I need Help in responding

[lemonbeam]

An atheist sent me this, can you please help me, what do I respond?

This is what he sent me:

**’'Like I stated. there is no proof of God and if you could Define God coherently then it would no longer be God but a coherent definition of what it is, since God is but a name of some unknowable thing and to know God would also Make God not God anymore its as simple as that, God must be unknown and unknowable eternally.

So its not that God does not exist, its that God cannot exist. If you cannot understand this most Simple of logic then you are not mentally capable to make judgments about things beyond science since its obvious you Know nothing about Logic’’**

 

[jmcrae]

He has it wrong. First of all, the term “god” has several meanings; “he is a god” means that he has the good qualities of a man in superabundance. “God-like” means that physically he is proportioned according to the Greek ideal. Even the Bible itself refers to supermen as “gods.” When I was at art school, there were certain professors who were referred to as “gods” because they had the power of life and death over your career as an artist; we were always told, “Don’t anger the gods.”

In our culture, we typically use the word “God” to refer to our Creator. In Christianity, we believe that we can have a personal and corporate relationship with our Creator by means of prayer and worship.

 

[musicality]

Tell him that Logic is a human construct and that God transcends humanity and its constructs.
And if he needs a logical argument to actually look at for the existence of God, have him take a look at René Descartes and his ontological argument for the existence of God.

BTW I just thought this was kind of amazing:
Wikipedia:

The religious beliefs of René Descartes have been rigorously debated within scholarly circles. He claimed to be a devout Roman Catholic, claiming that one of the purposes of the Meditations was to defend the Christian faith. However, in his own era, Descartes was accused of harboring secret deist or atheist beliefs. Contemporary Blaise Pascal said that “I cannot forgive Descartes; in all his philosophy he did his best to dispense with God. But he could not avoid making Him set the world in motion with a flip of His thumb; after that he had no more use for God.”[15]

Stephen Gaukroger’s biography of Descartes reports that “he had a deep religious faith as a Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth.”[16] After Descartes died in Sweden, Queen Christina abdicated her throne to convert to Roman Catholicism. (Swedish law required a Protestant ruler.) The only Catholic she had prolonged contact with was Descartes, who was her personal tutor.

(I should note that the ontological argument isn’t accepted by all theologians mainly because it was rejected by St. Thomas Aquinas)

 

[masterjedi747]

’'Like I stated. there is no proof of God

Well, that part is most certainly not true, although may require an extended discussion.
But perhaps start by asking him: “why is there something rather than nothing?” If he grants that something could have come from nothing without a cause, then his position is simply absurd. On the other hand, if he grants that something must have existed from all eternity, then he’s 99% of the way to granting the existence of a Necessary Being.

and if you could Define God coherently then it would no longer be God but a coherent definition of what it is, since God is but a name of some unknowable thing and to know God would also Make God not God anymore its as simple as that, God must be unknown and unknowable eternally.

He’s actually not far wrong here. God is incomprehensible. We can only know Him through His effects, and we come to name His attributes largely through negation, by saying what He is not. But even though God’s essence is incomprehensible, that doesn’t mean that He is entirely unknowable, because we can still come to know Him in a certain way, indirectly.

So its not that God does not exist, its that God cannot exist.

God* cannot be known* by men, therefore He cannot exist… simply does not follow.

Which is particularly funny in light of his following statement:

If you cannot understand this most Simple of logic then you are not mentally capable to make judgments about things beyond science since its obvious you Know nothing about Logic’'

…Mr. Logic might want to consider taking his own advice, there.

 

[graceandglory]

An atheist sent me this, can you please help me, what do I respond?

:

Personally, I’m not really good with atheists. A couple minutes ago, in the top right of this screen, there was a quote by Louis Pasteur, in the Catholic quotes box. He was a scientist and a Catholic. The quote was about acknowledging the existence of “BEAUTY.” I recommend the book, The Evidential Power of Beauty: Science and Theology Meet by Fr. Thomas Dubay, for some compelling arguments when conversing with atheists.

books.google.com/books?id=Z0sGw6eJbw0C&pg=PP1&dq=evidential+power+of+beauty

 

[masterjedi747]

Tell him that Logic is a human construct and that God transcends humanity and its constructs.

…why would Logic be a human construct? It’s certainly not conventional, like language.

And if he needs a logical argument to actually look at for the existence of God, have him take a look at René Descartes and his ontological argument for the existence of God.

Please don’t. Descartes was a good mathematician, but not a good philosopher… even though well-intentioned, his flawed principles began the not-so-long road to disaster paved by the modern philosophers. Stick with Aquinas, I beg you.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

An atheist sent me this, can you please help me, what do I respond?

This is what he sent me:

**’'Like I stated. there is no proof of God and if you could Define God coherently then it would no longer be God but a coherent definition of what it is, since God is but a name of some unknowable thing and to know God would also Make God not God anymore its as simple as that, God must be unknown and unknowable eternally.

So its not that God does not exist, its that God cannot exist. If you cannot understand this most Simple of logic then you are not mentally capable to make judgments about things beyond science since its obvious you Know nothing about Logic’’**

I don’t know how you should respond (or if you should bother). This guy is so completely illogical that it’s hard to know where to begin. Maybe you should try to make a completely illogical and incoherent counterargument and maybe that would persuade him. I really don’t know. I think that this brilliantly illustrates that there are definitely atheists out there who don’t know what they’re talking about, just like there are some religious people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

 

[lemonbeam]

Thanks for responses, I will tell him!

On another subject, I don’t really want to start another Thread on this, but why is YouTube such an atheist hub? I don’t want to generalize but most if not all atheists there mock religion, Christianity mainly, they blast the Bible! They claim that Religious people are all superstitious, stupid. Science and Religion are incompatible etc. They say you can’t have reason and religion etc. It’s ridiculous! And these not are not just atheists, there are ANTI-THEISTS. They are militant and aggressive!

 

[musicality]

…why would Logic be a human construct? It’s certainly not conventional, like language.

Obviously, my choice of words weren’t the best. What I was getting at, is that our concepts of Logic are bound by our limits as humans. We determine the rules in our own frame of reference, and because we do not transcend our own frame of reference as God does, we can not attempt to box Him into our own logic.
In one sense he defies our logic (how can anything exist outside of space or time?), but in another sense he is required (how did the universe begin? what was here before the big bang?)…

Please don’t. Descartes was a good mathematician, but not a good philosopher… even though well-intentioned, his flawed principles began the not-so-long road to disaster paved by the modern philosophers. Stick with Aquinas, I beg you.

I’d have to agree with you. Using Descartes was a bad example, but I just love the fact that no matter how many times he tried to take God out of his progression of logic, he found that it was necessary.

 

[musicality]

Thanks for responses, I will tell him!

On another subject, I don’t really want to start another Thread on this, but why is YouTube such an atheist hub? I don’t want to generalize but most if not all atheists there mock religion, Christianity mainly, they blast the Bible! They claim that Religious people are all superstitious, stupid. Science and Religion are incompatible etc. They say you can’t have reason and religion etc. It’s ridiculous! And these not are not just atheists, there are ANTI-THEISTS. They are militant and aggressive!

YouTube is only a hub for atheists in certain places… Go to any sort of worship video, and you will find religious people absolutely drowning out any sort of atheist sentiment. ex: youtube.com/watch?v=OMqJWwO-S8E

 

[NPS]

An atheist sent me this, can you please help me, what do I respond?

This is what he sent me:

**’'Like I stated. there is no proof of God and if you could Define God coherently then it would no longer be God but a coherent definition of what it is, since God is but a name of some unknowable thing and to know God would also Make God not God anymore its as simple as that, God must be unknown and unknowable eternally.

So its not that God does not exist, its that God cannot exist. If you cannot understand this most Simple of logic then you are not mentally capable to make judgments about things beyond science since its obvious you Know nothing about Logic’’**

Break it down as follows:

1-Is it true there isn’t any proof for God?

2-There is no reason humans cannot define God coherently to one another.

3-Our ability/inability to define God changes God not one whit.

4-There is no reason why God would be inherently unknowable. God can be as knowable as He wishes. Our ability to know God can be as little or as great as He wishes.

Beyond that, Mr. Logic is simply playing word games. Or trying to, anyway.

 

[NPS]

On another subject, I don’t really want to start another Thread on this, but why is YouTube such an atheist hub? I don’t want to generalize but most if not all atheists there mock religion, Christianity mainly, they blast the Bible! They claim that Religious people are all superstitious, stupid. Science and Religion are incompatible etc. They say you can’t have reason and religion etc. It’s ridiculous! And these not are not just atheists, there are ANTI-THEISTS. They are militant and aggressive!

You are surprised?

We have a generation of narcissistic, self-absorbed young people who are taught their entire lives that religion is superstitious and harmful. They are told every day that anyone who opposes it is logical and intelligent and superior to their religious brethren. They are told every day that they are scientifically literate when they know virtually nothing about science. They are told they are the most logical, reasoned, and well-informed generation ever but most cannot argue their way out of a paper bag.

What works better—easier---- for them is the regurgitating rant. That way they can go on a spiel without worrying about opposing viewpoints messing up their thought process and oh-so-original message.

Anyone outside of their immediate circle of friends would bother them with real questions and point out holes in their arguments, so they end up needing an outlet to spew without any pesky logical interference.

Since they LOVE to see their own faces and hear themselves speak righteously about the world and all those in it, they naturally turn to the computer, where they can sit in the comfort of their bedrooms (of their parents’ houses) and let the Perfect Storm of narcissism, self-righteousness, and technology result in the ubiquitous Youtube anti-religious rant video.

 

[CentralFLJames]

An atheist sent me this, can you please help me, what do I respond?

This is what he sent me:

**’'Like I stated. there is no proof of God and if you could Define God coherently then it would no longer be God but a coherent definition of what it is, since God is but a name of some unknowable thing and to know God would also Make God not God anymore its as simple as that, God must be unknown and unknowable eternally.

So its not that God does not exist, its that God cannot exist. If you cannot understand this most Simple of logic then you are not mentally capable to make judgments about things beyond science since its obvious you Know nothing about Logic’’**

This guy is a pseudo-intellectual. He is guilty of the thing he says about you. His logic is illogical.

Here is what he saying:

1. God does not exist.
2. But if you could define what God is then it would not be God (or TRUE=NOT FALSE)
   But he just claimed God does not exist but in Boolean logic logically negating a falsity becomes TRUE! So logically he creates God but at the same time he contradicts assertion #1 and goes recursively circular
3. Then he asserts God who does not exist must be unknowable (How did he know that? did God tell him that? )
4. He concludes by saying with omniscient godlike knowledge that not only does God not exist but therefor He can’t exist (he is “simply” not willing to grant God the permission to make it possible for God to exist so it keeps all the logic simple for his simple mind)

It’s a tautology that proves:
1=1 or “I SAY SO” = “SO I SAY”



My advise - don’t waste your time - he’s whacked.

James

 

[wasmit]

An atheist sent me this, can you please help me, what do I respond?

This is what he sent me:

**’'Like I stated. there is no proof of God and if you could Define God coherently then it would no longer be God but a coherent definition of what it is, since God is but a name of some unknowable thing and to know God would also Make God not God anymore its as simple as that, God must be unknown and unknowable eternally.

So its not that God does not exist, its that God cannot exist. If you cannot understand this most Simple of logic then you are not mentally capable to make judgments about things beyond science since its obvious you Know nothing about Logic’’**

It sounds like you two are using different definitions of the word “god”, which is causing a misunderstanding, and frustration for both parties.

I expect that you are using the catholic definition (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolant, onmipresent, interested in every individual, etc…)

However, from this post, he is using the definition (some unknowable thing, … , … ).

You should restart the discussion with an agreed definition of the word “god”.

 

[CentralFLJames]

You should restart the discussion with an agreed definition of the word “god”.

Clever - make the atheist become the hypocrite by making the atheists responsbile for defining something that does not exist so as soon as he defines God he either proves the existence of God or forces the atheist to admit he is whacked to define a thing that does not and can not exist and therefor is forced to admit he is babbling nonsence and going non-linear. That ends the discussion quickly and gives the man a shot at beatitude through invincible ignorant by the axiomatic evidence of insanity.

Brilliant. That’s win-win and gets the atheists off the streets and put away safely into the mental clinics where they can start their penances…

James

 

[masterjedi747]

What I was getting at, is that our concepts of Logic are bound by our limits as humans. We determine the rules in our own frame of reference, and because we do not transcend our own frame of reference as God does…

In one sense he defies our logic (how can anything exist outside of space or time?), but in another sense he is required (how did the universe begin? what was here before the big bang?)…

Still not sure those are quite right as worded, but I do think I understand you generally.

4-There is no reason why God would be inherently unknowable. God can be as knowable as He wishes. Our ability to know God can be as little or as great as He wishes.

Well… there is the fact that He is infinite, while our created human intellects are finite.
So while your last sentence is technically true, you still have to keep in mind that lack of an upper boundary. No creature can completely comprehend God.

 

[wasmit]

Thanks for responses, I will tell him!

On another subject, I don’t really want to start another Thread on this, but why is YouTube such an atheist hub?

It’s not just youtube, it is the entire internet. Compared to the world population, internet users are younger and better educated. Young intelligent people tend not to be religious, so the internet will be this way too.

I don’t want to generalize but most if not all atheists there mock religion, Christianity mainly, they blast the Bible! They claim that Religious people are all superstitious, stupid.

most atheists on the internet mock christianity because they generally come from western countries where christianity is the dominant religion. For the same reason they point out flaws in the bible - a christian background/culture.

One could truthfully say that religious people are superstitious, given these definitions from encarta dictionary:

1. believing in superstitions
   convinced that performing or not performing specific actions brings good or bad luck, that some events or phenomena are omens, and, generally, fearfully believing in a supernatural dimension to events
2. based on irrational belief
   based on a false or irrational belief in, or fear of, the supernatural

Science and Religion are incompatible etc. They say you can’t have reason and religion etc. It’s ridiculous! And these not are not just atheists, there are ANTI-THEISTS. They are militant and aggressive!

Science and fundamentalist/literalist religion are incompatible. e.g. YEC, noah’s ark, adam and eve. Science and modern, liberal, progressive religion are not incompatible.

Applying unbiased reasoned critical analysis to religious claims will lead to weak atheism, or agnostic atheism.

I strongly disagree with anti-theism. Taken to its conclusion, it will create thought-crimes.

 

[wasmit]

You should restart the discussion with an agreed definition of the word “god”.

…wat

…

My point is that you cannot have a meaningful discussion if the two sides are talking about different things.

Also, one side is not responsible for stating the definitions, it is an agreement by both parties.