Absolute Truth Argument

[gmcbroom]

I have a coworker who frankly doesn’t believe in God but does believe there is an Absolute Truth. He believes that all religion and faith is fantasy and as such should be ignored as its held Mankind back from true enlightenment. When he mentioned absolute truth I mentioned that Jesus said he is the way the truth and the life. Which he then said Jesus never existed. I mentioned Josephus and he said that Josephus wrote about him in 93 A.D. thus since he didn’t see him all he observed were Jesus’s followers. I mentioned Jesus was revolutionary and he said the virgin birth was around before with both Aten and Mithra and other ancient religions. Then he said show me God. I told him about the Eucharist. Needless to say he believes in science and the belief should only be proved by science. Every one that believes in Christianity or any religion is simply being fooled by an ignorant sheep farmer and thus ignorant themselves willingly. He then pointed me towards an atheist website so I pointed him to a catholic one. I asked him to read it the catholic one and he said he wants me to read it and get back to explain it to him. The problem is its using string theory to justify faith in God and he’s using String theory to justify his unbelief. The Physics gives me a headache and I personally don’t need to know about string theory as my belief is well… experiential. I tried to explain that to him but he wasn’t interested in that.

In the end I was wondering how can one find absolute truth without faith? How can scientific evidence for God be found aside from string theory. I feel like I’m beating my head against a wall. He wants me to prove God on his terms as he says," Since we say there is a God we have to prove it."

So, how can I answer? that he might be open to understanding how can many believe in God?

Sorry just had to get this off my chest. Moderator I hope this is the proper forum for these questions if its not can you move the post there?

Sincerely Yours in Christ Jesus,
Gmcbroom

 

[empther]

Why do you waste time talking to this guy?

He doesn’t want to believe.

Did you miss that? I’ll say it again. He doesn’t want to believe.

There is nothing you can do with him.

Just to make sure you got it…

he doesn’t want to believe.

 

[bzkoss236]

Well, for one, you can say that he doesn’t have his facts straight and that if he did some research he might think differently. For example, if memory serves, Mithra was not a case of virgin birth. The mother of Mithra took the dead father’s penis and inserted it inside of her. Not only that, but Mithra was only a god, not a god-man, and never existed on earth as a person as Jesus did. Mithra is purely myth, whereas there is evidence for Jesus.

 

[polytropos]

Hmm, his objections make me think of William Lane Craig, who has made a pretty good case for the historicity of the resurrection. (There is really no question as to whether Jesus lived. There is not even a question as to whether he was crucified under Pontius Pilate or whether his tomb was found empty. Serious historians only debate over whether he was resurrected and whether there were post-death sightings.) Also, William Lane Craig’s cosmological argument is meant to argue from a scientific premise about the beginning of the universe. I don’t think there’s any reason to appeal to string theory.

I personally think that the Thomistic arguments for God are stronger, particularly in the respect that they succeed irrespective of science. They also do not appeal to the beginning of the universe; they are supposed to prove that God is necessary for the existence of the universe right now. They are more difficult to defend, however, in that they are largely misunderstood, and they might be less effective against someone who wants you to “prove God on his terms.” That said, maybe you could look into them; Edward Feser makes a very good case for them in his book Aquinas.

 

[HandyAndy]

We need to understand that a part of human nature is that nobody…NOBODY likes to be told they are wrong. I know very few who like to have scripture quoted chapter and verse at them.

You must play hard to get with these people. You must pose more questions, where they will need to find answers or objections and get back to you. There must be something in what you say that makes them curious about you. They should be chasing you because they want to prove that you are wrong. Don’t take the bait. They will attempt to bait you at every turn. You must bait them. Be interested and play dumb…ask them leading questions of a spiritual nature that they will struggle to provide a scientific explanation. Good topics are conscience, our senses or even the workings or complexities of the human body. Why does it need to be so intricate? Why don’t we still know everything there is to know about the human body? It’s certainly seems too complex to be random? The plants, animals and the intelligent design of the earth. The earth in relation to the other planets. Why can’t science give us all the answers? How can random be so calculated? That six sense everyone has experienced…hairs on the back of your neck…Random just is not possible. Even the big bang theory has to be based on cause and effect. So we have the effect…but something must be the cause. If there was nothing before the cause…then perhaps we must consider a who?
What is cold?..The absence of heat.
What is darkness?..The absence of light.
So what is bad?..The absence good. So what is good?
Even people who have no knowledge of God, have varying degrees of conscience. Why?
If we are not spiritual beings, why would we have a conscience?
A new way of killing the Jew’s during the holocaust had to be implemented because the soldiers were suffering psychologically from shooting innocent people. Why? Why would they feel this way, if there was not something of a spiritual nature at work? Why do human beings have a need to believe in anything at all? But they do. They seek out cults and join all manner of organizations. Why do some of the richest people in the world, still struggle to find happiness?
Why are we drawn to form family? Where did the blue print come from? Why is it still the preferred model for raising children? Why do we have an attachment to family? What creates this invisible bond, that even adopted children will seek out their biological parents?

They won’t be herded and they won’t be told. You have to inspire and lead them. Once they become curious they open the door for Christ to enter…and their journey toward the truth can begin.

 

[Aris]

I have visited this site again after a long absence because of a conversation I had this afternoon.

A friend of mind posited that no reasonable thinking person would believe in the virgin birth because it is cannot be proven by evidence or empirical data.

My first impulse was to stay silent because I know that it would probably turn ugly but there was another friend at the table. Now this friend I knew was wavering in his faith and I could not let this pass with out at least giving it a fight.

How can we explain the virgin birth given as a Catholic I know this to be truth and yet some people ridicule it as a figment of somebody’s imagination