How would you go about proving God's existence to an atheist or agnostic?

[Gilbert_Keith]

cheddarsox

What hubris is this, to claim a monopoly on the divine?

Monopoly is your word, not mine. We can approach God in different ways, and He can approach us in different ways … but only one Church has the Eucharist, the physical presence of Jesus, which a Catholic can embrace and take into himself for minutes or hours, but which an atheist cannot even believe in because his hubris is such that he makes himself final and supreme judge of the truth, while speaking of the God who created Him as a mere figment of imagination…

 

[Everstruggling]

cheddarsox:

That was your response to her. That she could do it, but she would have to be Catholic.

He’s a he, actually.:yup:
Just thought I’d throw that in.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Anyway, as to the question that governs this thread, I think you cannot prove anything to an atheist or agnostic.

As I said before, the lack of faith is not in the intellect. That is an excuse the atheist will throw out for theists to play with. The real reason an atheist or agnostic has no use for God is in the will. The atheist does not want God to exist. Why he does not want God to exist every atheist will have to answer for himself. The reason may vary from one atheist to another.

But if he persists to his dying moment in not wanting God, when he is judged there is a very real possibility that God will finally oblige the atheist’s wish. And having been offered God’s love all his life, the atheist will have no reason to complain through all eternity.

 

[Everstruggling]

Gilbert Keith:

Everstruggling

*If there is a God, I sincerly want him to be kind and compassionate. No one who is kind and compassionate, and has the power to change things, could sit by and watch. I wouldn’t, and I’m actually a bit of a jerk. I’m not talking about eliminating all pain all together; I’m talking about the pain that breaks people’s spirit. The overwhelming, soul-stealing pain that makes people lose faith in living, in love, and in themselves. I just can not be convinced that an all-powerful, all-loving God would cause that much pain. It isn’t fair. A God that would do that doesn’t deserve my respect. *

Have you read C.S. Lewis’ The Problem of Pain?

Yes, actually, I was thinking of him when I wrote that paragraph. Was it the fact that I qualify the type of pain I talk about that tipped you off? I disagree with his idea, which I interpreted as, “Pain builds character, and makes us better people”. I have to say that I’m closer in opinion to C.F. Forester who says, “Whipping often turns a good man bad, and never makes a good man better.”
We have to disagree about whether pain can break you. I’ve seen it a lot.
Gilbert Keith:

As for three minutes with God, you can have more than that if you become a Catholic … but only if you become a Catholic. He is present in the Eucharist at any church and is waiting for you to visit Him as many hours of the days as you like.

What father gives his child bread when he asks for a hug? I’m talking about real closesness and understanding. Something that doesn’t require faith, or a special understanding. I’m not looking for more rituals, I’m looking for a real head to head with my creator. He has the time, doesn’t He? Isn’t there enough time for him to drop in on ever single person on earth and say hello? If He can, and he cares, why doesn’t he?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

What father gives his child bread when he asks for a hug? I’m talking about real closesness and understanding. Something that doesn’t require faith, or a special understanding. I’m not looking for more rituals, I’m looking for a real head to head with my creator. He has the time, doesn’t He? Isn’t there enough time for him to drop in on ever single person on earth and say hello? If He can, and he cares, why doesn’t he?
What father dies on a cross for all of his sons and daughters and leaves behind not an empty ritual but His own precious Body and Blood to comfort them?

Only one Father does that … God the Father. And if you don’t think that’s a lot of hugs, it’s only because you see nothing but an empty ritual and do not hope for anything more from what has become for you a cruel and loveless universe that never hugs.

Do you deny God the father because He does not hug you? Or do you deny God the Father because you do not want Him to hug you? Read the following sentence:

 

[Nan_S]

Please bear with me if you’ve seen me quote this passage before on an earlier thread.

Jesus Himself commented on the fate of a man who “lives life to the fullest” without also sacrificing his own pleasure for the sake of others. Moreover, and more relevant to this thread, Jesus also commented on the futility of using supernatural proofs to convert those among us who are unconvinced by ordinary proofs and logic.

Luke 16:19-31 [Jesus said to the disciples] “There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, full of sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom. And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.’”

Personally, I maintain that if an athiest is absolutely convicted that God does not exist (which is not quote the same as being convinced), no amount of miraculous proof will make a difference. The whole scenario of “I see the roof of my house open and Jesus appears before me telling me to repent…Repeat this action more than once” would simply lead to a pointless “who was that masked man?” response.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

NAN S

Well said, Nan.

Yes, the parable is from Jesus … who knew that even the hug he gave Judas would be answered with a resounding NO!

 

[wcknight]

First I would get them a blessed miraculous medal either on a chain or a card and challenge them to keep it for one year. Then I might get them a book on a few of the miracle workers such as PAdre Pio or St. Anthony or maybe a book on miraculous apparitions of miracle sites in the world, in particular Guadalupe, Lourdes, and a few others…

And last I would try to engage them in a discussion of the meaning of life, how and why we are here and what if anything happens after we die. And if all this failed I would ask Mary to handle them as she handles so many other conversions.

wc.

 

[Chris_W]

elwedriddsche:

I do not concede your definitions of atheism and agnosticism, which in hindsight renders this discussion moot from the beginning.

You make a statement about the subset of atheists that I call strong atheists and it may well follow from the definition. For atheists in general (as I understand the term), we’ll have to agree to disagree.

edit: see blue highlight.

I don’t want to quibble about definitions here, that’s not the point. Perhaps I am too simplistic in my definitions, and those being defined may object. Just so you understand, I am only differentiatin between those who are convinced (or tell themselves that) that God does not exist, and those are not convinced.

I do not think that issue renders the discussion pointless however. Nor do I think most people visit this site simply to “agree to disagree”…I enjoy the discussion, as I hope you will as well.

If I could engage you agian then: The reaction that one can leave a problem unanswered is perplexing to me, and I wonder if you can help me out. For me, I have an inherent need to know that I am grounded in truth. It affects my self-esteem, my peace, my sanity really. I find it necessary to know that what I believe is true, which is what brings me to these forums and other discussions.

I mentioned evolution earlier in the thread. I have a real distaste for the whole idea, yet I cannot rest comfortably if I think I have no answer for a claim made by evolutionists. I’ve recently began studying the notion of global warming, as just another example.

Yet I meet people now and again who seem content to say, “I don’t believe such and such…I have no answer for the problems set before me, but I’m okay with that…I simply don’t believe such and such.”

That statement is effective in ending the discussion, but I leave perplexed, aksing myself, "Is that really possible? There must be some part of that person which needs to know with certainty whether or not what he believes is true, and how can that happen if he has no answer to the question posed to him?

Your reaction to what I’ve just said would be of interest to me.

Peace,
Chris W

 

[Chris_W]

Everstruggling:

For instance, the doctor tells two patients that they have inoperable cancer and they have a month to live. One, a believer, goes to Fatima and is healed, must be a miracle. The other one, an atheist, cuts down on red meat and takes up Yoga, the doctor must have been wrong. People of all walks of life, of all beliefs, can have “miraculous” healings.

Let’s consider the atheist who cut down on red meat, etc. What if cancer went away mysteriously on several, or perhaps numerous people who cut down on red meat and took up yoga? Would you still think it an inexplicable mystery? Or would you think it stands to reason there may be something to this red meat/yoga therapy?

I mentioned in my first post on this thread that there is no single piece of evidence that can constitute proof. It is the convergence of evidences, miracle healings being merely one evidence (or potential evidence if you prefer). But there are so many more evidences that need to be considered as well.

Everstruggling:

I have a friend who had a very large tumor. (It was definitely there, there were x-rays to prove it). He went to a psychic surgeon in the Phillipines. His cancer is now gone. (It’s definitely gone, there are x-rays to prove it.) I can only imagine that his belief that it was gone was so strong that his body somehow got rid of it…it seems really similar to me…I don’t think I’m being overly cautious if I say, “Ok, show me the proof. Let’s run tests on the stuff you pulled out.”.

That is my reaction as well. Let’s let the experts evaluate the evidence…But what if this psychic surgeon did this numerous times and the experts run all the tests they want, and they conclude that there is no rational explanation for how this occurred? What then would be your reaction? Much as I dislike the idea, I would be hard pressed to say he is not actually performing surgury by psychic means.

Everstruggling:

I have to admit that I don’t want to believe in Fatima. My wants affect my belief far more than logic or scientific reasoning does.

Your honesty is shocking. I am never prepared for a response like that. It makes me want to stop challenging you…

…but with will power I can overcome anything

Everstruggling:

There is no fairness in miracles.

I once went to a place called Medjugorie, Yugoslavia, where the Virgin Mary was reported to have been appearing. Reports listed all kinds of miracles taking place, from the simplest to the truely remarkable. I was pretty luke warm in my spiritual life, not really living a Christian life, etc.

I was there for 5 days. The first 3 days I prayed constantly to God, “Please give me some kind of sign that I might have reason to take my faith seriously, anything, something simple if you like, but something I will recognize as a miraculous sign to know you hear me”. Nothing happened. I didn’t even feel spiritual when I prayed, and here I was in this supposed place of miracles.

On the fourth day I was depressed. Then, like a ton of bricks, this realization came over me: “I don’t need a miracle.” Deep down I already knew God exists, and my faith is deeper now than I ever imagined it would be.

Would I have the depth of faith, this sense of trust and awe, if He had answered my request? This might not make sense to you now, but I don’t think so. If I tell my 4 year old that he will not fall through our new trampoline (as an example), I know he trusts me if he gets on. But if I have to get on first and show him it will hold his weight, and then he gets on, can that really be called faith on his part?

If God lifted the roof as you request, would you then have faith in Him? How much faith does it take to believe what you can see, feel, touch, etc?

Everstruggling:

Sorry for rambling so long

Rambling? You must be kidding. Great stuff!

 

[Chris_W]

Everstruggling:

If there is a God, I sincerly want him to be kind and compassionate. No one who is kind and compassionate, and has the power to change things, could sit by and watch. I wouldn’t, and I’m actually a bit of a jerk. I’m not talking about eliminating all pain all together; I’m talking about the pain that breaks people’s spirit. The overwhelming, soul-stealing pain that makes people lose faith in living, in love, and in themselves. I just can not be convinced that an all-powerful, all-loving God would cause that much pain. It isn’t fair. A God that would do that doesn’t deserve my respect.

So I choose to believe that God either does not exist, or that God doesn’t know, or that God just can’t change the world. My sanity won’t allow me to believe in a God gives to some and takes from others, and tells them all he loves them the same.

We think we know so much, but we don’t. We are little children frustrated by what we do not understand (I’m including myself in this). But in reality we cannot comprehend what God has planned for us.

My first son died 40 minutes after being born. That’s the kind of pain I think you are describing. My wife and cried “But we’re doing everything right…we didn’t have sex before marriage, we’re both Catholic, married in the Church, being good Christians, etc.etc…why do crackpots on the street have healthy children they’re only going to abandon, while our beloved son died?”

I won’t take the length here to describe all that happened in my spiritual life since then, but I can attest that good can come from anything. God deeply loved me, even when He allowed (notice I said allowed, not caused) my son to die. I am indebted to Him more than I can explain. And I feel so fortunate that I have a share in His peace…a peace that must make no sense to those who don’t know God.

On my son’s headstone is engraved “Faith in God is our consolation”. You cannot know what you are missing, Everstruggling.

In the memoirs of an atheist named Simone de Beauvoir, she wrote, “if of an evening I happened to have drunk a glass too many, it could easily happen that I wept buckets. My old longing for the absolute awoke; I discovered afresh the vanity of human striving and the menacing nearness of death…alcohol removes the defenses and controls that normally protect us from unbearable certainties.”

Another author wrote of an atheist, “He multiplies experiences in an unending and desperate attempt to numb his spirit. It hurts so much not to have attained the very reason for his existence, an immersion in God…the worldling pursues prestige or comfort or wealth or sexual encounters not because they basically satisfy him (if they did he would only need it once)…but because they dull his inner aching.”

The same author also concluded that in a genuine and total atheism a person closes himself to transcendence. And to be closed to transcendence is to be closed to absolute beauty, truth, goodness, and love. It is to be closed to the fulfillment of one’s own humanness.

You mentioned your wants affect your beliefs. I suppose that is true in some ways for most people. But what are your wants in life? (don’t answer…just food for thought). What do you think will fulfill you? And what if the peace that God offers surpasses any consolation acheived by your current desires and you only discover near the end of your life what you could’ve had right now?

Peace,
Chris W

P.S. I’m still in a hotel, so my time on the computer is very limited this weekend. Sorry for the delay in responses.

 

[Nan_S]

Chris W:

The reaction that one can leave a problem unanswered is perplexing to me, and I wonder if you can help me out. For me, I have an inherent need to know that I am grounded in truth. It affects my self-esteem, my peace, my sanity really.

As a fellow Catholic, I share your conviction in having my core beliefs grounded in truth. I took it from a different perspective though - credibility, most specifically as a parent.

I always knew that if I wavered between “belief A” and “belief B” then my kids, being kids, would follow whichever was easiest in a given situation. And that reason - situational ethics - is exactly the WRONG reason for believing anything. Therefore, I was compelled to take a position on my belief and be prepared to defend it no matter what.

I mentioned evolution earlier in the thread. I have a real distaste for the whole idea, yet I cannot rest comfortably if I think I have no answer for a claim made by evolutionists. I’ve recently began studying the notion of global warming, as just another example.

If I’m hearing you correctly, you are still exploring the evolution idea. Please forgive me if I’ve presumptiously read you wrong. I believe that the earth really is billions of years old, because I am convinced that God, being all Truth, would not create a world with a false history of great age just to test our credulity and faith.

That being said, my exploration into evolution has convinced me that micro-evolution, the gradual change in species over time to adapt to changing conditions, is indeed true. Drug-resistant bacteria are the perfect example of micro-evolution.

The idea that I find questionable at best is macro-evolution, the idea that one species will transmogrify into a completely different one over time, even over millions of years, without the direct intervention of God. After all these years we are still looking for Darwin’s transitional forms, and they still elude us.

Yet I meet people now and again who seem content to say, “I don’t believe such and such…I have no answer for the problems set before me, but I’m okay with that…I simply don’t believe such and such.”

I’m going to play devil’s advocate here and defend the other side on this one. Being a limited human with a limited number of years allocated to me by God, I know that I don’t have time to satisfactorially explore all the great ideas in the universe. Good heavens, I’m still trying to find time to get the laundry folded, so for some of these Great Questions I DO have to say “I have no answer for the problems set before me, but I’m okay with that.” :whacky:

 

[Chris_W]

Nan S:

If I’m hearing you correctly, you are still exploring the evolution idea. Please forgive me if I’ve presumptiously read you wrong. I believe that the earth really is billions of years old, because I am convinced that God, being all Truth, would not create a world with a false history of great age just to test our credulity and faith.:

Oh no! I really don’t want this thread to head down an evolution path. That wasn’t my intent in mentioning it…there are many many many many threads on that subject which have taken hours off my life, including rebutting the statements you just made. But I can’t bring myself to respond to your statements about evolution in this thread.
Nan S:

I’m going to play devil’s advocate here and defend the other side on this one. Being a limited human with a limited number of years allocated to me by God, I know that I don’t have time to satisfactorially explore all the great ideas in the universe. Good heavens, I’m still trying to find time to get the laundry folded, so for some of these Great Questions I DO have to say “I have no answer for the problems set before me, but I’m okay with that.” :whacky:

Ah. Great point! Allow me to clarify. What I mean by “problems set before me” are those problems which challenge your current beliefs. Granted global warming doesn’t challenge my belief system per se, but hey, I’m a glutten for punishment. I love the debate.

I do feel a very real necessaity to know that I have an answer to problems that question my faith. Atheism is a faith, whether anyone cares to admit it. Thus, the problem of miracles, the life of Jesus of Nazareth, the fact that people (even atheists) fear death, are problems that challenge their faith. That’s my point. I am interested in the rationalle that allows for inner peace while simply not dealing with those problems.

The same issue exists for many Protestants. When we discuss Sola Scriptura, there are many who seem content to say “well, I guess we can’t know for absolute certain how to interpret the Bible, but I am content not knowing for sure.”

It doesn’t compute with me. I know I would have an inner turmoil that would prevent me from being at peace. In fact I used to have that inner turmoil which did affect my self esteem, confidence, and happiness in general…until I began studying why we believe what we believe as Catholics.

 

[Nan_S]

Chris W:

Thus, the problem of miracles, the life of Jesus of Nazareth, the fact that people (even atheists) fear death, are problems that challenge their faith. That’s my point. I am interested in the rationalle that allows for inner peace while simply not dealing with those problems…

It doesn’t compute with me. I know I would have an inner turmoil that would prevent me from being at peace. In fact I used to have that inner turmoil which did affect my self esteem, confidence, and happiness in general…until I began studying why we believe what we believe as Catholics.

We are not meant to understand these problems - yet. For now, we are meant merely to recognize them, then leave the understanding thereof to God.

*1 Cor 13:9-12 For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. *

*2 Pet 3:15-18 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. *

I am content because I have willed myself to be content. Having studied until my brain went numb, I now turn to the neglected laundry mountain to mindlessly fold and iron instead.

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

AnAtheist
*Don’t do that. PW is a ridiculous argument, and it works the other way round too:
*
If it was a ridiculous argument, the celebrated agnostic/logician Bertrand Russell would have disposed of it with great relish. But as it stands, it’s the only argument for God that Russell never attacked. And very likely because it is impervious to attack, Pascal himself being a better mathematician and logician than Russell.

Sorry, but PW is so full of fallacies, perhaps Russel never bothered to think about it.

1. It assumes a priori, that an afterlife exists. This is a question independent of whether a god or many gods exist. There might be an afterlife but no god, and there may be a god but no afterlife.
2. It assumes, how the assumed god will react to human behaviour.
3. In other words, it assumes that God is the Christian God, thus omitting billions of other possibilities, and thus yielding to a meaningless statistical result.
4. It assumes that one looses nothing by believing. While for many people religion may be a benefit, others may suffer from it.
5. It omits the possibility that you get punished in the afterlife for believing in the wrong god. So be prepared, when you meet Allah.

Pascal’s Wager is utter nonsense, it only makes sense when you already are a Christian (or a theist of a diffenrent branch, when you exchange some words), and then you don’t need it.

 

[cheddarsox]

First I would get them a blessed miraculous medal either on a chain or a card and challenge them to keep it for one year. Then I might get them a book on a few of the miracle workers such as PAdre Pio or St. Anthony or maybe a book on miraculous apparitions of miracle sites in the world, in particular Guadalupe, Lourdes, and a few others…

**I’d be careful with this if I were you. When I was a Catholic, and being a person very interested in religion and spirituality, I was a very involved Catholic. I did the miraculous medal thing, scapular, all manner of devotions, read about mystics, stigmatists etc, had my name buried at Fatima etc. etc. And those were the very things that began to lead me away from the faith.

Rather than focusing on God, they were a bit like a circus side show, and bordered on superstition and certainly distracted me from the divine, which is the main event. And for non Catholics, these are very often the things that they find to be “bad” or questionable about the faith.**

**For the faithful, it is possible for miracles, apparitions, and incorruptable bodies of saints to serve as signs and strengtheners of faith. But for a non believer, who is asking “If God is so loving, why is my loved one dying?” seeing that God bothered to preserve intact the body of a dead person, who no longer needs it, while allowing the body of a living person to rot away hardly encourages them to sign on.

What serves as a miracle for the faithful, is very often a stumbling block for the non believer.**

And last I would try to engage them in a discussion of the meaning of life, how and why we are here and what if anything happens after we die. And if all this failed I would ask Mary to handle them as she handles so many other conversions.

**I think these are better ways to go.

cheddar
**

 

[Krebsbach]

*So when folks spout theism, atheism or agnosticism it makes sense to ax them what the heck they are saying exists, doesn’t exist or might or might not exist.

*Well, I would take it as a given that they are talking about a Creator who takes some interest in his creation and who expects his creation to return the favor. Anything beyond that would be difficult to ascertain for a certainty without the help of revelations.

This would cover most of the ancient as well as the modern religions.

Deism, a largely 18th century quasi-religious position (which lingers here and there right into our time), tries to evade the personal relationship but fails due to an instrinsically faulty logic that Isaac Newton repudiated. Deism tries to imagine an intelligent God without heart. Could this be the predictable theory of a cold intellectual elite who think God is more like themselves than anyone else?

Hey GK,

The implications of there being a Creator of Everything are troubling to persons without a belief in a personal God. That is why it is so much fun watching folks scrambling to find alternative to a simple Big Bang explanation of creation of the universe and why the emerging discipline of Intelligent Design (refer to Dembksi, Behe, Brandon Carter, et al and not simple minded creationists trying to hijack the terminology) is so vilified by advocates of scientism (flip side of creationism). It all dove-tails too nicely with the Judeo-Christian understanding of creation, a creating God who counts the hairs on our heads.

Some opponents of ID have thrown in the towel, notably Francis Crick, who posits the question-begging theory of pan-spermia (the aliens did it!) to explain how something so complex as DNA could have arisen in such a short time. What a hoot.

So i find the Argument from Design, ID, anthropic principle line of thought to be quite refreshing. This is especially so cuz i once despaired of there every being empirical proofs of God’s existence. As a young questioning college student I once latched on to the New and Improved Ontological Argument, a purely logical approach to theism promoted by Charles Hartshorne, the so-called modal version of the proof. see his Anselm’s Discoveryd and A Natural Theology for Our Time.

 

[Krebsbach]

As far as I am concerned, the reformulated Ontological Argument has never been refuted. Most people don’t even know about it, and when informed, they simply trot out the old arguments against Anselm’s version. Quite silly.

the long and the short of it, for me, is that it is more reasonable than not to be theistic. and I agree with Hartshorne that to be atheistic or agnostic is to be quite illogical.

Overall i agree with the Cattykism that clear and converging proofs abound. In this day and age, there isn’t much excuse for not being theistic.

cordially

Karl Krebsbach

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

*Sorry, but PW is so full of fallacies, perhaps Russel never bothered to think about it.
Very improbable. It would have been a feather in Russell’s logical cap if he had been able to disprove Pascal, a man widely revered as one of the greatest minds of his day, so much so that even Descartes came to visit him at his home.

No, I think you are trying to find an out for Russell that doesn’t exist. Russell did write on Pascal when he wrote as a historian of philosophy, yet he avoids discussing the Wager. This is a notable fact, and Pascal’s argument certainly should not have been overlooked as if it didn’t exist when Russell wrote his infamous essay, “Why I Am Not a Christian…”

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Kebsbach

Overall i agree with the Cattykism that clear and converging proofs abound. In this day and age, there isn’t much excuse for not being theistic.

I agree that these “proofs” point to the existence of a Creator God. However, these proof are not “clear and convincing” to an atheist for the following reason. Remember the parable of Jesus pointed out by NanS. If you are an atheist, it is because you want to be one, not because there is logical proof against God.

Bishop Sheen remarked:

“For the new atheism is not like the old, theoretical atheism, which prided itself on being intellectually compounded of a little science, anthropology, and comparative religion. The new atheism is not of the intellect, but of the will; it is an act of free and eager rejection of morality and its demands. It starts with the affirmation of self and the denial of the moral law.”

*And the best way to refute the moral law, from the atheist’s point of view, would be to reject the Creator of the moral law. *

The atheist is at heart a rebel. He will not serve.