How to combat Atheism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter reelguy227
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
James Kanatous:
If you don’t know what it is, how can you believe in it?
Click to expand...
Precisely the question my students ask me when I try to teach modern physics. The most fundamental physical constituents of the Universe — elementary particles, photons, and fields — are to a large degree utter mysteries, at least in terms of trying to describe
what they are. We can very accurately model their interactions and construct mathematical models predicting their behaviors on other “physical” objects, but have little real understanding of what the Universe is “really” like. I believe in the concept of an electron. I believe that, in some real sense, an electron exists. I believe that electrons interact with other particles, and these interactions can be fairly successfully modeled using mathematics. I believe that the current model of electron interactions will likely be modified in the future as we devise more and more delicate tests of observable properties.

It is not hard to believe in the existence of something that has some measurable interaction with matter.
 
Sure - we can describe something about them, how they behave and some attributes within our scope of understanding. Because we cannot touch them does not mean they do not exist. They are somewhat of a mystery that we will understand more as time goes on. Same with God.
 
James Kanatous:
If you cannot defend what you claim to believe, then why bother to believe it?
Click to expand...
I can defend my belief in God! Every time I look at all the beautiful things in this world and knowing that all this came from nothing - it proves that there is a God. Every time I hear of a new child being born or a see plant sprout from a seed, and knowing that man as scientifically advanced as he is cannot make life - it proves that there is a God.

To be confronted with evidence like this and still say that you are absolutely sure that there is no God, is to be close minded and irrational. The agnostics at least say it is impossible to know for sure.
 
40.png
Pedro:
I can defend my belief in God! Every time I look at all the beautiful things in this world and knowing that all this came from nothing - it proves that there is a God. Every time I hear of a new child being born or a see plant sprout from a seed, and knowing that man as scientifically advanced as he is cannot make life - it proves that there is a God.

To be confronted with evidence like this and still say that you are absolutely sure that there is no God, is to be close minded and irrational. The agnostics at least say it is impossible to know for sure.
Click to expand...
Well, this is close to the argument from incredulity, saying that God must exist because there are aspects of the Universe currently not fully understandable. It is very personally compelling for me also, but not what most atheists would call ‘proof’. Labeling some phenomenon as supernatural is dangerous, as it is possible in the future that it is understood to be a consequence of physical laws and objects.
 
See if you can swallow this athiests:

SACRED DOCTRINE
GENERAL: The nature and extent (1) of sacred doctrine.

THE ONE GODEXISTENCE: The existence (2) of God.
ESSENCE: We cannot know what God is, but only what He is not. So to study Him, we study what He has not – such as composition and motion. His simplicity (3) or lack of composition. His perfection: and because everything in so far as it is perfect is called good, we shall speak of His goodness (6) – and goodness in general (5) – as well as His perfection (4). His infinity (7) and omnipresence (8). His immutability (9), and His eternity (10) following on His immutability. His unity (11). How God is known by us (12). The names of God (13).
OPERATIONS (INTELLECT): God’s knowledge (14). The ideas (15), which exist in His knowledge. Truth (16) in God, for knowledge is of things that are true. Falsity (17) in God. The life of God (18), since to understand belongs to living beings.
OPERATIONS (WILL): God’s will (19). In our own wills we find both the passions (such as joy and love), and the habits of the moral virtues (such as justice and fortitude). Hence we shall first consider the love (20) of God, and secondly His justice and mercy (21).
OPERATIONS (INTELLECT AND WILL): Providence (22), in respect to all created things; for in the science of morals, after the moral virtues themselves, comes the consideration of prudence, to which providence belongs. Predestination (23) and the book of life (24).
POWER: The power of God (25), the principle of the divine operation as proceeding to the exterior effect. The divine beatitude (26)
 
con’t

THE BLESSED TRINITY
ORIGIN: The question of origin or procession (27). The relations of origin relations of origin (28).
THE PERSONS IN GENERAL: The signification (29) of the word “person”. The number (30) of the persons, and what is involved in the number of persons, or is opposed thereto; as diversity, and similitude, and the like (31). Our knowledge (32) of the persons.
FATHER: The person of the Father (33).
SON: The person of the Son, to whom three names are attributed: 33)Son (see, the idea of which is gathered from the idea of Father; Word (34) and Image (35).
HOLY GHOST: The person of the Holy Ghost, Who is called three things: Holy Ghost (36), Love (37) and Gift (38).
THE THREE COMPARED: The person in reference to the essence (39), with the relations or properties (40), or to the notional acts (41). The equality and likeness (42) of the persons. Their mission (43).

Come see me after about 2 years of study and we’ll talk (and this is only a small fraction of Thomist theology)
 
why is everyone railing on me ,im 16 years old ,and im a guy . im trying to grow in my Catholic faith most kids are too in tune with the rest of the world and dont care about their faith ,i do ,i love it, its awesome ,especially the Eucharist. i started this thread so people could help me fight the good fight .whats with yu guys ,i can defend my faith and am trying .im a die hard catholic and republican .i thought all the people on this forum were good holy Catholics ,maybe i was wrong the way yu guys are treating me .maybe i should just delete the thread.
 
40.png
reelguy227:
why is everyone railing on me ,im 16 years old ,and im a guy . im trying to grow in my Catholic faith most kids are too in tune with the rest of the world and dont care about their faith ,i do ,i love it, its awesome ,especially the Eucharist. i started this thread so people could help me fight the good fight .whats with yu guys ,i can defend my faith and am trying .im a die hard catholic and republican .i thought all the people on this forum were good holy Catholics ,maybe i was wrong the way yu guys are treating me .maybe i should just delete the thread.
Click to expand...
If you asked somebody how to go in and deal with Roy Jones Jr in a boxing ring, you probably wouldn’t be surprised if a trainer told you to go jump rope and run and do drills that don’t look like they’ll pay off in the next few minutes, hours, weeks or maybe even years.

No responsible trainer is going to put you in the ring and have you ask questions about what to do as the punches are flying at you. It would be a recipe for disaster.

A lot of the advice you’re getting is to take some time and do some training.

Should you decide you want to ‘spar’ with those who you look upon as your ‘opponents’, it would be best to take the time to learn what you’re doing first.

That involves thinking things through yourself.

A lot of good resources have been suggested. Try them.
 
40.png
reelguy227:
maybe i should just delete the thread.
Click to expand...
It’s your thread, do as you wish.

Think of it in marketing terms. You know somebody explicitely rejects your product, yet you persist in an attempt of a high-pressure, unsoliticed sales pitch. Who would buy your product?

The funny thing is that there’s absolutely no need for you to defend your faith, you either have it or you don’t. What you want to do is to offer a persuasive justification for somebody else to modify theirs, which is something entirely different. Having said that, as long as you think of it in terms of ‘combat’ and ‘fight’, you are not ready to try. In fact, all you achieve is to more firmly entrench the people you want to reach in their position.
 
Reelguy227,

May I suggest that you do what you can to become as personally holy as you can be. Read the bible (start with the New Testament) and the Catechism. Pray the rosary. Assist at the Holy Mass as often as you can. Pray before the Blessed Sacrament. We are mere human beings trying to understand other human beings.
When dealing with nonbelievers you will encounter some (not all, of course) who will attack you personally. You can not possibly be effective if we try to rely on your own resources. But unlike the atheist you don’t have to.

When it happens that a civil conversation takes place that offers you an opportunity to explain your faith, do so with all charity and patience. If you are asked a question you can’t answer, this is a good place to come for help. The more specific your question, the easier it will be to help you. You can’t do any more than that. Remember that it will not be YOU that converts them, but God may choose to use you in that way.

Above all: Pray Pray Pray

May God Bless you and give you courage
 
40.png
reelguy227:
why is everyone railing on me ,im 16 years old ,and im a guy .
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t worry too much about it. You have shown courage just in asking questions. You have also shown an humble spirit. One thing about being young, you will always grow out of it. Meaness is harder to shake.

In a 3-4 years, you too may be a college student, like James K… Learn from his example and do not think because you have gained a little knowledge, that you have gained wisdom.

My son is 14 and knows the proofs for the existence of God from St. Thomas Aquinas. His favorite is the arguement from design. Design implies a designer. You can place all the componentts for a watch in a bag and shake it for eternity and it will never start keeping time. Only a watchmaker can put it together. There is far more intricate design in our universe. Only the fool will say in his heart, “There is no God.”
 
thanks everyone ,am i dumb in my faith or something ,it sounds like your son is much more smart in his faith than i am ? i do try to say the rosary daily and go to daily mass,and stuff like that,i really want to be a great Catholic.
 
40.png
reelguy227:
thanks everyone ,am i dumb in my faith or something ,it sounds like your son is much more smart in his faith than i am ? i do try to say the rosary daily and go to daily mass,and stuff like that,i really want to be a great Catholic.
Click to expand...
You are not dumb, your desire to learn must be greatly commended, especially since you are so young. I am 18 yrs and I am thankful to find someone else my age so interested in learning about the faith. Don’t give up hope!
 
Here is my approach for dealing with the question “Does God exist?”

“God” is the name I give to existence. I think this is what Moses did when he heard the name of God come from the burning bush. (“I am who am”)

Throughout scripture, the question is not “does God exist”, rather it is “what god do you serve.”

Every human being puts their faith in something. They may put their faith in money, in their gun, in reason, or in the words of Jesus. But everyone believes in something.

I would say that both atheists and those who are arguing with them are focusing on the wrong question. Instead of asking “Does God exist?” We should ask: “What name do I give to existence? Can I get to know existence? Can I get to know it better than I know it now? How do my actions show that I know existence well”

These are the questions that matter.

-Jim
 

Proofs of the Existence of God:​


**First Way: The Argument From Motion **

**St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the argument this way: **

**1) Nothing can move itself. **

**2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover. **

**3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God. **

**Second Way: Causation Of Existence **

**This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. **

**Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the argument this way: **

**1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things. **

**2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.) **

**3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist. **

**4) Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause called God. **

Third Way: Contingent and Necessary Objects
**This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. **

**Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately necessitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. Follow the argument this way: **

**1) Contingent beings are caused. **

**2) Not every being can be contingent. **

**3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings. **

**4) This necessary being is God. **
 
**Fourth Way: The Argument From Degrees And Perfection **

**St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble sculptures one is more beautiful than the other. **

So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality.

** From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God. **

**Fifth Way: The Argument From Intelligent Design **

**The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. **

**In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intelligent designer. **
 
I)Teleological Argument:

i.)The basic premise, of all teleological arguments for the existence of God, is that the world exhibits an intelligent purpose based on experience from nature such as its order, unity, coherency, design and complexity. Hence, there must be an intelligent designer to account for the observed intelligent purpose and order that we can observe.

ii.)Paley’s teleological argument is based on an analogy: Watchmaker is to watch as God is to universe. Just as a watch, with its intelligent design and complex function must have been created by an intelligent maker: a watchmaker, the universe, with all its complexity and greatness, must have been created by an intelligent and powerful creator. Therefore a watchmaker is to watch as God is to universe.

II)Paley’s Teleological Argument:

**1.)Human artifacts are products of intelligent design. **

**2.)The universe resembles human artifacts. **

**3.)Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design. **

**4.)But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison to human artifacts. **

5.)Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe.

**Follow St. Anselm’s Argument Point By Point: **

**1) God is defined as the being in which none greater is possible. **

**2) It is true that the notion of God exists in the understanding (your mind.) **

**3) And that God may exist in reality (God is a possible being.) **

**4) If God only exists in the mind, and may have existed, then God might have been greater than He is. **

**5) Then, God might have been greater than He is (if He existed in reality.) **

**6) Therefore, God is a being which a greater is possible. **

**7) This is not possible, for God is a being in which a greater is impossible. **

**8) Therefore God exists in reality as well as the mind. **
 
Everywhere in our daily life we encounter artifacts that intrigue us. When something is obviously man-made, we automatically assume that there was a designer. You would never dream that your computer “just happened” by a random combination of silica and plastic. Nor would you assume that the programming was accomplished by dropping marbles on a keyboard. Yet, even my hamster’s brain is more complicated then the most sophisticated computers. To assume that hamster brains are no more than a random mix of chemicals is considerably less reasonable than the dropping of marbles. This proof also includes an important twist: if you believe that your brain is the result of random combinations of chemicals, how can you trust your reasoning? Since there is no design to your brain you cannot assume that it is capable of determining the truth.

Of course, an atheists’ denial of God has little to do with reason. He knows that if he accepts that there is a God, and that that God has given certain precepts for living life on this earth, then he will be responsible for his actions at the end of his life. Many find it easier to deny that God exists than to change their lifestyles. “Spiritual beings” don’t give the Ten Commandments. People like that want God to be a doting Grandfather rather than Our Father, Who art in Heaven.

kepha1
 
40.png
kepha1:
Everywhere in our daily life we encounter artifacts that intrigue us. When something is obviously man-made, we automatically assume that there was a designer. You would never dream that your computer “just happened” by a random combination of silica and plastic. Nor would you assume that the programming was accomplished by dropping marbles on a keyboard. Yet, even my hamster’s brain is more complicated then the most sophisticated computers. To assume that hamster brains are no more than a random mix of chemicals is considerably less reasonable than the dropping of marbles.
Click to expand...
The argument from design has always appeared specious to me. Certainly when I see a computer, I assume that it was designed and constructed, chiefly because it is similar to other computers and devices I know to have been designed by humans. The argument, as above, typically takes a subtle twist and invokes the tacit assumption that it is not the purpose of design, but the level of complication that is persuasive. It may well be that one day we will understand at a sufficiently deep level how the brain is constructed, and can then construct a reasonable copy of a hamster brain. I am skeptical of this, but one must keep the possibility open.

The programming analogy is particularly interesting (I’m a part-time software developer). One may look at the source code of the software for this forum and marvel at its complication, design, and purpose. We know, though, that the program was likely not written exactly in its final form. It was likely written in many small pieces, each of which was tested for fitness, and then slowly integrated into a functioning whole. It is also a common practice to aggregate and modify smaller subroutines to accomodate some new purpose for which they were not originally designed. In this way we can see hamster brains not as sudden examples of divine purpose and engineering, but as the result of millions of years of competition and modification of the progressively simpler brains of less-fit ancestors.
 
40.png
wanerious:
The argument from design has always appeared specious to me. Certainly when I see a computer, I assume that it was designed and constructed, chiefly because it is similar to other computers and devices I know to have been designed by humans. The argument, as above, typically takes a subtle twist and invokes the tacit assumption that it is not the purpose of design, but the level of complication that is persuasive. It may well be that one day we will understand at a sufficiently deep level how the brain is constructed, and can then construct a reasonable copy of a hamster brain. I am skeptical of this, but one must keep the possibility open.

The programming analogy is particularly interesting (I’m a part-time software developer). One may look at the source code of the software for this forum and marvel at its complication, design, and purpose. We know, though, that the program was likely not written exactly in its final form. It was likely written in many small pieces, each of which was tested for fitness, and then slowly integrated into a functioning whole. It is also a common practice to aggregate and modify smaller subroutines to accomodate some new purpose for which they were not originally designed. In this way we can see hamster brains not as sudden examples of divine purpose and engineering, but as the result of millions of years of competition and modification of the progressively simpler brains of less-fit ancestors.
Click to expand...
See if you can look out the window and identify anything that man has created.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top