The Most Convincing Argument

Yoda's thread A Political Experiment gave me the idea for this one.

It's basically the exact same thing, but instead of politics the subject is philosophy/religion. Of course, there are some things that atheists, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, and etc. don't have to believe just because of their belief system, or lack thereof.

So tell me, what argument do you find the most convincing from people you don't exactly agree with?

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

I will, rightly so, go first. I am pretty much agnostic these days with a slight leaning an either direction (god/no god) depending on what's going on in my life. Generally, I lean more so (a lot more so) to the no god end, which is pretty evident from all my past philosophical arguments. So this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

There's only one argument I can think of, at the moment, that I find to be the most convincing from the belief end of the spectrum. However, I'm sure I'll think of more.

• The Argument From Recollection- I, oddly enough, never really thought about anything pertaining to this topic or encountered it until my most recent semester of college. The basic argument is that we (humans) have knowledge that is accessible/attainable because we recall it. For example, a person sees two rocks that look very similar and says they are equal, but upon further investigation finds they are not. However, they are able to comprehend the idea of equality and what it means without ever encountering "perfect equality" in life. The basic assumption with this argument is that we recall such knowledge from a prior existence.

Sorry, I'm a 10th level Materialist. I got immunity to a priori knowledge as a bonus feat at 5th level.

Oh- and when I find an argument for something that I do not generally agree with 'convincing,' I examine it further. If it holds up, I reevaluate my past position. If it does not hold up, then I reevaluate it's status as a 'convincing argument.'

__________________
“A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished.”
-Mikhail Bakunin

Any discussion debating on religion (or even politics and money) never leads to any "convinciing" or satifactory end. Thats why its never good to discuss any of those. it always leads to a Unnecessary quarrel.

Can't do this thread justice just yet, but I wanted to reply to this:

John used the phrase "most convincing argument." Obviously, being convinced isn't always a binary state -- arguments can be somewhat persuasive, or more persuasive than others. You can go back and forth on certain arguments, let them simmer, see something in a new light, etc. Most people, I think, find compelling arguments on both sides of most major issues, even if they come down on one side more than the other.

Even if you maintain that every argument is either convincing or not, with no in-between or nuance, you could certainly reference an argument you wrestled with an especially long time before making a decision on.

This is an excellent question John. I'm going to let it stew for a few days and see if I have an answer for you.

Generally speaking, I'm not crazy. I understand that humans can't fly and I understand that cats don't breathe fire and so on. But I also find a lot to like in the idea that we, as a human race, know literally nothing. That, for all we know, the immutable laws of gravity might not be as immutable as we think and that somewhere out there a cat is cooking a mouse with its fire breath. I don't know if this falls into the category John McClane is talking about, but the idea that literally anything is possible and that we know absolutely nothing for sure due to the subjectivity of human experience is a very agnostic argument to make and I think it's appropriate.

How can we say anything is certain if we don't know everything? By that logic, we should just give up on scientific study of any kind, as we'll never be able to reach a true scientific conclusion because we only truly know what is presented to us. Not only can you not disprove a negative, you can't prove a positive. You can't prove anything. Literally everything we say we know right now could just as easily be disproven in a second with one abnormality or anomaly. So we don't really "know" - We just know until we're given evidence to contradict what we know, and then we know something else. And it's a never ending cycle of knowing without really knowing at all.

A well-known proponent of the "We don't know anything for sure, so in theory, literally anything is possible" argument is Kevin Garnett of the Boston Celtics

Based on Garnett's theory, the Lakers can kick their ass this year.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

So Swedish, are you saying that us not being able to *really* know anything is a convincing argument, or what?

Yeah.

In fact, I'd say it's The Most Convincing Argument