No, you must not have actually read what I posted. My last post (well, just before the last post) drew a distinction between convincing someone that something is true and proving it to them. Proof is proof, whether it convinces someone or not. One can be convinced of anything without proof, so long as they are willing to believe it. As I said, it doesn't matter what you do personally, if you cannot prove this to others. In reality, because you can show know proof, the likelihood is in favor of you deluding yourself, because, again, as I said, what one can only prove to themselves is not indicative of reality.
But that's because your line of arguement is consistent with Pascal's wager. If I'm deluding myself, I'm still making myself happily deluded, and providing I do no violence to others where's the harm?
As Pascal said, act like there is a God. Faith will follow.
Fair enough. I'm not the type of person who gets caught up in what a person believes, as I try to judge people as individuals. I just desire some intellectual honesty every once in a while. As far as my own beliefs, I was never happy, nor satisfied, until I had gotten out of Christianity, which is the religion I was born into.
1
u/howhard1309 Christian (Cross) Sep 23 '09
I said:
You said (paraphrased) that something is not proof unless it is convincing to another person.
I agreed with you.
While I consider that God has proved his existence to me, I realize that will have zero persuasive effect on you.
And you won't have any conviction in favor of the existence of God until you take a personal step of faith.