Would you go hear the argument?

[KnowtheSilence]

Imagine that a famous philosopher of religion has developed a new argument regarding the existence of God. If you are a theist, imagine that the philosopher is an atheist arguing against the existence of God. If you are an atheist, imagine that the philosopher is a theist arguing for the existence of God.

This philosopher's argument is considered to be the single most conclusive argument regarding God's existence every devised. 90% of the people who have heard the argument have reversed their position, including some of the biggest names in the field, people who have written books and debated in favor of their position for their entire professional lives. All it takes is to listen to a thirty-minute presentation explaining this new argument.

The philosopher is coming to your hometown and will be presenting his argument.

Would you go and listen?

 

[True Scotsman]

Imagine that a famous philosopher of religion has developed a new argument regarding the existence of God. If you are a theist, imagine that the philosopher is an atheist arguing against the existence of God. If you are an atheist, imagine that the philosopher is a theist arguing for the existence of God.

This philosopher's argument is considered to be the single most conclusive argument regarding God's existence every devised. 90% of the people who have heard the argument have reversed their position, including some of the biggest names in the field, people who have written books and debated in favor of their position for their entire professional lives. All it takes is to listen to a thirty-minute presentation explaining this new argument.

The philosopher is coming to your hometown and will be presenting his argument.

Would you go and listen?

Yes absolutely.

 

[Paradoxum]

I suppose so... or listen to it on youtube.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It's hard for me to imagine how I would act in your hypothetical.

The problem is that there's really nothing any person could say to prove something like the existence of God. --I would need God himself to prove to me that He exists.

There's so many different people with so many differing opinions of who or what God is or how He made the world, or what His plans are for the world... etc. that I feel, it really doesn't matter what you believe in, I'm not convinced.

You claim a deity exists? Prove it. If you can't prove it, I'm not buying.

 

[poolerboy0077]

I've listened to plenty of Christian apologists over the years: William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Rabbi Wolpe, Frank Turek and others. So I don't see why I wouldn't.

 

[Oafman]

Yes of course. I would be very interested.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Imagine that a famous philosopher of religion has developed a new argument regarding the existence of God. If you are a theist, imagine that the philosopher is an atheist arguing against the existence of God. If you are an atheist, imagine that the philosopher is a theist arguing for the existence of God.

This philosopher's argument is considered to be the single most conclusive argument regarding God's existence every devised. 90% of the people who have heard the argument have reversed their position, including some of the biggest names in the field, people who have written books and debated in favor of their position for their entire professional lives. All it takes is to listen to a thirty-minute presentation explaining this new argument.

The philosopher is coming to your hometown and will be presenting his argument.

Would you go and listen?

yea....if it's free.

Otherwise I'll download a copy.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'd prefer the pdf version, but if the argument is truly new, I would certainly read the argument. I have read plenty of apologetics.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

Nope. Philosophy has an extremely poor track record at generating knowledge about the real world. Given that, odds are good that going would be a waste of time.

I guess there's always a first time, but I'd wait to see the paper published in Nature or whatever rather than hoping this is the one time that broken clock happened to be right.

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

 

[keith99]

No.

If the argument is solid it can be written down and would still hold.

If it requires a verbal presentation in an environment of the speakers choosing I would expect some form of hypnosis or an intellectual variation of the badger game.

The ironic part is IF the guy actually has a strong argument in my case it would be far more apt to work in written form that I came to in a neutral frame of mind than some presentation I entered actively hostile.

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't have to imagine this, because it has happened. This famous philosopher you're speaking of is Jesus, and this new argument has long since been, is even now in plain sight, yet hidden, but soon to be revealed.

What is the argument then?

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

 

[Resha Caner]

If it requires a verbal presentation in an environment of the speakers choosing I would expect some form of hypnosis or an intellectual variation of the badger game.

That's an interesting point, but I don't know if the OP meant to imply the argument depends upon an emotional sales job.

I wouldn't be opposed to hearing the argument, but I wouldn't go out of my way for it either. I'd go in pretty skeptical because so many people claim to have a new argument when it really isn't.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

That's an interesting point, but I don't know if the OP meant to imply the argument depends upon an emotional sales job.

I wouldn't be opposed to hearing the argument, but I wouldn't go out of my way for it either. I'd go in pretty skeptical because so many people claim to have a new argument when it really isn't.

It is a good point. I made it a lecture because I figured if I made it about a paper, lots of people would say "I wouldn't read it because philosophy papers or boring" or something to that effect. Hadn't expected people to go the other way, but I probably should have.

But, no, the lecture isn't supposed to contain any sort of sales pitch or emotional appeals, and I'd hoped that the bit about 9/10 people changing their minds, including dedicated philosophers, would make it clear that it is a new argument and not just a rehashing something old. I probably could have presented it better.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It is a good point. I made it a lecture because I figured if I made it about a paper, lots of people would say "I wouldn't read it because philosophy papers or boring" or something to that effect. Hadn't expected people to go the other way, but I probably should have.

But, no, the lecture isn't supposed to contain any sort of sales pitch or emotional appeals, and I'd hoped that the bit about 9/10 people changing their minds, including dedicated philosophers, would make it clear that it is a new argument and not just a rehashing something old. I probably could have presented it better.

As I said, the only thing that will convince me of God's existence is God Himself showing me He exists. There really isn't much another person can 'say' to convince me otherwise.

IF someone claimed to have an argument so foolproof, I'm guaranteed a conversion rate of 90%, I'd definitely hear him out but I'd still be quite skeptical until I hear the actual argument.

But in real life, I need God to prove God exists. He appears to be silent on the issue.

 

[keith99]

That's an interesting point, but I don't know if the OP meant to imply the argument depends upon an emotional sales job.

I wouldn't be opposed to hearing the argument, but I wouldn't go out of my way for it either. I'd go in pretty skeptical because so many people claim to have a new argument when it really isn't.

I'm sure the OP didn't meant to imply that. But I've learned over the years that sloppy logic is far easier to disguise in a verbal presentation.

And who knows Saruman or his like might still exist.

Finally if we are talking about anything even remotely like the Christian God I doubt there is a new argument. After all there is nothing new under the sun, so I'm inclined to think the claim of newness is simply the vanity of the presenter.

Oh and if it is not a God somewhat similar to the Christian God I want the advantage of knowing just what sort of God is being proved. I have no interest in someone proving a first cause and calling it God.

 

[Paradoxum]

I am not here to analyze the argument, just to present it.

All you have to do is read it, I am convinced you will see quite clearly.

What is the argument though? How can I read it if you don't tell me what it is?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

No.

If the argument is solid it can be written down and would still hold.

If it requires a verbal presentation in an environment of the speakers choosing I would expect some form of hypnosis or an intellectual variation of the badger game.

The ironic part is IF the guy actually has a strong argument in my case it would be far more apt to work in written form that I came to in a neutral frame of mind than some presentation I entered actively hostile.

Interesting....thanks for the insight!

 

[Resha Caner]

As I said, the only thing that will convince me of God's existence is God Himself showing me He exists. There really isn't much another person can 'say' to convince me otherwise.

True enough. Hopefully you won't think God silent forever.