means-it makes no sense in terms of logic or empiricism.

My belief in God is partially rational, in that I have empirical evidence that God does in fact exist.

Is my evidence “evidence enough” for others? Most probably not.

But, is my belief rational as a materialist means “rational”? Certainly not.

If I could prove God existed to “everyone’s satisfaction”, I would have disproved God as God, because God doesn’t allow such an operation.

As someone else said, belief is a gift of grace; I would add that to assume that you can “give” yourself this grace via logic is a disservice to both logic and God.

You DO give yourself the gift of humility, which is the key to grace.

That gift you CAN give yourself is given under the logic that it’s worth seeing if it might actually be true that God is real and in the Church.

When you give yourself that gift, which is a prayer, God answers.

God always answers. The question is whether you’re humble enough to listen without having your fingers in your ears.

 

[Peregrino]

If I could prove God existed to “everyone’s satisfaction”, I would have disproved God as God, because God doesn’t allow such an operation.

How do you know that “God doesn’t allow such an operation?”

You DO give yourself the gift of humility, which is the key to grace.

That gift you CAN give yourself is given under the logic that it’s worth seeing if it might actually be true that God is real and in the Church.

When you give yourself that gift, which is a prayer, God answers.

Nice way of putting this.

God always answers. The question is whether you’re humble enough to listen without having your fingers in your ears.

Humans always seem to come up with answers; albeit sometimes different answers. Does God alway answer differently?

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
If I could prove God existed to “everyone’s satisfaction”, I would have disproved God as God, because God doesn’t allow such an operation.

How do you know that “God doesn’t allow such an operation?”

Most simply, because God wouldn’t allow Himself to be disproved. Why?

That would have God allowing a contradiction, which He never does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*You DO give yourself the gift of humility, which is the key to grace.

That gift you CAN give yourself is given under the logic that it’s worth seeing if it might actually be true that God is real and in the Church.

When you give yourself that gift, which is a prayer, God answers.*

Nice way of putting this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
God always answers. The question is whether you’re humble enough to listen without having your fingers in your ears.

Humans always seem to come up with answers; albeit sometimes different answers. Does God alway answer differently?

Differently than what?

God’s answers are always most wise (most appropriate) for the situation at that particular instant.

Every instant in history is unique. Therefore, every answer from God is unique.

It’s left to the pray-er to see the “continuity” in the answers that they pray for.

 

[Sideline]

If I could prove God existed to “everyone’s satisfaction”, I would have disproved God as God, because God doesn’t allow such an operation.

How do you know that "God doesn’t allow such an operation?"

Most simply, because God wouldn’t allow Himself to be disproved. Why?

That would have God allowing a contradiction, which He never does.

I’ve read that 20 times now, and it still doesn’t make any sense at all.

*1. If I could prove that God exists, that would prove that God doesn’t exist, because God would not allow it.

1. God would never allow Himself to be disproven.
2. Because God would never allow a contradiction.*

If “God doesn’t exist” is a necessary condition of “God exists”, then God is contradictory, and doesn’t exist. (If A, then ~A. Then A &~A. This is impossible, so ~A.) If God can be disproven, he has very little choice over whether he would allow it, because He wouldn’t exist.

This is a great example of the faulty logic that I initially wondered if people had a problem with. If you believe that people can not prove that God exists, then great, don’t try to. If you believe that living a life of faith is the greatest argument for the case of God, you are probably right.

But the argument that you just made, makes no sense at all.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*If I could prove God existed to “everyone’s satisfaction”, I would have disproved God as God, because God doesn’t allow such an operation.

How do you know that "God doesn’t allow such an operation?"*

Most simply, because God wouldn’t allow Himself to be disproved. Why?

That would have God allowing a contradiction, which He never does.

I’ve read that 20 times now, and it still doesn’t make any sense at all.

*1. If I could prove that God exists, that would prove that God doesn’t exist, because God would not allow it.

1. God would never allow Himself to be disproven.
2. Because God would never allow a contradiction.*

If “God doesn’t exist” is a necessary condition of “God exists”, then God is contradictory, and doesn’t exist. (If A, then ~A. Then A &~A. This is impossible, so ~A.) If God can be disproven, he has very little choice over whether he would allow it, because He wouldn’t exist.

Firstly, it’s simply axiomatic that “God exists”. Period.

SINCE God exists, to allow one of His creations (creatures) to actually PROVE that He doesn’t exist would mean that God would allow an “A=~A” condition to exist. God doesn’ t do that.

SINCE God exists, to allow someone to PROVE that He DOES exist takes away the choice of NOT believing in Him, which would negate the necessity of faith, which He also won’t do.

This is a great example of the faulty logic that I initially wondered if people had a problem with. If you believe that people can not prove that God exists, then great, don’t try to.

The problem is that you didn’t catch the fact that “God exists” must be axiomatically held during the operations above.

You may not choose to BELIEVE that axiom, but that doesn’t affect the logic involved.

If you believe that living a life of faith is the greatest argument for the case of God, you are probably right.

But the argument that you just made, makes no sense at all.

Try again. After “inserting” the necessary axiom provided above, does it make sense?

 

[Sideline]

I’m sorry if the post that I posted right before this one was came across as being snotty. I get very emotional about this topic sometimes.

I find that many people feel that starting off with the right position means that they can never go wrong:

I KNOW God exists. Anyone who disagrees with me being a simplistic twit. I’m right, why can’t they see that?

or

I KNOW there is no God. Anyone who disagrees with me is being a simplistic twit. I’m right, why can’t they see that.

I acted as if this was Keikiolu’s attitude without really checking it out, and for that I’m sorry.

I’d like to re-phrase the original question:

Is arrogance in the defence of God a justifiable attitude?

As someone else said, belief is a gift of grace; I would add that to assume that you can “give” yourself this grace via logic is a disservice to both logic and God.

What a beautiful sentiment. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Keikiolu]

I’m sorry if the post that I posted right before this one was came across as being snotty. I get very emotional about this topic sometimes.

You might be surprised, but I’m the LAST person who’s going to get upset with you about being emotional…! I would LOVE it if more people got “fired up”, and not so damned “LUKEWARM” about their beliefs…!

Thanks for your fire…!

I find that many people feel that starting off with the right position means that they can never go wrong:

I KNOW God exists. Anyone who disagrees with me being a simplistic twit. I’m right, why can’t they see that?

or

I KNOW there is no God. Anyone who disagrees with me is being a simplistic twit. I’m right, why can’t they see that.

I acted as if this was Keikiolu’s attitude without really checking it out, and for that I’m sorry.

I do in fact take God’s existence as axiomatic. When I converse with someone holding the opposite view, I don’t assume they’re stupid, simply incorrect.

Then we can get into understanding each others views of the others beliefs.

I’d like to re-phrase the original question:

Is arrogance in the defence of God a justifiable attitude?

What do you mean by “arrogance”…?

No one will EVER change my mind about the existence of God. that is not arrogance,… that is simple fact.

I DO claim that belief in God is superior to non-belief in Him. That WOULD satisfy the conditions of being “arrogant”.

But,… unless you are arrogant in your core beliefs, such that you truly DO think that they are superior to all other possibilities known to you, you’re not being either honest or forceful IN your core beliefs.

Those who aren’t arrogant in their core beliefs are cowards.

But,… quite often, it’s safer to be a coward than brave,… and that is CERTAINLY the case of one having ANY core beliefs that aren’t Christian.

In other words: To be non-Christian is to be justifiably cowardly, or unjustifiably brave, while to be Christian is to be justifiably brave and unjustifiably cowardly.

Quote:Originally Posted by Peregrino forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

As someone else said, belief is a gift of grace; I would add that to assume that you can “give” yourself this grace via logic is a disservice to both logic and God.
What a beautiful sentiment. Thanks for posting it.

The gift you give yourself is not grace. You give yourself humility. Humility (with faith) brings grace. Grace brings confirmation (of faith). Confirmation brings power (to do). Doing brings salvation (to choose God).

 

[Peregrino]

I’ve read that 20 times now, and it still doesn’t make any sense at all.

1. If I could prove that God exists, that would prove that God doesn’t exist, because God would not allow it.

2. God would never allow Himself to be disproven.

3. Because God would never allow a contradiction.

If “God doesn’t exist” is a necessary condition of “God exists”, then God is contradictory, and doesn’t exist. (If A, then ~A. Then A &~A. This is impossible, so ~A.) If God can be disproven, he has very little choice over whether he would allow it, because He wouldn’t exist.

This is a great example of the faulty logic that I initially wondered if people had a problem with. If you believe that people can not prove that God exists, then great, don’t try to. If you believe that living a life of faith is the greatest argument for the case of God, you are probably right.

But the argument that you just made, makes no sense at all.

LOL! Nice job, I was going to bust out the old propositional calculus on this one but you beat me to it.

Keikiolu, God’s existence is not axiomatic in any logical sense. There is no way to prove that God exists, just as there is no way to prove your predicate of “God doesn’ t do that” to whatever subject you choose to append this to.