There isn’t any.
No argument, philisophical discussion, display of overwhelmng logic will ever be proof. They are simply intellectual brainstorms that won’t really get you anywhere.
You have to understand what proof is, in the first place, and for most people it requires empirical evidence. Experimentation, that is observable and repeatable under controlled conditions. Human emotions aren’t part of the equation.
This is exactly the point I addressed in
my previous post. Many people today equate “proof” with “empirical evidence” obtained through use of the scientific method. That is a relatively recent definition as the modern scientific method is only 500 years old. The philosophers (like Aquinas) did not use the word “proof” in this way.
If you believe that the only proof that exists is scientific proof, then, yes, you will not find any of this type for the existence of God, but neither will you find evidence against God. (Such is beyond the parameters of what science can do.) But, in order to accept the theory that empirical evidence is the only thing that counts as proof, you would first have to prove that with empirical evidence. You cannot use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method is the only way to prove something. Why trust the scientific method?
Logic and reason are perfectly acceptable ways of coming to know things, even coming to know things with the same degree of certainty (or even greater) than using the scientific method. After all, science may give you empirical evidence, but the evidence still needs to be interpreted, and you can often find that different scientists interpret the same data differently.
You cannot win people over by offering proof, because every argument has a counter argument and they are just as powerful and meaningful to a person who truly doubts.
You may be correct that you cannot win people over *solely *by offering proof (very few people are “argued” into accepting Christianity). However, this does not make all of the philosophical proofs pointless. These proofs can help strengthen faith where it already exists. They can also help move someone to accept faith when they are truly seeking truth (this is the way it was for me).
Also, every argument may have a counter-argument that is “just as powerful and meaningful to a person who truly doubts.” However, this is a very subjective use of proof. Perhaps it is “meaningful to them”, but that does not mean that, objectively speaking, the argument and counter-argument are equally valid. I have yet to come across a counter-argument to Aquinas’ proofs that are objectively equal to or greater than his proofs. Perhaps you have some sources for these counter-arguments that you can share with us?
You are living in a world, where people require proof for a reason. You would probably NOT choose a medication for your child, based on belief.
You are correct, but this does not mean that scientific proof is the only proof. Something like medication is the result of science, and thus falls under science’s purview. But other things (such as the principle of non-contradiction or the existence of God) more properly belong to philosophy and logic.
Rather than focus on proof, why not focus on doubt?
You have piqued my curiosity. I am interested to know how you might execute such an exercise.
Encourage doubt. The unknown is uncomfortable, but…it is a place where honesty lives in my opinion.
Doubt certainly
can be the impetus for people to look at things honestly (though not always), but I don’t think that I would recommend it as a permanent state of mind. It is good to question, but we do so that we might get answers!
Dameedna, I hope I haven’t offended with my post. That was not my intent. I’m just trying to further the dicussion, not to say anything personal against you. I suppose I am exercising the great virtue of doubt, only as it applies to the content of your post!
, if you have lived your “whole” life as an atheist, then how is it possible that your an agnostic now?