Atheist friend said something that devastated me

[Cat_Herder]

Indeed. That’s why I generally chuckle when I hear Catholics loudly and proudly proclaim that they worship the one true god and that no one can prove other wise. This of course is known as “sophisticated theology”.

No, it’s called reason.

It’s pretty easy to figure out that there is one God based on the fact that the universe had a beginning, an the universe is infinitely expanding, that time and the expansion or entropy of the universe are the same thing, that (as scientism requires) everything that exists in time has a cause and that energy only flows from greater to lesser. Put the pieces together and you have an Uncaused Cause of the universe Who is outside of time and has more than infinite energy. And we know there is only one such Cause because the result of dividing the energy in the universe over the energy it took to create the universe gives you the number of causes, which is 1.

But then you ask, how do we know that this Uncaused Cause is a personal God?

Atheism and polytheism are already out of the question based on science and math alone, so what remains is the group of religions that holds there to be one God, personal or impersonal: Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Deism.

Now look at history. Judaism stacks up: scientists tell us that there was an Exodus, a Kingdom of Israel, and a series of conquests and dispersion thereof that left a praetor named Pontius Pilate in charge of the Jerusalem area at the time of Jesus of Nazareth. So everything turns on Who Jesus is–if He is that Uncaused Cause incarnate, then the other religions are incomplete versions of Christianity, and we are absolutely right in claiming to worship the one true God.

So let’s prove it. After Jesus was crucified, we proudly proclaim that He did something that only God can do–rise from the dead. An atheist denies that, just as the Jews and pagan Romans of the time all did. In fact, both groups took up arms against the fledgling Christians. Secular historians recount the Roman persecutions. The Romans were a superpower unrivaled. A century earlier they stomped out mighty Carthage and salted her fields. Unlike the Carthaginians, the Christians didn’t even fight back. Based on numbers, wealth, and force of arms, the Romans should have been able to exterminate all of the Christians. They had every reason to do so, since Caesar’s authority was premised on his supposedly being a god; if Jesus was God then Caesar was out of a job.

They couldn’t, and in the end, it was paganism that got exterminated. So why was it that as the blood of Christian martyrs soaked the Coliseum, more and more Romans renounced the divinity of Caesar to embrace the resurrection of Christ, forfeiting all of their rights and privileges under Roman law and facing the danger of persecution and death to do so? From an atheistic perspective, that is a completely irrational action, something that the citizens of the world’s greatest civilization would never do. But they did it, in droves. The blood of the martyrs was the seed of the Church.

The only way that Christianity could have been preserved and ultimately made to triumph was if God was actually behind it. And He was. There is no other possible conclusion.

But that is all logic and reasoning. If you want the whole story, you will just have to taste and see for yourself.

 

[manualman]

To that, I answered something like: “Well, actually I’m no one to judge anyone. But if you were to know better about something, and you knew that your knowledge is the right one, it certainly would be better if you told me what is right and what is wrong. What if my view on fornication is the right one? There can not be ‘my’ truth and ‘your’ truth. If there would be multiple truths, they wouldn’t be true anymore. There can only be one single truth, regardless of what people think.”

That’s when the discussion started about what is true and what is not.

Then my atheist friend continued: “I could say that I am an the only true god, with the goal of making life hard for people. You wouldn’t be able to prove me wrong?”

Here’s where you went wrong. The proper christian response is as follows:

“Wow, that’s amazing. Tell you what. Go get yourself some followers, tick off the secular and religious powers of the status quo, get yourself executed, resurrect yourself and come on back. Then I’ll listen. Until then I’m sticking with the LAST guy that pulled it off.”

 

[Cat_Herder]

Indeed. That’s why I generally chuckle when I hear Catholics loudly and proudly proclaim that they worship the one true god and that no one can prove other wise. This of course is known as “sophisticated theology”.

No, it’s called reason.

It’s pretty easy to figure out that there is one God based on the fact that the universe had a beginning, an the universe is infinitely expanding, that time and the expansion or entropy of the universe are the same thing, that (as scientism requires) everything that exists in time has a cause and that energy only flows from greater to lesser. Put the pieces together and you have an Uncaused Cause of the universe Who is outside of time and has more than infinite energy. And we know there is only one such Cause because the result of dividing the energy in the universe over the energy it took to create the universe gives you the number of causes, which is 1.

But then you ask, how do we know that this Uncaused Cause is a personal God?

Atheism and polytheism are already out of the question based on science and math alone. Moreover, the fact that you live in a democracy and that you believe in justice is irrefutable proof of a God Who is personal enough to give you the inalienable right to be a Christian, or an atheist. So what remains is the group of religions that holds there to be one God, personal or impersonal: Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Deism.

Now look at history. Judaism stacks up: scientists tell us that there was an Exodus, a Kingdom of Israel, and a series of conquests and dispersion thereof that left a praetor named Pontius Pilate in charge of the Jerusalem area at the time of Jesus of Nazareth. So everything turns on Who Jesus is–if He is that Uncaused Cause incarnate, then the other religions are incomplete versions of Christianity, and we are absolutely right in claiming to worship the one true God.

So let’s prove it. After Jesus was crucified, we proudly proclaim that He did something that only God can do–rise from the dead. An atheist denies that, just as the Jews and pagan Romans of the time all did. In fact, both groups took up arms against the fledgling Christians. Secular historians recount the Roman persecutions. The Romans were a superpower unrivaled. Two centuries earlier, they stomped out mighty Carthage, and had since been consolidating their power. Unlike the Carthaginians, the Christians didn’t even fight back. Based on numbers, wealth, and force of arms, the Romans should have been able to exterminate all of the Christians. They had every reason to do so, since Caesar’s authority was premised on his supposedly being a god; if Jesus was God then Caesar was out of a job.

They couldn’t, and in the end, it was paganism that went extinct. So why was it that as the blood of Christian martyrs soaked the Coliseum, more and more Romans renounced the divinity of Caesar to embrace the resurrection of Christ, forfeiting all of their rights and privileges under Roman law and facing the danger of persecution and death to do so? From an atheistic perspective, that is a completely irrational action, something that the citizens of the world’s greatest civilization would never do. But they did it, in droves. The blood of the martyrs was the seed of the Church.

The only way that Christianity could have been preserved and ultimately made to triumph was if God was actually behind it. And He was. There is no other possible conclusion.

But that is all logic and reasoning. If you want the whole story, you will just have to taste and see for yourself.

 

[alias235]

Then my atheist friend continued: “I could say that I am an the only true god, with the goal of making life hard for people. You wouldn’t be able to prove me wrong?”

Well, for one thing, I wouldn’t worship your atheist friend if I could easily kill him with my own two hands. Don’t mean to be violent or anything, but I know that reason as a fact that he isn’t my God. His argument is just as invalid as that Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster I keep hearing about over the web.

In all honesty, this whole debate over the existence of God is really pointless. Immanuel Kant, a very respected philosopher for atheists (and I assume theists as well) said that there is no way to prove or disprove God.

Like many things in Christianity in general, its a matter of faith. If any atheist doesn’t want to take a leap of faith, that is their prerogative; but the bigoted atheists got to remember that it’s still my prerogative to believe in God.

 

[Cat_Herder]

In all honesty, this whole debate over the existence of God is really pointless. Immanuel Kant, a very respected philosopher for atheists (and I assume theists as well) said that there is no way to prove or disprove God.

I Kan’t go with Kant on that and neither should you. It is possible to prove up the existence of God from reason alone. The Bible says you can. The Catechism says you can. I just did.

The question is whether or not someone is willing to stop hurting themselves and to choose to be loved by God. No amount of philosophy or science or logic or anything else can make someone make that choice. They have to make the call and trust God to do the rest.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

ZoonCorp, it would be best to avoid talking about most moral issues with athiests (or agnostics for that matter.)

This is true. Avoid it at all costs. I am convinced that these people are channels for Satan when they argue such things.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Here’s where you went wrong. The proper christian response is as follows:

“Wow, that’s amazing. Tell you what. Go get yourself some followers, tick off the secular and religious powers of the status quo, get yourself executed, resurrect yourself and come on back. Then I’ll listen. Until then I’m sticking with the LAST guy that pulled it off.”

:clapping::bowdown:

 

[CEM5]

Here’s where you went wrong. The proper christian response is as follows:

“Wow, that’s amazing. Tell you what. Go get yourself some followers, tick off the secular and religious powers of the status quo, get yourself executed, resurrect yourself and come on back. Then I’ll listen. Until then I’m sticking with the LAST guy that pulled it off.”

Great response!! :clapping: :tiphat:

 

[alias235]

Here’s where you went wrong. The proper christian response is as follows:

“Wow, that’s amazing. Tell you what. Go get yourself some followers, tick off the secular and religious powers of the status quo, get yourself executed, resurrect yourself and come on back. Then I’ll listen. Until then I’m sticking with the LAST guy that pulled it off.”

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

In the words of famous atheist, what is advanced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Accordingly, your argument is without merit or relevance to the arguments for God’s existence.

Your ability to advance an argument without any evidence does not obligate me to consider it, anymore than I need give serious consideration to the ravings of any mentally disturbed person on a street corner. Accordingly, your assertion, or the maniac’s assertion, does not in any way diminish the arguments for the existence of God.

This is a common argument among young atheists on the Internet, by the way (google “I am god” + “you can’t prove I’m not!” and see how many hits you get.) I can only ascribe this to the decline in critical thinking skills taught to the young in the Internet age.

Indeed. That’s why I generally chuckle when I hear Catholics loudly and proudly proclaim that they worship the one true god and that no one can prove other wise. This of course is known as “sophisticated theology”.

By this criterion, objective reality itself, which includes your life and your personal experiences, is a raving man’s hallucination. It is a foregone conclusion that is accepted intuitively (but not scientifically) by most humans, including by individuals such as yourselves.

There is no test or experiment that you can conduct to prove that your life and all the people you know are not aspects of some delusion you are presently experiencing. Quite frankly you assent to objective reality because you know that humans cannot live without certain unproven assumptions. You take it for granted.

When a scientist is interviewed on a network news program saying that he has has proven x, you take his opinion for granted even without reviewing the experimental proofs or peer-reviewed literature. You make unproven assumptions every single day of your life, and you’d call a dissenter a madman for not assenting to them.

How do you know that astronauts walked on the moon? Were you there? Or have you just seen the famous footage?

Because that grainy film footage we’ve all seen is no more proof of the moon landing than Star Trek is proof that aliens exist. I assent to the moon landing, because I’m a reasonable human being, and I accept a great deal of things on faith. But conspiracy theorists are right about one thing: that footage could easily have been manufactured in a studio, painted black with dim lighting, a little sand, and some spacesuits, and yet we rightly marginalize such opinions.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

By this criterion, objective reality itself, which includes your life and your personal experiences, is a raving man’s hallucination. It is a foregone conclusion that is accepted intuitively (but not scientifically) by most humans, including by individuals such as yourselves.

There is no test or experiment that you can conduct to prove that your life and all the people you know are not aspects of some delusion you are presently experiencing. Quite frankly you assent to objective reality because you know that humans cannot live without certain unproven assumptions. You take it for granted.

When a scientist is interviewed on a network news program saying that he has has proven x, you take his opinion for granted even without reviewing the experimental proofs or peer-reviewed literature. You make unproven assumptions every single day of your life, and you’d call a dissenter a madman for not assenting to them.

How do you know that astronauts walked on the moon? Were you there? Or have you just seen the famous footage?

Because that grainy film footage we’ve all seen is no more proof of the moon landing than Star Trek is proof that aliens exist. I assent to the moon landing, because I’m a reasonable human being, and I accept a great deal of things on faith. But conspiracy theorists are right about one thing: that footage could easily have been manufactured in a studio, painted black with dim lighting, a little sand, and some spacesuits, and yet we rightly marginalize such opinions.

Correction: Apologies; I mischaracterized Arizona Mike’s assertion, and possibly cerad2’s however my point seems to stand, considering I can’t destroy the offending post. Sorry Mike and cerad2!

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Correction: Apologies; I mischaracterized Arizona Mike’s assertion, and possibly cerad2’s however my point seems to stand, considering I can’t destroy the offending post. Sorry Mike and cerad2!

No worries. I was commenting on the stupidity of the argument used by many atheists (“Prove I’m not God!”) I think we are in agreement.

 

[Link0126]

He’s an atheist so he’s already illogical. It doesn’t matter what they say to rebel against God and religion, they don’t even have a first cause. They have NO explanation for how anything exists at all. So, question one: total fail.

 

[cerad2]

He’s an atheist so he’s already illogical. It doesn’t matter what they say to rebel against God and religion, they don’t even have a first cause. They have NO explanation for how anything exists at all. So, question one: total fail.

Huh? No explanation? What thread are you reading?

I am the first cause. I did it. That explains everything.

And it is a far more reasonable explanation than God did it.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Huh? No explanation? What thread are you reading?

I am the first cause. I did it. That explains everything.

And it is a far more reasonable explanation than God did it.

Jump. You fall down. Gravity exists. It exists because of space time which exists because of the Big Bang. Effects have causes and the properties of the Bang are such that the cause can only be God, as I’ve already explained and you’ve ignored.

Since you gravitate you are subject to time and therefore you are not God. Go try to walk on water if you contest this.

 

[cerad2]

Jump. You fall down. Gravity exists. It exists because of space time which exists because of the Big Bang. Effects have causes and the properties of the Bang are such that the cause can only be God, as I’ve already explained and you’ve ignored.

Since you gravitate you are subject to time and therefore you are not God. Go try to walk on water if you contest this.

Just tried it though I’m usually not much for cheap tricks. Worked just fine.

 

[ZoonCorp]

Thank you for your answers everyone! It does feel much better now. I know in my heart that I have the one true faith and that I possess the true knowledge, but I still occasionally have to convince myself that I do indeed have the true faith. Maybe this is a test.

Feel free to continue the discussion if you wish, I enjoy reading all your replies. It gives me more reason to believe in the Truth.