Atheists, what are the most convincing theist arguments you heard of?

[SteveII]

If by 'most convincing', 'most persuasive' is meant, it's possible to compare, and I find only one. It's rarely used, but the best argument for theism, and the only evidence it's conceivable to present if God is withholding verifiable miracles, is the theist. If theists had a desirable quality unique to themselves that they could display, that would, in my opinion, be the most persuasive thing that they could bring to bear. It wouldn't be effective on skeptics, but it could certainly persuade fence-sitters. It's hard though, and the vast majority can't do it. Maybe if they actually had the divine on their side, they could do better at that. Their lives are the closest things to evidence that they have, it would be something at least, if, say, we really knew Christians by their love the way Jesus is supposed to have said we will.

And that is the reason why millions of adults every year convert to Christianity (not because of the Ontological Argument). I agree heartily with the sentence I highlighted but think there are some to be found and God may place them in your life if that is what is needed to draw you near to him. 

No offence to the Christians (myself included) in this forum, but what is on display here most days does not qualify. To be fair, the environment makes it extremely difficult to be civil and loving all the time. 

Philippians 1:27 Above all, you must live as citizens of heaven, conducting yourselves in a manner worthy of the Good News about Christ. 

1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

Matthew 5:16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

[Angrboda]

Bullshit.  Applying appropriate levels of skepticism to personal experience is a sign that you accept your human experience for what it is, flawed and imperfect.  Anything else is a denial of what we know about the human condition.  To be swayed by the numinous to Godly conclusions is just ignoring our greater knowledge of how such experiences fool us.  That's the real denial.

I agree that people should, as you say, apply an appropriate level of skepticism. Indeed we are only human – prone to error and living in uncertainty. And as I said, YMMV. If your need for certainty is such that you feel compelled to question everything, including your own consciousness, then that is your path and I wish you only the best. For my part, I take most things as they appear to be until shown otherwise, have good reason to suppose otherwise, or unless they affect my life enough to make me question my instincts, everyday experience, and the general consensus of history and human experience.

First off, we're talking about the existence of God here, not some ordinary proposition of everyday living. You're conflating the two, and the reason for the conflation seems abundantly apparent. You want to give the God hypothesis a pass. You're being purposely obtuse and I don't buy the act. You aren't some naive subject upon his first experience with the numinous. You know the objections, you choose to discard them on the basis of other arguments. That's being disingenuous. The reason you have given for not being skeptical is not the real reason you choose to ignore skepticism. I don't really care what the real reason is, but this "I take most things as they appear" is just a convenient line of bullshit.

---

...this atheist is more than happy to acknowledge the presence of an ineffable otherness within.  I value its participation and inspiration at all times.  It makes the world a more complex and also satisfying place to conceptualize an otherness within.  Its happiness is key to my own.  It tends to keep alienation at bay and provide a robust answer to existential questions.

During your reflections have you ever felt the presence of Love coming from outside yourself?

I don't know what that means, but it sounds distinctly unhealthy.

---

If by 'most convincing', 'most persuasive' is meant, it's possible to compare, and I find only one. It's rarely used, but the best argument for theism, and the only evidence it's conceivable to present if God is withholding verifiable miracles, is the theist. If theists had a desirable quality unique to themselves that they could display, that would, in my opinion, be the most persuasive thing that they could bring to bear. It wouldn't be effective on skeptics, but it could certainly persuade fence-sitters. It's hard though, and the vast majority can't do it. Maybe if they actually had the divine on their side, they could do better at that. Their lives are the closest things to evidence that they have, it would be something at least, if, say, we really knew Christians by their love the way Jesus is supposed to have said we will.

And that is the reason why millions of adults every year convert to Christianity (not because of the Ontological Argument). I agree heartily with the sentence I highlighted but think there are some to be found and God may place them in your life if that is what is needed to draw you near to him. 

I think in order for it to be evidence of the divine in their lives it would have to be systematic among all believers. Elsewise how do you distinguish it from the normal variation which affects all men? Perhaps those few are just outliers. It doesn't become an argument until it's consistent.

[SteveII]

deleted

[Harry Nevis]

And that is the reason why millions of adults every year convert to Christianity (not because of the Ontological Argument). I agree heartily with the sentence I highlighted but think there are some to be found and God may place them in your life if that is what is needed to draw you near to him. 

And millions voted for Trump....

[Neo-Scholastic]

…I take most things as they appear to be until shown otherwise, have good reason to suppose otherwise, or unless they affect my life enough to make me question my instincts, everyday experience, and the general consensus of history and human experience.

First off, we're talking about the existence of God here, not some ordinary proposition of everyday living. You're conflating the two, and the reason for the conflation seems abundantly apparent. You want to give the God hypothesis a pass. You're being purposely obtuse and I don't buy the act.

To me the difference between everyday assumptions and belief in God is a matter of degree not kind. In many ways, I have more confidence in God’s presence than many of my ordinary opinions. I can only assure you of my sincerity on this point.

You aren't some naive subject upon his first experience with the numinous. You know the objections, you choose to discard them on the basis of other arguments. That's being disingenuous. The reason you have given for not being skeptical is not the real reason you choose to ignore skepticism. I don't really care what the real reason is, but this "I take most things as they appear" is just a convenient line of bullshit.

You are correct to some extent. I am not naive about epiphanies. They are rare and come unexpectedly. I have had only two that moved me in a profound way, one of which is completely inexpressible in words. I can somewhat understand someone who has not been so moved attributing them to some psychological aberration. I know what I felt confirmed so much of what mystics and visionaries throughout recorded history have tried to convey.
You are right that I know the objections. You would be wrong to think I discarded them lightly. In fact, I pursued them rigorously. They are dead ends. For starters, you end up either discarding belief in a rational order and/or the efficacy of reason. If anything, I choose to believe many skeptics either have not pursued skepticism to its logical conclusion or won’t admit to its nihilism or embrace the absurdity. As for me, I embraced the absurdity, for a time, but I eventually decided that was, well,…absurd.

During your reflections have you ever felt the presence of Love coming from outside yourself?

I don't know what that means, but it sounds distinctly unhealthy.

If something makes me happy, more generous, forgiving, and patient with those around me, then it is an illness I gladly accept.

[The Valkyrie]

Finally got it.

"Believe in what I tell you and I'll give you money".

Not convincing, but compelling.

[Whateverist]

...this atheist is more than happy to acknowledge the presence of an ineffable otherness within.  I value its participation and inspiration at all times.  It makes the world a more complex and also satisfying place to conceptualize an otherness within.  Its happiness is key to my own.  It tends to keep alienation at bay and provide a robust answer to existential questions.

During your reflections have you ever felt the presence of Love coming from outside yourself?

The source of the mystery is pretty much a mystery. How could anyone know what was coming from inside and what outside? I assume when you speak of experiencing the numinous you refer to being conscious of something which ordinarily we wouldn't be. How at such times can you be certain that what you are experiencing is the ordinarily transparent apparatus of consciousness or some secret aspect of the world?

 But I would never seek to write over what it has to offer with anything off the rack or which pretends to be authoritative.  Only the mystery itself will do.

I see 'holy books' as treasure trove of insights into how people from distant times and far away places what experienced and tried to make sense of that mystery. Yes, they often include various prohibitions and obligations, but those seem more like culture specific ways to attain and preserve that relationship with the source of that mystery. I realize that literal-minded people, believers and skeptics alike, don't take that approach. I find that very sad.

I see them as suggestive. By looking over a suitably wide variety of such accounts one perhaps gains some insight into the sorts of experience people report. But what to make of it? Only someone who has asked themselves the same question could possibly answer that. However, realizing that they were in no better position to answer than are we means we shouldn't be too quick to adopt their answer. The mystery is the mystery for structural reasons, it isn't possible to cash it in for something objective.

[vorlon13]

Curiously, even from the get go during my 12 Steppers experience, never encountered anything that demonstrated any sort of a 'higher power' beyond peer pressure and repetition and setting a good example.

It is invariably presented as an 'overlay' of sorts, compatible with all religions and even agnosticism, and as such, even from day 1 I was aware there is no way it could be discerned as a confirmatory experience to demonstrate any God concept.

Sticking around long enough, however, I did garner the necessity and logic of maintaining the fiction of the 'Higher Power' thing. With most of the addicts who turn up, having sobriety attributed to an external agency as opposed to ones own endeavors/will power is a requirement for how the addicts brain is working. Any whiff of suspicion ones own will power is what's making it work instantly raises the point of well, if I can control it to the extent of teetotalling, why can't I therefore control it with the goal of moderation ??

And that never works . . .


Best to leave them thinking an external agency of any sort is responsible instead of themselves. Lest they die.

[Mr Greene]

The most convincing argument... is one I've never been presented with.
The cosmological argument falls on its face due to the fact it relies on information the apologist blatantly doesn't possess.
Some prosletizers try to argue based on coincidences though never seem to amount to anything.
Never do they base their arguments on the eclipses or transcriptase.
I could give my son alphabeti-spaghetti and read a better argument in his nappy than any a prosletyzer has made.

[Neo-Scholastic]

How at such times can you be certain that what you are experiencing is the ordinarily transparent apparatus of consciousness or some secret aspect of the world?

When you touch the Absolute, you know it absolutely. I'm not trying to be obscure. It's just something that isn't easy to describe and when people try it just ends up sounding trite or contradictory.