Atheist conversion

[JulieAA]

Um, well, I’m just working this out in my own mind as I type, so be kind with me. Atheists or skeptics or whatever rely on evidence, right? I mean, to accept something as being real, they use the scientific method which means that something has to be repeatable and testable. It can’t just be a one time thing like an appearance, because you couldn’t test that to see if it was real and you couldn’t repeat that. It could be mental illness.

So, if all of the double blind experiments ever done to see if prayer worked showed that it did, that would be good evidence of a supernatural. If all of the experiments ever done to see if those that prayed to the Christian God as opposed to any other had better outcomes, that would be good evidence that Christianity is true vs. any other religion.

But that is not what has happened. There have been a lot of studies that have shown that prayer works and a lot of studies that show that it doesn’t. And both sides point to the studies that agree with what they expected. That’s not convincing evidence for an atheist.
I’m sure there would be better examples, but I’m just brainstorming here.

Hi Sadie,

I hear everything from “sky daddy”, etc., from my atheist friends. They believe in only what they can see and touch for themselves. They put no faith in anyone other than themselves; therefore, they consider themselves “gods” in their own right. To get them to pray would be a great leap indeed; however, they do not believe there is anyone to pray to for this. They believe in the OT “bad judgmental god”.

 

[sadiebelle]

Hi Sadie,

I hear everything from “sky daddy”, etc., from my atheist friends. They believe in only what they can see and touch for themselves. They put no faith in anyone other than themselves; therefore, they consider themselves “gods” in their own right. To get them to pray would be a great leap indeed; however, they do not believe there is anyone to pray to for this. They believe in the OT “bad judgmental god”.

I don’t have a lot of atheist friends, but don’t atheists believe in a lot of things that they can’t see and touch? I mean, they believe in, like, gravity and stuff because gravity always works and can be tested. They believe in black holes and the motion of the planets because they’ve been convinced by scientists that they have evidence for them, right?

And I wasn’t saying that they would need to pray, but that studies could be done where other people pray. I know studies like that have been done before.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Give us some evidence that can be repeated under laboratory conditions, and then we’ll talk.

And there’s the rub-God cannot be made reasonably probable through a laboratory experiment or using empirical evidence. To figure out whether or not God exists the religious use logic and logical proofs, not scientific experiments.

If atheists won’t accept the logical proofs as real evidence, well, barring a miracle (always a possibility) the atheist won’t be convinced.

 

[AntiTheist]

[Atheists] believe in only what they can see and touch for themselves.

What a silly idea. I believe in what evidence justifies, regardless of whether I can see and touch it personally. I cannot see or touch electrons for myself, but the evidence convinces me that they are real.

They put no faith in anyone other than themselves; therefore, they consider themselves “gods” in their own right.

You appear to be using entirely new definitions of the words “faith,” “gods,” and “therefore.”

 

[AntiTheist]

And there’s the rub-God cannot be made reasonably probable through a laboratory experiment or using empirical evidence.

So if this god does not manifest in a measurable way, what convinces you that this god is real?

If atheists won’t accept the logical proofs as real evidence

The problem is that I could use a logical proof to demonstrate that unicorns are real or that the Hindu gods are real.

Logical proofs need to be both valid and sound, and that means that it is very possible to construct a valid argument that is not based in reality. Logic must be grounded in evidence in order to be sound.

 

[sadiebelle]

And there’s the rub-God cannot be made reasonably probable through a laboratory experiment or using empirical evidence. To figure out whether or not God exists the religious use logic and logical proofs, not scientific experiments.

If atheists won’t accept the logical proofs as real evidence, well, barring a miracle (always a possibility) the atheist won’t be convinced.

It sounds like you’re right. If God cannot be proven through empirical evidence, I don’t know that you can convince an atheist.

Hmmm. This gives me a lot to think about. Would you care to explain why you think that God can’t be proven through an experiment? No pressure, I’m just trying to work all of this out for myself.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

So if this god does not manifest in a measurable way, what convinces you that this god is real?

Logic.

The problem is that I could use a logical proof to demonstrate that unicorns are real or that the Hindu gods are real.

I’ve seen several logical proofs that try and do just what you’ve described and they all seemed very flawed to me.

Logical proofs need to be both valid and sound, and that means that it is very possible to construct a valid argument that is not based in reality. Logic must be grounded in evidence in order to be sound.

Agreed. Nothing in the logical proofs, even if they’re valid, can contradict any actual scientificly proven evidence.

Before you try and debate me, I will politely decline a debate. I’m not a philosopher or a sceintist. I was merely making an observation.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

It sounds like you’re right. If God cannot be proven through empirical evidence, I don’t know that you can convince an atheist.

Hmmm. This gives me a lot to think about. Would you care to explain why you think that God can’t be proven through an experiment? No pressure, I’m just trying to work all of this out for myself.

God is outside of what sceintists term the “time-space continuum”. So although he does influence us, he is not physically here and does cannot be empirically proven. Even the Holy Spirit, though present on Earth, is a spirit and is not PHYSICALLY present.

 

[sadiebelle]

God is outside of what sceintists term the “time-space continuum”. So although he does influence us, he is not physically here and does cannot be empirically proven. Even the Holy Spirit, though present on Earth, is a spirit and is not PHYSICALLY present.

Ok, please be patient with me or tell me you’re not in the mood to educate someone new to philosophy if I’m bugging you. But, even if something is not physically present, you could still prove it’s effects, I think. Like positive thought, maybe. You could prove that thinking positive thoughts could either effect your blood pressure or something either positively or negatively. And thoughts aren’t physical things but can be tested.

I’m not sure what the time-space continuum is, so maybe I’m way off, but why couldn’t a test like one of the ones I mentioned in a previous post be done? I’m still not sure why God can’t be proven.

 

[JulieAA]

Ok, please be patient with me or tell me you’re not in the mood to educate someone new to philosophy if I’m bugging you. But, even if something is not physically present, you could still prove it’s effects, I think. Like positive thought, maybe. You could prove that thinking positive thoughts could either effect your blood pressure or something either positively or negatively. And thoughts aren’t physical things but can be tested.

I’m not sure what the time-space continuum is, so maybe I’m way off, but why couldn’t a test like one of the ones I mentioned in a previous post be done? I’m still not sure why God can’t be proven.

God can be proven…through faith; however, this is one element an atheist does not possess, but could, if they desired. The problem…they do not desire to know Him as that would make them accountable in their life through their choices. They acknowledge one god…themselves. They want believers to “convince and prove to them” that God exists. All that is needed is an open mind and heart and a genuine desire to know Him. If they do not seek Him and refuse to listen to the truth, then that is their choice. Atheists on this site can never, ever stand before God and tell him “I did not know, nor did I understand”. Many have told them how to find God and, for whatever reason they hold in their hearts, they have become a “stiff-necked” people. Pray and pray unceasingly for their souls that God, in His Divine Mercy, may soften their hearts. Many think of us as “fools”…so be it. Many saints and prophets were told the exact same thing…read Paul.

 

[sadiebelle]

God can be proven…through faith; however, this is one element an atheist does not possess, but could, if they desired.

Now, this, I understand. However, the conversation was about how to convert an atheist. And I said that you might be able to do it with empirical evidence. A previous poster said that God cannot be proven with empircal evidence and I’m still not understanding why.

All that is needed is an open mind and heart and a genuine desire to know Him. If they do not seek Him and refuse to listen to the truth, then that is their choice.

Again, I don’t know a lot of atheists, but those that I do know were all seemingly devout Catholics before they left the church. I don’t know that it is fair to say that these people didn’t have a genuine desire to know Him. It seems that they did. And in our conversations they say that they did want to believe. Some still do, and miss church very much. It doesn’t seem fair or charitable to lump all atheists in on big “I don’t want to know God” group.

 

[JulieAA]

Now, this, I understand. However, the conversation was about how to convert an atheist. And I said that you might be able to do it with empirical evidence. A previous poster said that God cannot be proven with empircal evidence and I’m still not understanding why.

Empirical evidence is proven or observed…how do you “prove” God without faith?

Again, I don’t know a lot of atheists, but those that I do know were all seemingly devout Catholics before they left the church. I don’t know that it is fair to say that these people didn’t have a genuine desire to know Him. It seems that they did. And in our conversations they say that they did want to believe. Some still do, and miss church very much. It doesn’t seem fair or charitable to lump all atheists in on big “I don’t want to know God” group

.

I also have atheist friends who were once Catholic or Evangelical. What I have witnessed in their lives is that at one time or another "God either did something (in their minds and hearts) or did not do something (in their minds and hearts) according to what they have ask Him to do for them., i.e., prayed for a child’s recovery…prayed for a good job, etc.

 

[sadiebelle]

Empirical evidence is proven or observed…how do you “prove” God without faith?

Well, that’s my question. We’re talking about how to convert atheists who don’t have faith. So, is the answer that you cannot convert atheists? That seems to be the conclusion that someone else on this thread came to. I’m having a problem with that answer. But I can’t exactly explain why right now.

I also have atheist friends who were once Catholic or Evangelical. What I have witnessed in their lives is that at one time or another "God either did something (in their minds and hearts) or did not do something (in their minds and hearts) according to what they have ask Him to do for them., i.e., prayed for a child’s recovery…prayed for a good job, etc.

See, that’s just not my experience. My atheist friends seem to have found that there was no empirical evidence and so they couldn’t accept any God. Maybe they were reasoned out of faith, but I can’t see how they could be “reasoned in”. I really have never experienced any “angry at God” atheists. Of course, that’s probably not saying much as I know a total of about 4 atheists.

 

[StevenFrancis]

How would you go about converting an atheist to christianity in particular? What arguments could you use to show that Christianity is the truth?

We don’t convert people. God does this. My wife was atheist. I convinced her to go to mass. I didn’t argue with her. I answered questions to the best of my knowledge. I prayed for her. The Holy Spirit took it from there. She found herself sitting right beside me in RCIA, and we were brought into God’s Church on the same beautiful Easter vigil.

All we can do is tell the truth that we have learned to others, and live our life in humble obedience of Jesus. Others will see, but we shouldn’t be putting on a show, or any kind of aires. Just be obedient to Christ. Walk with love, and others are bound to be interested. Then simply answer their questions truthfully. Direct them to the proper source if you don’t know how. Then finally, and this is the most important part of all!!!

PRAY!!

Pray always for conversions,

Peace,

Steven

 

[sadiebelle]

We don’t convert people. God does this. My wife was atheist. I convinced her to go to mass. I didn’t argue with her. I answered questions to the best of my knowledge. I prayed for her. The Holy Spirit took it from there. She found herself sitting right beside me in RCIA, and we were brought into God’s Church on the same beautiful Easter vigil.

All we can do is tell the truth that we have learned to others, and live our life in humble obedience of Jesus. Others will see, but we shouldn’t be putting on a show, or any kind of aires. Just be obedient to Christ. Walk with love, and others are bound to be interested. Then simply answer their questions truthfully. Direct them to the proper source if you don’t know how. Then finally, and this is the most important part of all!!!

PRAY!!

Pray always for conversions,

Peace,

Steven

I really like your take on this, Steven.

 

[Desertsailor]

Why don’t the atheists argue with Albert Einstein. He said the universe moves; therefore, there must be a prime mover. Who is the prime mover?

 

[Desertsailor]

Here’s St. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs of God. I’d like to see someone prove St. Thomas wrong. Saying “I don’t believe,” won’t prove him wrong.

St. Thomas Aquinas:
The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.

Argument Analysis of the Five Ways
The First Way: Argument from Motion

Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

Therefore nothing can move itself.

Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.

The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

Nothing exists prior to itself.

Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.

Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.

Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.

Assume that every being is a contingent being.

For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.

Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.

Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.

Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).

The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.

Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

Most natural things lack knowledge.

But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.

Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm

 

[mo2169]

The best atheist argument is that there is absolutely zero evidence that any gods of any kind exist.

Ok - although I see along trail of evidence passed through the times and written all over the place, if you say there is no evidence…ok…your 2 cents…(let’s leave this subject one alone for now - pls see next post)

The diversity of life on this planet is not the result of “chance,” but rather the result of the well-understood process of natural selection, which is not random (involving, as it does, “selection” via environmental pressures).

Ok, now YOU have to give me some proof - This is when it becomes a challenge for you to prove to us (readers) how can this ridiculous ‘process of natural selection’ be true.

I have watched many debates on this subject and have yet to find one that can give me the proof I need. For the most part (in my experience), the ‘natural selection’ argument always turns into an attack on God - There’s never a time where reasonable, detailed and specific facts are put in place and it all actually makes sense. Most of the time the big words come out and it all becomes lost to the speaker and the audience.

so…God is not the subject…
Give me some proof (or explanations) as to how a ‘cell’ can generate into various forms throughout billions of years and start off as a mouse/rat, then eventually turn into a monkey/bird/dinosaur and at some point turn into a man. Let’s leave God out of this for now.

One more question:
I fully understand how Christianity does struggle answering questions of only around 2000 years ago; BUT PLEASE explain how today’s ‘brilliant man’ can come up with predictions of 2 Billion years ago and have so many people believe (some without even questioning) - Let’s see some proof behind those exact timeframes…

Please enlighten me.

No disrespect intended - Just trying to understand and learn your point of views…

 

[sadiebelle]

Why don’t the atheists argue with Albert Einstein. He said the universe moves; therefore, there must be a prime mover. Who is the prime mover?

I’ve never heard that quote. I would assume that folks that don’t believe in God would have a problem with Einstein’s assertion that there must be a prime mover. I’m not sure how that adds to this particular conversation, though.

 

[Desertsailor]

I’ve never heard that quote. I would assume that folks that don’t believe in God would have a problem with Einstein’s assertion that there must be a prime mover. I’m not sure how that adds to this particular conversation, though.

The Prime Mover is God. See the above quote from St. Thomas Aquinas.