How to convince an Athiest God exists?

[Nahar]

The Church teaches otherwise. The Church is clear that one can come to know God thorough human reason. CCC ""Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”."

The Catechism goes on to tell how it is difficult to come to this knowledge through reason alone, however, it is possible.

Unfortunately there is no argument just HOW can pure reason arrive at God’s existence. To say that it is possible, but difficult is insufficient.

And there is another error in the quoted teaching. The phrase “CREATED WORLD” is premature. It should read: “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the natural world by the natural light of human reason.” It is a fallacy (petitio principii) to declare the world as “created” before God’s existence could be established. If that could be done, it would be a slam-dunk to convince atheists about the error of their worldview.

 

[TheLittleLady]

The phrase “CREATED WORLD” is premature. It should read:

If you wish to suggest changes to the Catechism, perhaps send a letter to the CDF.

 

[Nahar]

If you wish to suggest changes to the Catechism, perhaps send a letter to the CDF.

I explained where the error lies, pointed out the fallacy. That should be enough.

 

[Brisingr]

I would rather end up saying while handing him a rose “Make a rose like this, out of nothing.”

 

[TheLittleLady]

However, God created once from nothing. The natural process is what God uses since then to make roses.

 

[Wannano]

However, God created once from nothing. The natural process is what God uses since then to make roses.

That’s the point! What is your arguement?

 

[TheLittleLady]

That ex nilho creation is not an example I would ever use, because it requires belief in God. You can’t start teaching algebra to someone who does not believe in math.

 

[BT3241]

You Can’t - "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

 

[TheRenegadeOfFunk]

Here’s how to get them from atheism to agnosticism at least:

Think about the term, “God.”

If we understand it correctly, it must refer to an entity capable of creating a universe wherein his presence is invisible.

Therefore we must accept the possibility that God exists but is undetectable.

The only way you could claim to know that there is no God is if you had knowledge of the universe comparable to God’s.

No human has even remotely close to that level of understanding of the universe. Therefore, atheism is rationally indefensible.

 

[PickyPicky]

The only way you could claim to know that there is no God is if you had knowledge of the universe comparable to God’s.

No human has even remotely close to that level of understanding of the universe. Therefore, atheism is rationally indefensible

That’s all true, of course. Many who say they are atheists (or, like me, don’t claim to be atheists but also don’t deny it) are really hard agnostics: that is to say they believe the likelihood of God’s existence is so small as to be discounted for all practical purposes.

 

[Nahar]

Many who say they are atheists (or, like me, don’t claim to be atheists but also don’t deny it) are really hard agnostics: that is to say they believe the likelihood of God’s existence is so small as to be discounted for all practical purposes.

It all depends on the definition of God. A deistic supreme being, which has no attributes to speak of, is very different from the attribute-rich God of Christianity.

 

[Pattylt]

If we understand it correctly, it must refer to an entity capable of creating a universe wherein his presence is invisible.

God is an idea that has been defined as creating the universe yet is invisible. There is zero certainty of the claim of this idea to the non religious.

Therefore we must accept the possibility that God exists but is undetectable.

Sure, God might exist and be completely undetectable but there could also be no God and how would you be able to tell the difference.

The only way you could claim to know that there is no God is if you had knowledge of the universe comparable to God’s.

Most atheists and agnostics do not claim that they know there is no God. They do not believe in God because they either find Him incomprehensible or simply a complete lack of verifiable evidence for Him. What they do claim is they haven’t enough knowledge to accept that there is a God. Very few will claim the positive statement of there is no God.

 

[TheRenegadeOfFunk]

Belief starts with accepting the possibility. My argument is just to get people that far. My understanding is that atheism is the positive belief that there is no God. That is what I am refuting.

If we make a distinction between that and “hard agnosticism” or “soft atheism” - which may be understood as a probabilistic belief that the existence of God is so unlikely as to make it rational to simply not believe in Him - then I would make a different argument. The journey from agnosticism to theism/deism is more complex and personal than the journey from atheism to agnosticism.

This thread is titled, “How to convince an Atheist God exists,” so perhaps I will post my argument for accepting theism or agnosticism. It is more verbose though so I’m going to wait a bit.

 

[JSRG]

Wannano:

Put a rose in his hand and ask him to make one.

Then he will pull out the seeds, or graft the stem, plant it in soil, water it, place it in the sun then poof a rose will be made… I’m just saying.

If your friend is all about needing the scientific proof for God… try with the scientific proof that Jesus Christ existed, walked on the earth, was crucified, rose 3 days later and walked the earth for 40 days before ascending into heaven. There is scietific evidence those things happened.

There’s a movie and excellent book called a Case for Christ. Check it out it’s on Netflix.

You can never convince someone of the existence of God. You can show them by how you live by God’s will. Your actions might up ther heart to the possibility, then God will do the rest.

I haven’t seen the movie, but I have read the book. I would not call The Case for Christ as giving “scientific” evidence, unless one has a very loose definition of scientific. Its evidence is better described as “historical” as it is based more around arguing for the historicity of the New Testament and the Resurrection. The argument against the swoon theory (that Jesus fainted rather than died on the cross, and the Resurrection thus never happened as he never died) does make use of medical evidence in regards to the implausibility of him surviving the cross, but that’s about it.

I think the book is good for the most part, if a bit basic in its approach, but as its goal was to be a readable entry-level apologetic, that’s understandable. The biggest flaw in it is that I think its arguments about Old Testament prophecies was really poorly argued (I agree with its conclusions, but the arguments offered are lackluster) and that a few of the chapters feel like they spend too much time on minor points.

 

[annad347]

… does make use of medical evidence in regards to the implausibility of him surviving the cross, but that’s about it.

Yes, most of his evidence is based on the facts that came from scripture that was found.

They first had to prove the scripture was old enough to be from the correct time period. Then using that information they studied it for accuracy by doing test if its plausible.

Like from the description of Jesus death and what they know now its would have been impossible for Jesus to have just passed out or fake his death. I just figured if scientist did the test, it was scietific evidence.

 

[Freddy]

Belief starts with accepting the possibility.

No. Belief starts with accepting that there is a reasonable possibility.

Let’s face it…the FSM could possibly exist. But we aren’t to going to waste any time investigating any claims to that affect.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Yes, most of his evidence is based on the facts that came from scripture that was found.

Athiests don’t believe that the Bible is true so it isn’t a good source for converting them.

 

[annad347]

Athiests don’t believe that the Bible is true so it isn’t a good source for converting them.

True… it wouldn’t be used to convince anyone that Jesus is God. The research and test done would just prove a man named Jesus did exist and made a huge impression on a lot of people.

 

[AlNg]

God = transcends natural world

Maybe partially, but not completely, because God came down from heaven and was made man.

You can never convince someone to have faith

Its pretty hard to convince an athiest

I think that there are experiments that can be performed that would convince an atheist of the existence of a supernatural and great power able to perform miracles. However, these experiments would not prove the existence of the Christian God but they might convince many of its likelihood.

 

[AlNg]

Some people dismiss the fact the JFK was killed by Oswald.

Oswald may have been involved but the whole operation was planned and executed by the mafia with the aid of a few rogue government (CIA?) agents.