How to respond in debate with atheist?

[Frankenfurter]

I was accosted today at school with an convert from Catholicism to atheism. He wished to debate, and I took a stab at it. He asked for the scientific evidence. I tried to argue that the burden of proof was on him. I didn’t mention Eucharistic Miracles, the Resurrection, the Marian and Jesus apparitions; but weakly argued, “Who caused the Big Bang,” when he asked how I could believe in God in light of that; to which he responded with “a single cell.”

I then had to leave. What could I have done better? What should I say if he asks to debate again? He is obviously burning with zeal after his conversion, and I am going through a doubter’s phase, my energy for the rediscovered Faith having died off a bit.

Please keep in mind that there is not one kind of atheist. There is no unifying creed, or principal or common faith or goal among atheists. So don’t lump them together. In a sense, everyone is an atheist at some point. For a moment, anyone can stop having faith, then perhaps make a conscious decision to have faith again.

Regarding your atheist, what is important is not the atheist part, it is the ex-Catholic part. So for him, with is new found sense of power and freedom at being ‘liberated’ from his faith, he seems to have the need to test his new point of view out on you.

Ex-Catholics are the most damaging to people’s faith since they seek re-enforcement of their own dis-belief. Secretly, they really are simply lazy thinkers. Their new-found thinking goes something like this: show me proof of God and I will believe. Otherwise, I have decided that having faith in something that I can’t be sure about is either a waste of time or will lead to disappointment.

Meanwhile, the saints will tell you that faith is hard work, challenging, and may even get you killed. Nobody is saying that it is easy. Jesus told us it was hard.

So for someone to expect it to be easy, to demand proof of God in simple terms just for them, is someone who has failed to simply hear Jesus words regarding that faith is hard.

I wonder what other truths have been told to them that they also have decided not to listen to?

 

[NM505StKate]

Please keep in mind that there is not one kind of atheist. There is no unifying creed, or principal or common faith or goal among atheists. So don’t lump them together. In a sense, everyone is an atheist at some point. For a moment, anyone can stop having faith, then perhaps make a conscious decision to have faith again.

Regarding your atheist, what is important is not the atheist part, it is the ex-Catholic part. So for him, with is new found sense of power and freedom at being ‘liberated’ from his faith, he seems to have the need to test his new point of view out on you.

Ex-Catholics are the most damaging to people’s faith since they seek re-enforcement of their own dis-belief.** Secretly, they really are simply lazy thinkers.** Their new-found thinking goes something like this: show me proof of God and I will believe. Otherwise, I have decided that having faith in something that I can’t be sure about is either a waste of time or will lead to disappointment.

Meanwhile, the saints will tell you that faith is hard work, challenging, and may even get you killed. Nobody is saying that it is easy. Jesus told us it was hard.

So for someone to expect it to be easy, to demand proof of God in simple terms just for them, is someone who has failed to simply hear Jesus words regarding that faith is hard.

I wonder what other truths have been told to them that they also have decided not to listen to?

Bold is a strawman. Underline: That is something many atheists say, just show proof. The rest is also a strawman.

 

[Vonsalza]

Bold is a strawman. Underline: That is something many atheists say, just show proof. The rest is also a strawman.

Of course, you can no more prove the existence of “God” than you can “beauty”. So remind your atheist friend of that as well.

 

[NM505StKate]

Of course, you can no more prove the existence of “God” than you can “beauty”. So remind your atheist friend of that as well.

So god is a concept? Everyone has a different idea on what beauty is as the concept of beauty can change. Back in the 1950’s Betty Page was considered beautiful but by todays standards she would be deemed chunky or even fat whereas fashion models of today would have been seen as unhealthy back there, of course they are unhealthy now.

When asking for proof of god it is some kind of physical evidence especially seeing that something that interacts with the world should leave behind physical evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Wesrock]

So god is a concept? Everyone has a different idea on what beauty is as the concept of beauty can change. Back in the 1950’s Betty Page was considered beautiful but by todays standards she would be deemed chunky or even fat whereas fashion models of today would have been seen as unhealthy back there, of course they are unhealthy now.

Concept but not a concept. Being but not a being.

When asking for proof of god it is some kind of physical evidence especially seeing that something that interacts with the world should leave behind physical evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The extraordinary evidence is that there is a reality at all, and the implications of that in a reality that can be said to be intelligible, the implications of what it means to request actual evidence as a standard.

 

[NM505StKate]

Concept but not a concept. Being but not a being.

This is word salad. It doesn’t follow logically to me.

The extraordinary evidence is that there is a reality at all, and the implications of that in a reality that can be said to be intelligible, the implications of what it means to request actual evidence as a standard.

Reality is evidence of reality.

 

[Bookcat]

Being but not a being.

 

[Vonsalza]

So god is a concept? Everyone has a different idea on what beauty is as the concept of beauty can change. Back in the 1950’s Betty Page was considered beautiful but by todays standards she would be deemed chunky or even fat whereas fashion models of today would have been seen as unhealthy back there, of course they are unhealthy now.

In short reply to all that, “yes”. He is a metaphysical thing like any other non-material abstraction you believe in and just like all those other non-material abstraction, cannot be empirically proven.

When asking for proof of god it is some kind of physical evidence especially seeing that something that interacts with the world should leave behind physical evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Ok Hitchins. I’ll reiterate that the non-material cannot be materially proven. Hypothesis testing requires quantifiable subjects. Ergo, demanding empirical proof for a metaphysical idea is a category error. The lack of empirical proof allows one to fully reject God on an empirical basis. Although, if they’re consistent with their approach, they must fairly question all other things that are also non-material (like “humanism” itself). And oh what sad nihilists they shall be. TOTALLY a slippery slope, but one that can be readily observed.

Often, even the material cannot be materially sourced. Like who wrote “Beowulf”? The story exists. The identity of the author does not.

 

[Wesrock]

This is word salad. It doesn’t follow logically to me.

It’s better suited to the philosophy forum, but it’s due to positive descriptions of God as being limited in expressing what He is.

Reality is evidence of reality.

Reality is evidence of God. You demand evidence, because all effects must have a cause. Things cannot come from nothing. They must be justified, have a reason behind them. If something disappears from your desk, there must be a reason for it. If something exists, you should be able to document its effects, and you should be able to document its cause. Follow this rationale through to its conclusion, and you’re faced with one of two choices: (1) either there is God as an underlying ultimate reality behind it all, allowing for an intelligible reality, or (2) deny the full intelligibility of reality in order to deny God, which makes it rather absurd to insist on needing evidence for all things, given that not everything would need a reason or cause or evidence in order to exist in an unintelligible universe. If you do believe in an intelligible reality, there’s only one rational conclusion, or so the argument goes. It’s not as definitive as a mathematical proof, mind, but the aim would be to convince you of such. Hence such arguments as the arguments from contingency, the first mover, the unmoved mover (the cosmological arguments), or say arguments from the principle of sufficient reason.

This is all just broad strokes about the lines and aim of how one would approach the issue.

Asking for evidence of miracles or the effects of prayer or what have you is one thing, but we’re not two theists debating the nature and character and actions of God, it seems. This line of argument isn’t about the Christian God, exactly, it’s just a theistic argument, and that’s fine. Take reality as real, take reality as intelligible, and you can develop rational arguments for why this necessarily implies God given the supporting evidence of a real, intelligible reality.

 

[Wesrock]

Ok Hitchins. I’ll reiterate that the non-material cannot be materially proven. Hypothesis testing requires quantifiable subjects. Ergo, demanding empirical proof for a metaphysical idea is a category error. The lack of empirical proof allows one to fully reject God on an empirical basis. Although, if they’re consistent with their approach, they must fairly question all other things that are also non-material (like “humanism” itself). And oh what sad nihilists they shall be. TOTALLY a slippery slope, but one that can be readily observed.

Let’s not forget taking for granted cause and effect, or that empirical observation is the only way to know truths, that the external world has any impact on our personal experiences, as these are not subject to empirical proof either. Ultimately, strict empiricism (the “empirical-only” approach) seems to be a road to solipsism.

 

[NM505StKate]

In short reply to all that, “yes”. He is a metaphysical thing like any other non-material abstraction you believe in and just like all those other non-material abstraction, cannot be empirically proven.

Ok Hitchins. I’ll reiterate that the non-material cannot be materially proven. Hypothesis testing requires quantifiable subjects. Ergo, demanding empirical proof for a metaphysical idea is a category error. The lack of empirical proof allows one to fully reject God on an empirical basis. Although, if they’re consistent with their approach, they must fairly question all other things that are also non-material (like “humanism” itself). And oh what sad nihilists they shall be. TOTALLY a slippery slope, but one that can be readily observed.

Often, even the material cannot be materially sourced. Like who wrote “Beowulf”? The story exists. The identity of the author does not.

Ah it is about philosophy. Okay then god is an idea and a concept. I am still getting into philosophy.

 

[NM505StKate]

It’s better suited to the philosophy forum, but it’s due to positive descriptions of God as being limited in expressing what He is.

Reality is evidence of God. You demand evidence, because all effects must have a cause. Things cannot come from nothing. They must be justified, have a reason behind them. If something disappears from your desk, there must be a reason for it. If something exists, you should be able to document its effects, and you should be able to document its cause. Follow this rationale through to its conclusion, and you’re faced with one of two choices: (1) either there is God as an underlying ultimate reality behind it all, allowing for an intelligible reality, or (2) deny the full intelligibility of reality in order to deny God, which makes it rather absurd to insist on needing evidence for all things, given that not everything would need a reason or cause or evidence in order to exist in an unintelligible universe. If you do believe in an intelligible reality, there’s only one rational conclusion, or so the argument goes. It’s not as definitive as a mathematical proof, mind, but the aim would be to convince you of such. Hence such arguments as the arguments from contingency, the first mover, the unmoved mover (the cosmological arguments), or say arguments from the principle of sufficient reason.

Asking for evidence of miracles or the effects of prayer or what have you is one thing, but we’re not two theists debating the nature and character and actions of God, it seems. This line of argument isn’t about the Christian God, exactly, it’s just a theistic argument, and that’s fine. Take reality as real, take reality as intelligible, and you can develop rational arguments for why this necessarily implies God given the supporting evidence of a real, intelligible reality.

The bolded part is important because I agree something cannot come from nothing so then how did god create the universe out of nothing? We are still learning about the universe and things inside of it. In my lifetime the questions will not be answered.

 

[Wesrock]

The bolded part is important because I agree something cannot come from nothing so then how did god create the universe out of nothing? We are still learning about the universe and things inside of it. In my lifetime the questions will not be answered.

The phrase generally means that something which comes into being must be caused, or that something that changes must be caused, or that a thing which exists in some limited configuration instead of another limited configuration should have a reason for existing that way as opposed to another.

 

[NM505StKate]

The phrase generally means that something which comes into being must be caused, or that something that changes must be caused, or that a thing which exists in some limited configuration instead of another limited configuration should have a reason for existing that way as opposed to another.

Okay so when it is asked what caused the Big Bang there can be many reasons. We do not know what caused it right now nor may we in our lifetime but there was something that caused it. I am going to add it something natural caused it.

 

[Wesrock]

Okay so when it is asked what caused the Big Bang there can be many reasons. We do not know what caused it right now nor may we in our lifetime but there was something that caused it. I am going to add it something natural caused it.

And what caused the “something natural”? This doesn’t end at the big bang. Nor does it seem rational to insist on special pleading (special pleading of the gaps?), and if we admit anything as being uncaused, then that would leave the door open for uncaused events within our reality, which undermines the intelligibility of the universe, which means admitting that some things can happen without evidence.

But it’s not simply a matter of tracing everything back to the big bang or prior. The cosmological arguments don’t even assume a start to the universe, so they’re not so easily dismissed. They are focused on causation/change/contingency in the here and now, not simply a sequence of events. Take for example a series of train cars. The caboose is moving because it’s being pulled by the car in front of it, which is moving because of the car in front of it, which is moving because… you get the idea. (Thomas Aquinas’ example was a rock being moved by a stick which was being moved by a hand). The arguments are not based on a temporal sequence of events, in which the current actor is dependent on something prior in the past but no longer (I was caused by my father who was caused by my grandfather, but my grandfather dying in the past doesn’t end my existence). It’s a matter of continuing motion (or change in any sense, not just physical motion). The continuing motion of the rock depends on the continuing motion of the stick which is dependent on the continuing motion of the arm which is dependent on the continuing motion of…

It’s a difference between what’s termed as an accidentally ordered series (father to son) compared to an essentially ordered series (rock > stick > arm), the latter of which cannot logically be an infinite regress if it’s to be changing at all. Cause and effect are not two separate events, necessarily. I suppose you could say the window broke because the boy threw the brick, which is an example of something accidentally ordered. But you can also say that the window is breaking because the brick is pushing through it. Same event.

Just an example.

 

[NM505StKate]

And what caused the “something natural”? This doesn’t end at the big bang. Nor does it seem rational to insist on special pleading (special pleading of the gaps?), and if we admit anything as being uncaused, then that would leave the door open for uncaused events within our reality, which undermines the intelligibility of the universe, which means admitting that some things can happen without evidence.

But it’s not simply a matter of tracing everything back to the big bang or prior. The cosmological arguments don’t even assume a start to the universe, so they’re not so easily dismissed. They are focused on causation/change/contingency in the here and now, not simply a sequence of events. Take for example a series of train cars. The caboose is moving because it’s being pulled by the car in front of it, which is moving because of the car in front of it, which is moving because… you get the idea. (Thomas Aquinas’ example was a rock being moved by a stick which was being moved by a hand). The arguments are not based on a temporal sequence of events, in which the current actor is dependent on something prior in the past but no longer (I was caused by my father who was caused by my grandfather, but my grandfather dying in the past doesn’t end my existence). It’s a matter of continuing motion (or change in any sense, not just physical motion). The continuing motion of the rock depends on the continuing motion of the stick which is dependent on the continuing motion of the arm which is dependent on the continuing motion of…

It’s a difference between what’s termed as an accidentally ordered series (father to son) compared to an essentially ordered series (rock > stick > arm), the latter of which cannot logically be an infinite regress if it’s to be changing at all. Cause and effect are not two separate events, necessarily. I suppose you could say the window broke because the boy threw the brick, which is an example of something accidentally ordered. But you can also say that the window is breaking because the brick is pushing through it. Same event.

Just an example.

We don’t know what exactly cause it. We can get down to what causes some things but not everything.

 

[jackydarapper]

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.”

Well said I’ve had a similar debate with a muslim guy and it was turning ugly. My wife then told me there is no point in arguing with someone who is not ready to listen. A priest once told me 'If anyone is truly searching for the Truth, they will find the Truth and the same Truth will set them free. I’m inspired by Dr.Scott Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home, which tells how you’ll find the Truth when you’re truly searching for it. So, first get to know if the person is really searching for the Truth or simply trying to attack you with the little knowledge which he’d have learnt. If the first, then pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance and then prepare yourself with what is been suggested by others. There are famous debate videos on Youtube related to this topic. I forgot the one which I had watched… let me know if you’re interested, I can get you the link.
God Bless You!:knight1::harp:

 

[fisherman_carl]

“When you can snatch the atom from my palm, then you will be ready to debate grasshopper”

Then walk away! Athiests will always require proof, Religious need only faith!

The question that leads to a deeper question is why does he require such proof? The requirement for proof is like a blockade that someone has erected to keep something away. It seems reasonable on the outside but in reality we are talking about God not science. The point is that if his standard of proof is always higher than what reality affords then there is something wrong there. His standard is a defence mechanism rather than a search for the truth. Rather than being open to the way in which God does reveal himself to us he demand a proof outside of that reality so that he can keep God away from his heart. It is the softening of his heart towards God that we must pray for. The natural mind cannot comprehend the things of God. He needs God’s grace and a change of heart and mind.

Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. They do not have this blockade erected between them and God. They receive the grace of God gladly. In the Kingdom of God one must believe first and then they will see. It is the opposite of what we would expect with our natural minds.

 

[PRmerger]

I was accosted today at school with an convert from Catholicism to atheism. He wished to debate, and I took a stab at it. He asked for the scientific evidence.

Science exists to find natural answers to questions.

So science is not equipped to provide evidence for questions of God’s existence.

That would be like saying, “Give me the evidence that I am Lithuanian but I want you to use a stethoscope to provide the evidence!”

Why would I use stethoscope? That’s not the tool for determining ancestry. It’s a tool for listening.

 

[PRmerger]

Where did God come from?

God has no beginning, and so doesn’t “come from” anywhere.

He just IS.