How do I convince an Atheist that God exists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gentle atheist

**Wow. And you claim that atheists have big egos. **

Yes. The ego that stands by itself is bigger than God … or thinks it is.

The ego that is submerged in God knows it is submerged … knows its own place in the order of things … and from that fact learns humility. That ego lets God in, not to become God but to embrace God and bow to God’s will and His abiding love.

It is not humility that denies God. It is pride … the ego bursting at its seams. 😉

But since there is a God, the denial of God cannot bring peace to the ego. It can only bring the subtle anticipation of ultimate defeat and the infinitely black dread of nothingness.

That is why it is true that there are so few atheists in the foxholes … only the incorrigibles. :eek:
 
St. Thomas Aquinas:
**Existence of God. **
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
2nd From the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
3rd From possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence - which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
4th way From gradation in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in De Metaphysica ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. 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. 🙂

5th From governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

St. Thomas version of Rabbi Moses Maimonides proof. Jewish Philosopher: "
From Moses to Moses, there is no one greater than Moses!
"
 
You cannot convince everyone but you can get them to think more deeply. Ask:
  1. Would you kill you anyone unnecessarily? (If Yes you are wasting your time!)
  2. Why not? (Because life is valuable - or something to that effect)
  3. So it’s reasonable to believe there is a reason why we are alive? (If No you are wasting your time!)
  4. **Why we are alive? **(Any answer that refers to things is not a reason but a cause!)
  5. Does reason come from things cannot reason? (If Yes you are wasting your time!)
  6. Is life valuable just because we think it is valuable? (If Yes you are wasting your time!)
  7. **Why is life valuable? **(Any answer that refers to things leads to the next question.)
8
Your reasoning on number three is flawed because an atheist probably believes that there’s no inherent “reason” humans are alive and aware, but it happened by pure chance that out of the untold hospitable planets in the goldilocks zone of their stars sentient beings evolved. That doesn’t mean at all that life is not something to cherish.
 
Hey everyone. I am having a discussion with an Atheist about the existence of God. I am trying to convince him that God exists but I have no idea how to do that. Can anyone help me?
The fact that the word “God” exists prove that God exists. BUT, you may object, it only proves existence of the word “God”, not the thing-in-itself. But, I reply, the thing-in-itself (the transcendental signified) is a fiction- “there is nothing outside the text.” (Derrida). And indeed, the Gospel tells us “the Word was God”. (Jn 1)
 
Hi guys!

Sorry to jump in late and ill-informed about what you’ve already discussed, but I think the answer is simple for me. If you could make faith reasonable, I would accept it. I would obviously have to understand the reasons first. But there is no merit to faith alone that can make the object of faith really exist or be true, I think we can all agree.

I would mention the E-word as an account of how we’re here, and would say the methods of science are the most reliable for knowledge of the world, not heartfelt belief. One can include the E-word within Christian accounts of the Creation, and use science to study it, but claiming to know that God exists as its organiser is claiming to know what is beyond apprehension.

I do think it is possible that there is something beyond what we currently know that is radically different from what we expect - but how can anyone say what that is, or even if it is?
 
At the end of the day, I find it inconceivable that a true atheist would be convinced by anything short of a true miracle that the individual could not explain away.
Exactly. Whenever someone tries to convince others that God exists I can’t help but wonder, “Why is man always speaking on behalf of God? Can’t God speak for Himself?”
 
Exactly. Whenever someone tries to convince others that God exists I can’t help but wonder, “Why is man always speaking on behalf of God? Can’t God speak for Himself?”
What a terrible excuse for being closed-minded. God can but that requires breaking free will.
 
Hey everyone. I am having a discussion with an Atheist about the existence of God. I am trying to convince him that God exists but I have no idea how to do that. Can anyone help me?
To put it simply, tell him or her what it is you believe and why.

If he doesn’t find your reasons compelling, then you might need to discuss the standards of evidence used to accept the claim that a god exists.
gentle atheist;7991086:
Exactly. Whenever someone tries to convince others that God exists I can’t help but wonder, “Why is man always speaking on behalf of God? Can’t God speak for Himself?”
What a terrible excuse for being closed-minded. God can but that requires breaking free will.
You are confusing closed-mindedness for a high standard of evidence. This confusion is why one artist wrote a song satirically entitled, “If you open up your mind too much, your brain will fall out.”

For me, it would take sufficient evidence. Exactly what qualifies as evidence for the existence of a god can be the topic of an interesting debate.

Regarding “breaking free will,” if there were wizards, a wizard may present compelling evidence that he has magical abilities, yet one wouldn’t say that in doing so, he violates the free will of those who it convinces. Likewise, a god who presents compelling evidence, by means of magic, that he exists doesn’t violate the free will of those who are convinced by it, because belief is not a choice (decision made by the will). If you define “free will” in a very specific way in which the wizard doesn’t break free will but a god would, then why would breaking that kind of free will be a big deal?
 
A wise man once said:

To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible. ~St. Thomas Aquinas

AND…

We can’t have full knowledge all at once. We must start by believing; then afterwards we may be led on to master the evidence for ourselves.
St. Thomas Aquinas
 
A wise man once said:

To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible. ~St. Thomas Aquinas
Not wise at all. The first sentence is true, but the second one is false. I have absolutely no “faith” in the claims of paranormal. I have no faith in “aura-reading”, ESP, telekinesis, no faith in “dowsing”, no faith in crystal balls, no faith in astrology, and a whole lot of other claims. However, if someone can demonstrate under controlled circumstances that these claims can deliver what they claim to deliver, then I will immediately “eat crow”, and accept defeat. Likewise, if anyone can demonstrate God’s existence, and the claims about God, I will immediately admit that my lack of belief was in error. That is what any self-respecting and rational individual must do. To keep on denying what is demonstrated, to look for explaining away the evidence would be intellectual dishonesty.
AND…

We can’t have full knowledge all at once. We must start by believing; then afterwards we may be led on to master the evidence for ourselves.
St. Thomas Aquinas
That is what Uri Geller and his ilk (the other snake-oil peddlers) say: “you must a-priori believe in the paranormal, and then evidence presented will be compelling”. Of course if you already believe, then who needs the evidence? Aquinas was correct in this part. For someone with an open and critical mind, the process is different. Present your evidence, and let the chips fall where they may. If your evidence is compelling, fine, you made your case. If it is weak, too bad. That is the way to convince any atheist. Simple!
 
You are confusing closed-mindedness for a high standard of evidence. This confusion is why one artist wrote a song satirically entitled, “If you open up your mind too much, your brain will fall out.”

For me, it would take sufficient evidence. Exactly what qualifies as evidence for the existence of a god can be the topic of an interesting debate.
I agree that there are ways to be so open-minded you are irrational, but asking God for direct, immediate revelation and closing yourself off to any other form of convincing isn’t being “reasonably skeptic”, it’s being closed-minded. There are many reasons God would NOT directly reveal Himself to you as well as reasons to not a priori reject any proofs of God.
Regarding “breaking free will,” if there were wizards, a wizard may present compelling evidence that he has magical abilities, yet one wouldn’t say that in doing so, he violates the free will of those who it convinces. Likewise, a god who presents compelling evidence, by means of magic, that he exists doesn’t violate the free will of those who are convinced by it, because belief is not a choice (decision made by the will). If you define “free will” in a very specific way in which the wizard doesn’t break free will but a god would, then why would breaking that kind of free will be a big deal?
Fair deal, but then you come back to the other problem that we have no reason to believe that GA is honest - that is to say, if a direct, immediate form of revelation was granted to him, would he actually accept? There are people who had experiences that are only explainable by the supernatural who went on to self-diagnose with Schizophrenia. How do I know GA won’t do the same? Or something less extreme, to convince himself that God didn’t do it?

All in all, saying the only way you will be convinced of God’s existence is direct, immediate revelation by Him has so many psychological and theological flaws that it’s not worth your time to debate that person, regardless of how “reasonable” his responses to the standard arguments are.
 
I agree that there are ways to be so open-minded you are irrational, but asking God for direct, immediate revelation and closing yourself off to any other form of convincing isn’t being “reasonably skeptic”, it’s being closed-minded.
I think what Gentile Atheist was trying to say (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong Gentile Atheist) is that he doesn’t consider anything short of an event, which would be considered “miraculous”, to be supporting the belief that a god exists. This would not necessarily be closed-minded to evidence, but a high standard for what might be considered evidence.

An analogy might be if a juror in a murder trial was not convinced that the accused is guilty. A fellow juror argues with him by saying that A is evidence that the defendant did commit murder, yet the juror is unconvinced because he doesn’t think that A logically supports the defendant’s guilt or innocence. In this case, the juror is not being closed-minded to A, he just doesn’t think that it’s evidence (data that supports a claim).

Now, one could have a discussion about whether A is evidence for the defendant’s guilt, and that the juror just has an unreasonably high standard of evidence. Similarly, one can argue whether or not some particular thing that is not a miracle can be evidence for the existence of a god. However, holding a high standard (such as taking the position that only miracles are considered evidence for the existence of a god) is not automatically being closed-minded. Holding a high standard of evidence is only closed-minded if it is unreasonable.
There are people who had experiences that are only explainable by the supernatural who went on to self-diagnose with Schizophrenia.
On one hand you say that the only explanation for the experiences are supernatural, yet in the same sentence you mention another explanation, schizophrenia. I could come up with a number of possible explanations. It’s possible that extraterrestrial aliens are playing tricks on me by making have these experience for their entertainment. Perhaps you meant to say, “experience that are only reasonably explainable by the supernatural.”

Presuming that you meant to say “experience that are only reasonably explainable by the supernatural,” you must acknowledge that many people who seem to have extraordinary experiences have forms of schizophrenia. How do we determine whether some experience is genuinely coming from a supernatural source or a hallucination of the supernatural (which have been induced in laboratory settings on otherwise sane persons)? I suggest that one way to do it is by using objectively verifiable evidence (such as asking god where the Ark of the Covenant is), which would be preferable to relying on a subjective experience.
 
On one hand you say that the only explanation for the experiences are supernatural, yet in the same sentence you mention another explanation, schizophrenia.
AUUGH what a terrible misinterpretation of what I said! If it were schizophrenia, the event would have to be in his mind. The event, meanwhile, exists in the REAL WORLD, so his self-diagnosed schizophrenia is just rejecting what he doesn’t like.
I could come up with a number of possible explanations. It’s possible that extraterrestrial aliens are playing tricks on me by making have these experience for their entertainment. Perhaps you meant to say, “experience that are only reasonably explainable by the supernatural.”
Well, of course it’s POSSIBLE the miraculous event was aliens or a psychotic episode, but the question is, does it make any sense based on the circumstance to believe that? It’s POSSIBLE that the ancient Egyptians were taught by aliens from a trans-Neptunian planet. But does it make any sense based on the circumstances? NO. Is it the BEST POSSIBLE explanation? NO. You can reject that safely. Same in this case, with aliens and mental illness and whatnot.
Presuming that you meant to say “experience that are only reasonably explainable by the supernatural,” you must acknowledge that many people who seem to have extraordinary experiences have forms of schizophrenia. How do we determine whether some experience is genuinely coming from a supernatural source or a hallucination of the supernatural (which have been induced in laboratory settings on otherwise sane persons)? I suggest that one way to do it is by using objectively verifiable evidence (such as asking god where the Ark of the Covenant is), which would be preferable to relying on a subjective experience.
Or you could just see if they meet any other diagnostic requirement for Schizophrenia. Have you read the DSM entry? There are multiple criteria, and in order to be diagnosed one must meet multiple different ones. Plus, it is historically (and legally?) dishonest to require physical evidence and reject an account until then. There are multiple readily accepted historical facts which are only backed up by written and spoken attestation.
 
AUUGH what a terrible misinterpretation of what I said! If it were schizophrenia, the event would have to be in his mind. The event, meanwhile, exists in the REAL WORLD, so his self-diagnosed schizophrenia is just rejecting what he doesn’t like.
If it exists outside of the mind in the real world, then it should be objectively verifiable. If it isn’t verifiable, then we have no basis for believing that it is real.
Well, of course it’s POSSIBLE the miraculous event was aliens or a psychotic episode, but the question is, does it make any sense based on the circumstance to believe that?
That’s almost the right question! The right question is what is the most probable conclusion based off of the evidence? This may include an “I don’t know yet.”

Lets apply this to a supposedly miraculous event. How does one determine what the most probable conclusion based off of the evidence is. Without knowing the details of a specific alleged miraculous experience,we can conclude that if the existence of god has not been proven aside from this, and the existence of schizophrenia has, then schizophrenia aught to be considered more probable by default. In that case, there needs to be some evidence that a god is a more probable explanation.
Or you could just see if they meet any other diagnostic requirement for Schizophrenia. Have you read the DSM entry?
In the context of this discussion, we are talking about hallucinations as a competing explanation to a god (in some circumstances). Mentioning the specific condition of schizophrenia is somewhat a distraction to that. Yes, schizophrenia has more criteria than just hallucinations, and it’s possible – in fact more common than one might suspect – for ordinary people to obviously hallucinate at least once in their life.
Plus, it is historically (and legally?) dishonest to require physical evidence and reject an account until then. There are multiple readily accepted historical facts which are only backed up by written and spoken attestation.
So you’re trying to say that it would dishonest to not accept claims extraordinary supernatural claims of magic based off of hearsay? Historians do not do this. For example, one account of Caesar crossing the Rubicon mentions that he saw an apparition. Yet, no historian would take this hearsay seriously.

By these low standards you aught to accept a lot of spectacular claims, such as claims of alien abduction (with multiple people present), and claims such as Sathya Sai Baba raising people from the dead.

If you think I’m being unreasonable, how would you verify that a god (or anything else “supernatural”) is the most probable explanation for some seemingly miraculous experience?
 
Having been involved in legal matters where people’s eyewitness testimony is the biggest portion of evidence it is AMAZING how differently two people who saw the exact same thing from the same vantage point, can have seen two completely different things.

Here is a good example and try this for real the very first time, no cheating and looking in the comments or looking up the answer or anything it is a very good example of why people’s first hand testimony is often not as accurate as one would think

Perception Test
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top