How to convince an Athiest God exists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brisingr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You never know though, everyone is different and responds to grace in a way unique to their soul. An atheist may read something in the Bible, and instead of finding more reasons to doubt, they might read something that a prophet said, or Christ himself, or an Apostle, and some divine light might shine through the cracks in their materialist walls, and broaden the horizons of their nihilist myopia. You never know. But yeah, Bible thumping typically isn’t the way. Let them discover it, if they will.
 
Last edited:
Nahar said:
Omniscience and omnipotence are not rigorously defined - and, of course they are mutually contradictory.
Click to expand...
Except, they aren’t. Unless you’re thinking of a simplistic straw-man god. At some point you have to disabuse yourself of The God Delusion because it’s just really bad sophistry.
 
Last edited:
😆 You should see what I learn about myself on atheist forums. Apparently I have something called “smug idiot complacency.” (And that’s by far one of the milder descriptions).
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
I would say that the coincidence involved,
Click to expand...
What if a man came home from the war and his legs were cutoff by a roadside bomb. the family said a rosary that night and in the morning it was found that his legs had grown back. Further this was repeated several times with different individuals.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
40.png
FiveLinden:
That would be impressive.
Click to expand...
Would that convince you of the power of the rosary prayer to the Mother of God?
Click to expand...
If true, yep.
 
Neithan said:
Except, they aren’t. Unless you’re thinking of a simplistic straw-man god. At some point you have to disabuse yourself of The God Delusion because it’s just really bad sophistry.
Click to expand...
You are welcome to present a rigorous, well-argued definition of these terms.
 
AlNg said:
What if a man came home from the war and his legs were cutoff by a roadside bomb. the family said a rosary that night and in the morning it was found that his legs had grown back. Further this was repeated several times with different individuals.
Click to expand...
It would be impressive. But spontaneous regeneration is a well-known phenomenon in the animal world. That is does not happen in humans is of secondary importance. There is no reason why a mutation could not happen to allow it. But you can strengthen your argument if you can PREDICT such a strange event.

When we deal with any kind of hypothesis, the one and only way is to make a PREDICTION based upon the hypothesis. It does not work to bring forth an unlikely event and afterwards declare that is was caused by the praying the rosary.

Try to say the rosary and see if the Jupiter and Saturn would trade places instantenously. The laws of celestial mechanics are well known. The speed of light in vacuum is also established. To violate them would require a TRUE miracle. Some measly regeneration does not prove anything. If it would happen “on demand”, that would merit further experimentation.

After all the definition of a “miracle” is an event occurring in the physical world, for which there CANNOT be a natural explanation. Cannot be - in principle, not just “for the time being we have no natural explanation for it”.
 
I was not talking about the bible. Only about the “omnimax” attributes. Omniscience and omnipotence are not rigorously defined - and, of course they are mutually contradictory. And “benevolence” is refuted by the actual state of affairs. How can anyone call an entity “benevolent” who commits and/or permits horrible acts?
Click to expand...
The bible is only a spark to get you going. You really have to work at it. There isn’t much to save us by way of reason alone. Something else has to occur in your soul. Hardly anyone really dives into it to any great depth. Most are caught up in the world and they won’t spend much time on it.
Omniscience and omnipotence are not rigorously defined
Click to expand...
“not being rigorously defined.” This is why the Catholic Church relies on scripture and tradition. We have to have both oars in the water. Otherwise we would go in circles.
The bible is a only sketch of eternity. It is like drinking from an ocean by using a teacup. We receive a jumbled set of fragments and we believe we have the entire picture based on this. In this life we can only see dimly. Some might be capable of seeing more than others but, they are limited by restraint on private revelation.
How can anyone call an entity “benevolent” who commits and/or permits horrible acts?
Click to expand...
God is benevolent, he wants us to have faith that he will restore this world to something greater. God intended it to be something greater- a world of joy. The way he will accomplish this is mysterious. This is a temporary world. We are passing through and this is not our home. He gave us free will. What we do with free will can involve horrible acts or glorious acts. It depends on how you look at it. Is the glass half full or half empty? If God took away our free will we would not be capable of greater merit. Since we have free will we have unlimited potential.
 
Last edited:
Sundiver said:
“not being rigorously defined.” This is why the Catholic Church relies on scripture and tradition. We have to have both oars in the water. Otherwise we would go in circles.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but it is an incorrect approach to refer to ANYTHING other than reason an logic - when you wish to convince an atheist. And, by the way… I can get to my destination by using one paddle only. 🙂 Not too difficult.
Sundiver said:
God is benevolent, he wants us to have faith that he will restore this world to something greater.
Click to expand...
Nope, these words are not convincing. “Faith” cannot compete with facts and reason. If I see someone beating someone else to a bloody pulp, then no argument can convince me that it is an expression of “love”. And no reference to “free will” will be acceptable.

And let’s not forget, the omnimax attributes are STILL undefined.
 
Last edited:
And, by the way… I can get to my destination by using one paddle only. 🙂 Not too difficult.
Click to expand...
The two paddle illustration is a way of communicating something complex. When a team of scientists are trying to solve a problem in physics they use multiple experts and multiple disciplines.
If we want to discover how time and gravity are distorted by a star we have to build a satellite that can measure the distortions. Think about what that would require. We need experts who know how to launch the rocket and the payload. We need experts who know about how to measure light and other types of energy in the cold and hot extremes of space. We need experts who know how to calculate precise trajectory… You get the picture. Religion is the same. It is complex. One paddle will not work.

As far as witnessing someone being murdered there is logic and reason involved. However, it would be like arriving on the scene of the crime thousands of years after it occurred. Many of the facts have been lost, censored, and stolen. There are infinite possibilities originating from one source event. When you witness a murder you are seeing only one ripple across the universe and one result of a bigger crime that took place eons ago. It is very easy to imagine the, “Butterfly effect,” regardless of whether you are an atheist or not.
 
Sundiver said:
The two paddle illustration is a way of communicating something complex.
Click to expand...
I am aware of that. There is nothing complex about verifying / falsifying a hypothesis. Make a prediction, run the experiment, and see if the prediction was borne out or not. Use a simple hypothesis: “knock and the door will be opened”, or “ask and you will be answered”. Or will they?
 
Yeah. Try shutting down threads. I think I might have the world record for that. I think I’ve succeeded about 18 times. It reveals a lot about yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top