Y
YosefYosep
Guest
What do you think are the toughest arguments for atheists? Personally I find the evidence for the Resurrection and the fine tuning of our universe to be some of the best.
- Status
E
edward_george
Guest
I think Aquinas’ Five Ways, if understood properly (i.e. in accord with Aquinas’ use of the terminology), are among the best arguments for the existence of God (or at least the necessity of the existence of God).
But I think an even better argument, as an argument against hard atheism, is one from “epistemological modesty,” we might call it. If you are an absolute atheist, i.e. you don’t just disbelieve in God, you affirm that there is no God (there is a difference there, albeit subtle–there’s a difference between saying “I do not believe in God” as a matter of personal belief and “There is no such thing as God” as a matter of objective, existential truth). This proves to be untenable by the simple fact that the human intellect is limited and could never have such knowledge, i.e. that there is no God according to what we might say is God (infinite, timeless, incomprehensible). To completely deny the existence of God, one must search everything that ever was, ever will be, and is now, at every level of its being, and find that nowhere among all of existence there is no God. However, it is not possible for man to do this–we can only know limited circumstances and a limited amount of knowledge. So a complete atheism as an existential statement of truth becomes logically untenable. One can refuse to believe in God (subjectively) but it is impossible for the statement “There is no God” to have truth value for man’s limited intellect.
-ACEGC
But I think an even better argument, as an argument against hard atheism, is one from “epistemological modesty,” we might call it. If you are an absolute atheist, i.e. you don’t just disbelieve in God, you affirm that there is no God (there is a difference there, albeit subtle–there’s a difference between saying “I do not believe in God” as a matter of personal belief and “There is no such thing as God” as a matter of objective, existential truth). This proves to be untenable by the simple fact that the human intellect is limited and could never have such knowledge, i.e. that there is no God according to what we might say is God (infinite, timeless, incomprehensible). To completely deny the existence of God, one must search everything that ever was, ever will be, and is now, at every level of its being, and find that nowhere among all of existence there is no God. However, it is not possible for man to do this–we can only know limited circumstances and a limited amount of knowledge. So a complete atheism as an existential statement of truth becomes logically untenable. One can refuse to believe in God (subjectively) but it is impossible for the statement “There is no God” to have truth value for man’s limited intellect.
-ACEGC
Q
Qwikness
Guest
Maybe martyrdom of the Apostles and their disciples, proving death meant nothing having witnessed the Resurrection and the willing sacrifice of those who had witnessed it.
R
R_C
Guest
A few basic things one has to remember that what we are nowadays acquainted with as Atheism is a religion based on faith in the nonexistence of God (faith, for there is no evidence for His nonexistence) born in its present form in the XVIII Century, after the French Revolution, especially promoted by new forms of thought as found in Feuerbach, Nietzsche, and Marx. Atheism was one of the basic propaganda weapons of the Soviet Union (see gosateizm, League of Militant Atheists), thus while we cannot blame the USSR for introducing militant atheism and antireligion in the US, certainly we can and must blame them for promoting them as a means to weaken society and lead to favorable conditions for the promotion of their ideology.
It must be also noted (focusing on the US for now) that at this stage only about 3-4% of the population follows this doctrine, and that it has the lowest retention rate of all religions: 33%.
It is of extreme importance to not confuse atheism with agnosticism (in which a person simply asserts that he does not know whether or not there is a God, without claiming that God does not exist) or antireligion (which anyways is closely linked in its development to atheism).
Some apologetics info here.
An interesting website here.
A book on the topic by the dean of theology at a Pontifical University.
Videos by Dr. William Lane Craig, well-known Christian apologist.
It must be also noted (focusing on the US for now) that at this stage only about 3-4% of the population follows this doctrine, and that it has the lowest retention rate of all religions: 33%.
It is of extreme importance to not confuse atheism with agnosticism (in which a person simply asserts that he does not know whether or not there is a God, without claiming that God does not exist) or antireligion (which anyways is closely linked in its development to atheism).
Some apologetics info here.
An interesting website here.
A book on the topic by the dean of theology at a Pontifical University.
Videos by Dr. William Lane Craig, well-known Christian apologist.
T
Theophorus
Guest
I have to say I think that the fact that there is something rather than nothing is the strongest argument for the existence of a supreme being, which we call God(cf the 5 ways of St Thomas mentioned above), arguments from revelation presuppose belief and I think that they are the weakest against atheists even if they tell us more about who God is.
While there has been an odd trend in redefining nothing as something the past few years the fact is that nothing can come from nothing, and from this starting point we can begin to ask what caused reality to begin to exist(I don’t think that modern experimental physics even begins to put a dent in this argument), and from here we can philosophically get to God as the uncaused cause, or unmoved mover.
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
I’ve always found the most convincing arguments are those akin to the “prime mover” or “first cause” arguments, especially the former (and something like the kalam argument is also good). The argument from morality is also powerful, I find, as denying it puts the atheist in a rather undesirable position.
Having said that, probably the best argument for an atheist to tackle is to actually read the NT and get to know Jesus. He’s a tough guy to turn away from!
Having said that, probably the best argument for an atheist to tackle is to actually read the NT and get to know Jesus. He’s a tough guy to turn away from!
C
Classicist
Guest
The greatest argument against atheism is Existence itself. There’s simply no reason for Eternal Nothingness to become Something. The very idea that Something just exploded from Nothing after an eternity of Nothingness is absolutely illogical and absurd.
Our Universe cannot be eternal, because all its components are temporal. It cannot be infinite, because all its components are material. Matter essentially needs another thing for it to exist - but if the whole Universe is material & energetic, it cannot have generated itself.
To simplify: the greatest argument against atheism is the atheist.
Our Universe cannot be eternal, because all its components are temporal. It cannot be infinite, because all its components are material. Matter essentially needs another thing for it to exist - but if the whole Universe is material & energetic, it cannot have generated itself.
To simplify: the greatest argument against atheism is the atheist.
S
snarflemike
Guest
Atheism does not explain the universe (why is there something rather than nothing). It falls back onto a Science of the Gaps argument to insist that “someday” science will tell us how the universe came about.
Atheism does not explain life. It falls back onto a Science of the Gaps argument to insist that “someday” science will tell us how life came about.
Atheism does not explain the human condition (why are we so different from all other life on earth, with our intellect and free will and moral sense - which we often go against - and our apparent built-in longing for something better, idyllic, unfallen). It falls back onto a Science of the Gaps argument to insist that “someday” science will tell us why humans are the way we are.
Atheism does not explain life. It falls back onto a Science of the Gaps argument to insist that “someday” science will tell us how life came about.
Atheism does not explain the human condition (why are we so different from all other life on earth, with our intellect and free will and moral sense - which we often go against - and our apparent built-in longing for something better, idyllic, unfallen). It falls back onto a Science of the Gaps argument to insist that “someday” science will tell us why humans are the way we are.
O
Offdoodykcrn
Guest
Many atheists state that people who believe in God are deluded, and they offer arguments of flying spaghetti monsters.
To say one is certain there is no God has as much hubris of those they accuse that believe in God. I have more respect for agnostics who say they just don’t know.
To say one is certain there is no God has as much hubris of those they accuse that believe in God. I have more respect for agnostics who say they just don’t know.
S
Steinway
Guest
The Intelligent Design arguments on this site are some of the best I’ve seen:
ArguingWithAtheists.com/Pages/Intelligent_Design.htm
ArguingWithAtheists.com/Pages/Intelligent_Design.htm
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
snarflemike, the idea of a “science of the gaps” is cute until you realize that science has an amazing track record of filling gaps in our knowledge. Does that mean that there conclusively is not a creator? Absolutely not. Does that mean that we will conclusively find answers to things like the origin of the universe and abiogenesis? Absolutely not. But to say that science may one day answer these and other problems is a logical fallacy on par with throwing up one’s hands and saying “God did it” is silly. It requires ignore how time and time and time again science has explained what was thought to be unexplainable.
Science is not perfect. It’s not something to be worshipped but it should be acknowledged and not dismissed for fear of what truth it might reveal.
Science is not perfect. It’s not something to be worshipped but it should be acknowledged and not dismissed for fear of what truth it might reveal.
S
snarflemike
Guest
First off, just to clarify, I’m very pro-science (my university degree and bookshelves will testify to this). My use of “Science of the Gaps” refers specifically to the notion that science can eventually explain something to the exclusion of God. This brings to mind Aquinas’ stick and stone argument. Yes, the stick moves the stone, but what moves the stick? Can the stick alone completely account for the movement of the stone? Is the stick the complete explanation for the movement of the stone?
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
Yeah, sorry to burst your bubble, but I know a few (meaning, more than five within my small sphere of acquaintances) who treat science in the manner described. They essentially say “God doesn’t exist, and science will prove it someday.” They are making an absolute assertion on “faith” in science. While it’s nice to see that you don’t, unfortunately there are many that do.
As a note, I to adore science. I watch documentaries about history, nature, space, etc. all the time. Science is awesome, and what we have discovered about our realm of existence is likewise awe-inspiring. While there are many protestants who fear science because their understanding of the Bible and God is incompatible with it, Catholics (at least those who study their faith) are not among that ilk. We Catholics adore science. Nothing can disprove God (science science is a gift of God, to allow us to understand His creation, and therefore better understand Him), so why shouldn’t we seek out knowledge wherever we can? You’ll find that some of the most zealous and dedicated scientists in history have been Catholic.
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
Fair enough, but pertaining to your first post is it possible that science could explain the origin of the universe or abiogenesis? I think they could, although even then that doesn’t eliminate the possibilty of a god. It would though measurably shrink the domain of God’s influence in the material world. Remember the Bible suggests (and I’ve had some people on CAF agree) that rainbows didn’t exist until after Noah’s flood, as if to say light didn’t refract from raindrops until that point. For most people the domain of God no longer includes rainbows.
S
snarflemike
Guest
I think “the domain of God” is to ambiguous. If God created atoms and photons and the rules of physics which govern refraction, how can it be said that rainbows are no longer the domain of God? At most what can be said is that explanation-as-miracle is no longer a tenable explanation (if it ever was).
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
There are some that do think that God can be disproven – although God is such a nebulous concept that it really can’t be. But you have to understand that where God was thought to explain so much, each time a new discovery is made that it shrinks the god-of-the-gaps that much more. It isn’t a fallacy to think that what lies ahead of us may be explained by science and reason as it has millions of times before.
I don’t think God can be disproven, but I’m confident that at no time will a gap in knowledge be filled by religion as opposed to science.
While obviously it can’t be said of each and every Catholic, I completely agree that Catholics as a whole are far more keen on science than other christian denominations.
I agree with that last statement as well, although for some it’s because they lived in a time when you were required to proclaim a Catholic (or in some cases any christian faith).
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
Yes, if God did create everything than everything is under his domain. But my point is that if you take the story literally (as some do) then the laws of physics acted differently before the flood and after the flood. In my opinion, the person or persons that wrote that portion of the bible had no knowledge and/or no concern to the fact that rainbows occurred naturally and would have occurred prior to Noah. It was used as a specific sign from God. We know now that they are not signs and what was once thought of as godly is now thoroughly explainable by science.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
First of all, since I abhor the God of the Gaps argument, I think it’s shrinking is a good thing. Secondly, just because science makes a discovery does not mean that discovery is removed from the domain of God, it only means that we now understand the mechanics behind the discovery. This no more removes God from the equation than my understanding how a game works removes the programmer. I believe that most things in the universe will eventually be known (assuming we’re around long enough). There are, however two things I don’t think will be. This has nothing to do with religion, I simply think we aren’t able to figure it out. #1: The origin of the universe. As we are in the universe, I don’t not think it’s possible to understand how the universe came into being. #2: The origin of life. We may be able to understand the required components (at least on the physical side of things), but I don’t think we’ll ever be able to comprehend the how however, if, through continued application of human ingenuity, we do come to understand these things, or anything else for that matter, it will do nothing to God, nor will it negate His existence.
You are limiting knowledge to a very thin sliver of the pie. There are all kinds of knowledge that science cannot truly touch. Science’s purpose is to understand the physical reality, and it does a very good job of it. Where it goes astray is when it starts trying to apply itself to things which are, by their nature, beyond the physical reality.
Good ^^
Not really. Even within those eras I believe you’re thinking of, there were many who chose not to identify as Catholics. There are many others, however, who *chose]/i] to identify as Catholic. There are many scientist today who see no discrepancies between their faith and their studies.
I would liek to point out that the passage you are referring to do not state taht God chose to only then create the rainbow, but rather that he declared it as a sign. While it could be interpreted that he only then formed the rainbow, that interpretation is not necessary.
[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 9:11-14[/BIBLEDRB]*
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
**Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
**
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
**
- Status