Apologetics to non-believers

[Dameedna]

Okay, what ARE your arguments that demonstrate how order can spontaneously come from disorder and how energy and power were created spontaneously. There are no known examples of these things in science.

The only thing that comes close to something occuring spontaneously, IE coming into existance spontaneously(sort of) is with Quantum mechanics.

The argument, is not wether or not we can “prove” how it all happened. The point is, we do not know.

And no order has ever “spontaneously” come from disorder. It took a great deal of time, and followed some very basic rules at the start from what we know and ended up with the complexity we have today.

Well, since most Jews were expecting a warrior savior because of their own misperceptions on God’s intent if they were just making it up, the Gospel would look a lot different. The fulfillment of the prophesies only became obvious after the fact after Jesus explained them in the context of God’s love for all people. Furthermore, Jesus life was very public. The gospels were written during the lifetimes of many wittnesses to those events. They couldn’t credibly just make things up. Nor would men be willing to die for things they knew to be lies. And virtually all the New Testament writers were martyred.

Does it not cross your mind that the gospels might have been written in accordance with the prophecies, not because that was actually Jesus’s life? If you want to reach the people of your culture with a message, what better way to do it than write it using the stories from that culture.

A book, cannot prove itself. And a skeptic, will not believe what they read, just because some-one tells them it happened.

It isn’t because they don’t “want” to, don’t make that mistake. It’s becaue truth is too important to them, to just believe what they are told no matter how wonderful the story may be. They need it to be verified.

And the biographies of Jesus are far better testified than biographies of any one else of that period.

I think you’ll find that there is a lot of writings and knowlege about the first Buddha as well. I think you’ll find a lot of information about historical characters. Take a look at Egypt for example.

The understanding of the age of the gospels, and who wrote them comes from the Gospels themselves not any external evidence, leaving it completely up to the interpretation and knowlege of the historian and any pre-concieved bias they may have.

Furthermore, as mentioned above , they were in wide circulation during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses who could have come forward and testified otherwise. In actuality, what few secular accounts exist tend to say that Jesus was regarded as a miracle worker.

There is absolutely no evidence of this. There aren’t even any documents that still exist that were written during that time.

There were 70,000 people at Fatima when the Miracle of the Sun happened, including plenty of Athiests. When 70,000 people make a claim, it is quite verifiable.

Were the number of people at Fatima actually counted? Why do you think there were 70,000? Because you were “TOLD” there was? This is a common claim made, but when you actually try and search for the evidence of so called “athiests” seeing a miracle, what you find is just more articles making the same claim.

What you also find is a wealth of photographers and other individuals who were there, and claim nothing happened.

How does evolution explain the human condition. And just as the Big Bang is a theory, so is evolution.

Big bang is a Theory.

Evolution is not a theory. The “Theory” of evolution, is natural selection. You are using the world theory incorrectly.

And what do you mean by the “human condition”. Self-awaness?

Niether are denied by the Catholic Church, by the way. How did evolution begin ?

How did inanimate objects suddenly get the spark of life?

We do not know.

How did man develop consciences and reason? Have you been the math of evolution? How long would it take statiscally for all the we experience to be created through mutation and they to become prevalent through natural selection?

There is nothing wrong with the “math” behind evolution, it IS complex but explainable.

This is called the God of the Gaps and will not convince a skeptic of anything.

Its a convenient theory, but you can’t prove one thing you said above in any scientific way. If you can, go to it. continued.

Convenient? Why would you say that?

I’m not a scientist, so now I’m not the one proving it. There are however a myriad of scientific journals, books, video tapes and magazines out there that can give you the knowlege you require and the proofs you are looking for.

Human beings want to know how we got here. It is understandable. Creating a hypothesis about a super being, is also understandable.

Calling that hypothesis truth is dishonest. It is still and will alway’s be a hypothesis, because it is not verifiable.

I’m sorry to say, but these arguments won’t really lead anywhere for the skeptic.

I can tell you though, that there HAVE been arguments, that have made me question. But it’s none of the above

 

[Dameedna]

.
First of all, there have been plenty of thinking non-believers, who have changed their minds and embraced God and the Catholic Church. Many of them are on this board regularly. You shouldn’t think of believers as ignorant people, that just shows your bias.

There are plenty of ignorant believers, just as there are plenty of ignorant non-believers. This is not bias. Crumbs, I’ll admit to a fair degree of ignorance about most subjects.

I will say, that I think there are different kinds of non-believers(I can generalize them into 2 different groups, but that is just a generalization).

As for bad things in life, I believe that life is a test to see whether we will seek God and do his will or whether we reject him, doing what we want instead. We are tested with good things (do we share them) and bad things (do we resent them). Everyone has both kinds of tests constantly in their lives. Ultimate success is doing God’s will (loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself) . God gives you everything you need to be successful, but he also gives you free will and you need to choose your own way. The first step is to have faith in him, the second is to do his will. When you fail to do so, he offers a way to be reconciled through the sacrament of penance, because God wants us all to be saved. We just have to cooperate.

Yes, I’ve heard this all before. But it won’t convince a skeptic of anything, and I thought the point of the post, was to find out a way to get them to think about religion differently.

I don’t think this is it for the athiests/skeptics.

 

[Dameedna]

Consider this. If are you going to discount books that claims that eyewitness saw things as meaningless (because book authors can claim anything) you are not going to believe much of anything that happened before you were born. Once you realize that most of your historical views are based on what books claim you may want to soften your stance unless you want to admit almost all history is simply “meaningless” claims.

Do you believe that Buddah truthfully discovered that humans are re-incarnated? This was the claim he made. Do you believe the Pharoahs claims that they were Gods? They did write about it(in a manner of speaking)

I don’t think historical writings are completely meaningless and a lot of them will hold an element of truth. However, the further back you go in time, the more ignorant the human population was and the more important it is, to understand the culture they were living in and the knowlege they had about the world at large… I have no doubt, that a lot of people back then believed what they were saying.

Think about it for just a moment. Can you imagine seeing a plague, without any knowlege of virus’s or bacteria? What about rain? Lightning? Thunder? Without understanding the foundation of nature as we do today, pretty much everything , was a miracle, and anything was possible.

And no, I don’t believe by default, any historical claims. I have been in new’s stories myself, and have seen how the truth can be completely twisted regarding an event that happened yesterday, let alone something, that happened 3000 years ago.

We do still have to base our lives on some history however, so we make choices about what we think is the most realistic evaluation.

When the historical analysis used to by those looking at ancient texts is applied to the New Testament they hold up quite well.

This depends on the historian and theologian. The Gospels, hold up terribly if they are to be taken as literal events, according to many scholars.

Hence I think one must in the end conclude that the New Testament documents provide at least some evidence for what they claim.

I do think, that Jesus was a real man. And I do think, that something happened and yes with almost no excpetions theologians, historians and biblican scholars would agree.

We can argue about whether they provide allot of evidence or a little bit of evidence. But that argument I think would be about as fruitful as arguing whether a mile is long distance or a short distance.

No actually it is the point. It is the very essence of the debate. How much of it is true, given our knowlege of jewish writing techniques, the culture, the understanding people had and the stories themselves.

This IS the argument, for christianity.

The argument for God, is completely different.

The important point is that it be fairly unreasonable to claim that the NT books contain “no evidence” for the truth of Christianity.

It is not unreasonable at all. A book, can only be interpreted. It cannot be used as “evidence” for anything, especially when it is 2000+ years old.

This is probably quite difficult for some people to believe, but those of us who don’t accept the bible, are not doing so, because we would not like it to be true.(for the most part).

But we realize, that what we want…doesn’t matter when it comes to truth.

 

[Dameedna]

I think I’ve derailed the thread a bit.

The original post was asking how does one try and get some-one thinking about God and perhaps even believing in the christian story.

I invited the opportunity to debate it, but that was with the goal of the OP in mind not just a wandering meaningless debate.

So out of respect for the OP, if you would like to head down that path WITH one who understands the athiest, I can try and follow up your argument, with what I think may be a better way to approach it.

The reason I think that I may be able to help, is because I am no longer an athiest, I am agnostic and very occasionally, I have come across ideas that made me think differently, despite my extreme degree of skepticism about all things “religious”.

It took about 3 years to get from militant athiesm to agnosticism(and yes they are very different mind sets) so for those that are in the group of skeptics I belong to, it is a very slow process.

Let me know if you’d prefer I don’t respond as you may be looking for something different. That’s fine, I’ll refrain.

Cheers
Dame

 

[redhen]

Statment: Don’t you FEEL a desire for truth and a yearning for Gods love?

Argument: My desire for truth is a result of my biology. I evolved to be a problem solver and tool maker because it enhances my survivability. I have a yearning for Love, because it is these “chemicals” in my brain that make me and other’s feel good and encourages us as a weaker animal species to work together. This enhances our survival.

Response:

Its a convenient theory, but you can’t prove one thing you said above in any scientific way. If you can, go to it. continued.

You haven’t looked into sociobiology at all, have you? As for the chemicals in the brain Dameedna refers to, one of them is the neurotransmitter en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin and another is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasopressin , both of which are associated with *adult *pair-bonding.

I still think the 500 pound gorilla in the room is the delayed parousia. I raised this problem before, and the conclusion was that the apostles were just over eager for the return and misinterpreted the sayings of Jesus. Instead of the physical second-coming, what they got was the* Kingdom of God*.

Still, the fact that the apostles and early Christians got something so important, so wrong, does not bode well.

Here’s some info from the earlier thread:

newadvent.org/bible/1jo002.htm

18 Little children, it is the last hour: and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour.

newadvent.org/bible/mar008.htm

39 And he said to them: Amen I say to you that there are some of them that stand here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God coming in power.

newadvent.org/bible/mat016.htm

27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works. 28 Amen I say to you, there are some of them that stand here, that shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

newadvent.org/bible/luk009.htm

27 But I tell you of a truth: There are some standing here that shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God.

Apparently it was a big issue to the author of 2 Peter. The author devoted a large part of this letter as an apology and explanation for the delayed parousia.

usccb.org/nab/bible/2peter/intro.htm

“the principal problem exercising the author is the false teaching of “scoffers” who have concluded from the delay of the parousia that the Lord is not going to return. This could scarcely have been an issue during the lifetime of Simon Peter.” (the point being made is that the author of this document was not Peter)

So it seems that believers and unbelievers both understood the teachings of Jesus to include his imminent return. When that did not occur, explanations had to be found.

This is all from forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=276054&highlight=parousia

 

[paul_c]

Dameedna,

Back on Post 6 of this thread, in response to my discussion on order and energy, you said:

I’m not sure how many athiests you’ve been around but it’s a very common argument and is pretty easily refuted these days. It might work with certain non-believers, but a skeptic would not by default draw a “something happened, therefore it’s God” conclusion. They are too honest for that.

But when I asked you to explain how you would refute the argument,

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Okay, what ARE your arguments that demonstrate how order can spontaneously come from disorder and how energy and power were created spontaneously. There are no known examples of these things in science.

Your answer was:

The only thing that comes close to something occuring spontaneously, IE coming into existance spontaneously(sort of) is with Quantum mechanics.

The argument, is not wether or not we can “prove” how it all happened. The point is, we do not know.

And no order has ever “spontaneously” come from disorder. It took a great deal of time, and followed some very basic rules at the start from what we know and ended up with the complexity we have today.

Isn’t it clear from this exchange that I’ve given you a viable proof of the existence of God which you can not refute and for which you have no viable alternative? God CAN be found through reason…

 

[Dameedna]

Isn’t it clear from this exchange that I’ve given you a viable proof of the existence of God which you can not refute and for which you have no viable alternative? God CAN be found through reason…

No human being alive has ever given proof of a God.

And nothing you’ve said, is irrefutable.Nor can God be found through reason, only certain concepts can be found through reason and logic.

So not sure what you are trying to say sorry.

 

[paul_c]

No human being alive has ever given proof of a God.

And nothing you’ve said, is irrefutable.Nor can God be found through reason, only certain concepts can be found through reason and logic.

So not sure what you are trying to say sorry.

First of all, of course God’s existence can be ascertained through logic and reason. Its as simple as recognizing that something of greater energy and supreme intelligence must have started the universe, because nothing starts on its own and nothing increases energy in the universe, at best it is conserved. And anything that could order and entire universe has to be supremely intelligent. We call that prime mover and lawmaker God.

Secondly, I’m curious as to what would constitute proof of God’s existence. Are you willing to accept the fact that you can only discern God through his work, or do you need to physically touch Him? Because afterall, there are lots of things you believe in that you can neither see nor feel (like air).

Are you willing to accept another person’s word that they’ve seen God, or are you only willing to beleive what you’ve experienced yourself? Because afterall, you believe lots of things about lots of people that you have only heard about through other people.

Are you willing to accept that what was written about God by someone who lived years ago or does it have to be contemporary? Because afterall, you believe llots of things that happened long ago that are only accessible through books.

What represents a credible witness to you? Is it enough that other people you trust, believe it? Is it enough that the original authors were willing to die rather than recant what they wrote? Is it enough that not only one person was willing to die for what they wrote, but that many were williing to do so? (including all the NT authors, other than John - and he was exiled for what he wrote). Is it enough that even in modern times, miracles have occured proclaiming the same truths? Is it enough that 2000 years after the key events occured, there are an increasing number of beleivers (almost 2B?)

Or will there never be enough proof because your heart is completely hardened?

 

[cpayne]

Response:

You haven’t looked into sociobiology at all, have you? As for the chemicals in the brain Dameedna refers to, one of them is the neurotransmitter en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin and another is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasopressin , both of which are associated with *adult *pair-bonding.

I still think the 500 pound gorilla in the room is the delayed parousia. I raised this problem before, and the conclusion was that the apostles were just over eager for the return and misinterpreted the sayings of Jesus. Instead of the physical second-coming, what they got was the* Kingdom of God*.

Still, the fact that the apostles and early Christians got something so important, so wrong, does not bode well.

Here’s some info from the earlier thread:

newadvent.org/bible/1jo002.htm

18 Little children, it is the last hour: and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour.

newadvent.org/bible/mar008.htm

39 And he said to them: Amen I say to you that there are some of them that stand here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God coming in power.

newadvent.org/bible/mat016.htm

27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works. 28 Amen I say to you, there are some of them that stand here, that shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

newadvent.org/bible/luk009.htm

27 But I tell you of a truth: There are some standing here that shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God.

Apparently it was a big issue to the author of 2 Peter. The author devoted a large part of this letter as an apology and explanation for the delayed parousia.

usccb.org/nab/bible/2peter/intro.htm

“the principal problem exercising the author is the false teaching of “scoffers” who have concluded from the delay of the parousia that the Lord is not going to return. This could scarcely have been an issue during the lifetime of Simon Peter.” (the point being made is that the author of this document was not Peter)

So it seems that believers and unbelievers both understood the teachings of Jesus to include his imminent return. When that did not occur, explanations had to be found.

This is all from forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=276054&highlight=parousia

Again, this is sort of off the topic of the thread (my apologies), but the whole delayed parousia thing seems like it would be a problem only to someone accepting the futurist / dispensationalist view of prophecy.

Otherwise, the prophesied parousia did in fact occur and was not delayed. Jesus came in the clouds of judgment to Jerusalem in a.d. 70. (And Peter wrote 2 Peter before 70, so he was in fact still looking ahead to the parousia.

The resurrection of the dead is still future. But that’s not a delayed parousia in the sense being discussed, I think.

 

[joemccarron]

I think I’ve derailed the thread a bit.

Cheers
Dame

I don’t think you have. The thread is a broad one and you raise many issues that many non-believers raise. I have thought long and hard about many of the issues you raise. I will post some responses when I have time. I hope you take them to heart and think about them when I do.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[paul_c]

I think I’ve derailed the thread a bit.

The original post was asking how does one try and get some-one thinking about God and perhaps even believing in the christian story.

I invited the opportunity to debate it, but that was with the goal of the OP in mind not just a wandering meaningless debate.

So out of respect for the OP, if you would like to head down that path WITH one who understands the athiest, I can try and follow up your argument, with what I think may be a better way to approach it.

The reason I think that I may be able to help, is because I am no longer an athiest, I am agnostic and very occasionally, I have come across ideas that made me think differently, despite my extreme degree of skepticism about all things “religious”.

It took about 3 years to get from militant athiesm to agnosticism(and yes they are very different mind sets) so for those that are in the group of skeptics I belong to, it is a very slow process.

Let me know if you’d prefer I don’t respond as you may be looking for something different. That’s fine, I’ll refrain.

Cheers
Dame

Actually, this is very useful because it gives us a sense of how a skeptic thinks, without all the vitriole that usually accompanies it. Thank you. Would you mind sharing what took you from militant athiesm to agnosticism and what ideas are making you think that maybe there is more? I realize that different things appeal to different people so what works for you might not be beneficial to someone else but it will help us learn. I’d also be interested in what arguments really turn you off and why. Are you willing to share to this level?

 

[MegaTherion]

I’m another non-believer (atheist). I hope dameedna doesn’t mind if I take a crack at answering a few of these points.

First of all, of course God’s existence can be ascertained through logic and reason. Its as simple as recognizing that something of greater energy and supreme intelligence must have started the universe, because nothing starts on its own and nothing increases energy in the universe, at best it is conserved. And anything that could order and entire universe has to be supremely intelligent. We call that prime mover and lawmaker God.

What we know is that 14 billion years ago, the universe existed as a singularity. It began to rapidly expand, giving rise to time and space.

Humans have no idea what came before this expansion or what caused it or if it even makes sense to speak of “causality” before there was time. If there was a cause, we don’t know if it was natural, supernatural, or if the cause was even around.

So I don’t hold any particular beliefs about how the universe “started.” If you make a claim that some supernatural “intelligence” exists, you would need to justify it with evidence. I define evidence as independently verifiable data.

Secondly, I’m curious as to what would constitute proof of God’s existence. Are you willing to accept the fact that you can only discern God through his work, or do you need to physically touch Him? Because afterall, there are lots of things you believe in that you can neither see nor feel (like air).

Anything that exists in the objective world manifests in some way. And if something manifests, there is evidence of it, independently verifiable data.

Something that is actually real exists for everybody (not just for me), regardless of belief. My computer exists, and it can be verified by anybody. You don’t need to “believe” in my computer in order to see it.

So what evidence would I accept for the existence of a god (any god, not just yours)? The same kind of evidence I would accept for anything that exists.

Are you willing to accept another person’s word that they’ve seen God, or are you only willing to beleive what you’ve experienced yourself? Because afterall, you believe lots of things about lots of people that you have only heard about through other people.

The way that skepticism works is that a skeptic naturally examines more closely those claims which are questionable. If you claim that you own a car, I would probably take your word for it because that’s a pretty mundane claim. If you claim you own a purple dragon, I wouldn’t take your word for it. I’d want to not only see the dragon, but make sure that many other people can see and study the dragon (and I’d want to make sure that you’re not fooling me or something like that).

So if you claim that you know a guy named Bob who works at a car wash, I would accept that claim. If you claimed you knew a celebrity, I’d be a bit skeptical and want to see some evidence. If you claimed you knew three world leaders, I’d want to see some really convincing evidence! (To make sure you’re not imagining the experience)

Look at it another way: if someone claimed to know the Hindu gods personally, would you automatically believe him and become a Hindu? Why not?

Are you willing to accept that what was written about God by someone who lived years ago or does it have to be contemporary? Because afterall, you believe llots of things that happened long ago that are only accessible through books.

History is a well-developed human science that relies on quite a bit of evidence. We know some things more surely than others. For example, we know that most of the events of George Washington’s life are true, but that the “cherry tree” story is probably a myth (there’s no corroborating evidence of it, it’s too self-serving, etc.)

These things are not “only accessible through books.” If you wanted to, you could personally examine all of the evidence that Washington existed (including documents written by him and by his contemporaries about him, including enemies!).

As you probably know, there’s not a single eye-witness account of Jesus or anything he wrote personally. The Gospels were not written by the actual apostles – they were at best written by followers of (or followers of followers of) men who might have been the apostles from the stories. They were written many, many decades after the events supposedly happened.

Now, it is possible that a man named Jesus existed, but there is no evidence to make the claims about him you make.

And if you’re talking about other parts of the Bible like world creation myths, the Bible carries no more weight than Hindu creation stories.

It doesn’t matter how many people believe it or how inspiring the story is – none of that has anything to do with its truth. To demonstrate that, you need actual evidence.

And since there is none, there will always be non-believers. Unless someone can actually produce evidence.

 

[cpayne]

As you probably know, there’s not a single eye-witness account of Jesus or anything he wrote personally. The Gospels were not written by the actual apostles – they were at best written by followers of (or followers of followers of) men who might have been the apostles from the stories. They were written many, many decades after the events supposedly happened.

If I were to make such sweeping claims, I would want to be sure I had first read a few contrary accounts, such as Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham.

 

[survive]

As you probably know, there’s not a single eye-witness account of Jesus or anything he wrote personally. The Gospels were not written by the actual apostles – they were at best written by followers of (or followers of followers of) men who might have been the apostles from the stories. They were written many, many decades after the events supposedly happened.

Now, it is possible that a man named Jesus existed, but there is no evidence to make the claims about him you make.

Actually, in the past 50 years or so, we’ve gained a lot of evidence that the Gospels were written by the Apostles. It is now more probable than not that they all were. Even if somehow against the odds none was, we do know they circulated quickly among people who knew the Apostles and had been in Jerusalem and all over Galilee at the time of the Gospel events. There are no challenges or contradictions in circulation. If there was some Danbrownesque massively successful campaign to eliminate the evidence of contrary claims, then it would have to have been history’s most efficient and speedy coverup given the circumstances. That is an extraordinary claim.
If I receive an invitation to dinner with the heads of state of three countries and you see the invitation, and I ride away from your house in a limo surrounded by guards, and you know I am an international political analyst for a magazine, if I say I know three heads of state, that is no longer an extraordinary claim, but a reasonable and expectable one. If you say that instead I forged the invitation on equipment I obviously have no room for at home, spent my own money on the limo and escort and faked my whole career by planting magazines in store racks just before you get to stores, that is an extraordinary claim.