RE: I have an honest question for theists.
July 5, 2012 at 10:40 pm
(This post was last modified: July 5, 2012 at 10:41 pm by Mystic.)
(July 5, 2012 at 10:34 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:(July 5, 2012 at 10:30 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: An argument can be 100% conclusive, but a different thing to be 100% convinced by it.
An argument can be 100% conclusive, but a different thing to be 100% convinced by it.
If it was 100% conclusive, as in absolutely certain its accurate, then why wouldn't you be convinced? That'd be like:
RD: This is a stone.
MK: Na-uh.
RD: What? Look at it, feel it, experiment on it. Its a stone.
MK: I'm not convinced, I think its a sponge.
RD: WHAT!?
GC: I agree.
RD: Nobody asked you. -.-
... got sidetracked but you get the point.
Not really. I can present contradictions, and logical problems in Quran, but most believers would not be convinced, even if they were logically sound.
Any proof against God would be philosophical, and philosophical arguments often seemed sound to people, but they didn't know for sure, and were often wrong.
So if an argument against God was presented and proven, it's all together a different thing to put total trust in the argument, specially when philosophical arguments have been debunked. It may very well be sound but it's a different thing for us to be 100% convinced.
Look at the argument against the incompatibly between free-will and future knowledge of God. It seems like it's a sound argument, but believers are not convinced otherwise.
It's a one thing to have a concrete argument, it's another thing to be convinced.
