[I]t is important for all the participants in a theological inquiry or discussion to remember that proofs and arguments are epistemological tools to be used when and if they can be used. They are not to be prized for their own sakes nor are they the prime subjects of the discussion and dispute. One who finds an argument unconvincing, for whatever reason or even for no reason that he can specify, need not hesitate to say so. He thereby identifies a fatal defect in the argument as it applies to him. The proponent of the argument need not concern himself with defending it. He should ask, rather, whether it can be strengthened to overcome this defect. If it can be strengthened, fine; if not, let it be set aside without discussion. It is a tool that did not work in that particular case. Let him, therefore, cast about for some other tool, whether another argument or some quite different type of approach, might succeed. For the discussants to forget the great question of God while they quibble over some proof would be disastrous. I have discussed the question of proof here in the hope that it can then be transcended in those situations in which the living issues of faith and life come before us.
(George I. Mavrodes, Belief in God: A Study in the Epistemology of Religion [Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1970], 48)
