My friend and the existance of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter RomanRyan1088
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RomanRyan1088

Guest
I have a friend who is a practicing Atheist. We were talking about the existance of God. I told him it is impossible that we just came together. Everything has to had come from something. He said “Well then, if your theory is true, then where did Gos come from.” I couldn’t say nothing because he had just proved my little theory wrong. Then he sais “Ha, got ya,if you or anyone gave me an answer to that question, then i would go to the nearest church, and become baptized.” Then I said, " Well of course a God exisits, there are many in this world who believe in him". He had an answer to that one to, he said " Not necessarly, many used to believe the world was flat, but that isn’t right is it" Well people, i need an answer, please don’t let me down.
 
Hello,
I suggest you read some of the articles in this website by Peter Kreeft peterkreeft.com/featured-writing.htm. He is a expert on refuting athiesm. Actually, he is an apologetic. Hopefully this will help you with your friend.

And remember, not believing in God takes faith, so all they need is guidance.

thanks,
 
40.png
RomanRyan1088:
I have a friend who is a practicing Atheist. We were talking about the existance of God. I told him it is impossible that we just came together. Everything has to had come from something. He said “Well then, if your theory is true, then where did Gos come from.” I couldn’t say nothing because he had just proved my little theory wrong. Then he sais “Ha, got ya,if you or anyone gave me an answer to that question, then i would go to the nearest church, and become baptized.” Then I said, " Well of course a God exisits, there are many in this world who believe in him". He had an answer to that one to, he said " Not necessarly, many used to believe the world was flat, but that isn’t right is it" Well people, i need an answer, please don’t let me down.
Click to expand...
  1. There are no “practicing” atheists. You cannot practice atheism, e.g. there is no ritual, no initiation, no canon.
  2. In your ultima cause non causata argument you forgot to mention that God needs no cause, as he is the ultimate cause to end the otherwise infinite chain of causes. The usual refutation to that is, then the premise that anything needs a cause is false or there might be other (and natural) ultimate causes, e.g. a big bang quantum fluctuation (my opinion).
  3. You cannot argue ad populum. Just because many people believe something is true, it is not necessarily true. When christianity started, christians were a tiny minority. Were they wrong back then?
  4. If you ask me, the best (and somewhat only valid, because not easily refuted) argument against atheism is the intelligent designer argument.
 
AnAtheist said:
1. There are no “practicing” atheists. You cannot practice atheism, e.g. there is no ritual, no initiation, no canon.
  1. In your ultima cause non causata argument you forgot to mention that God needs no cause, as he is the ultimate cause to end the otherwise infinite chain of causes. The usual refutation to that is, then the premise that anything needs a cause is false or there might be other (and natural) ultimate causes, e.g. a big bang quantum fluctuation (my opinion).
  2. You cannot argue ad populum. Just because many people believe something is true, it is not necessarily true. When christianity started, christians were a tiny minority. Were they wrong back then?
  3. If you ask me, the best (and somewhat only valid, because not easily refuted) argument against atheism is the intelligent designer argument.
Click to expand...
Your post is pretty food, but I have one thing.

Your natural causes like the big bang needed a caus too. What caused the big bang? You need a spark to cause an explosion.
Newtons own laws point to God. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So if there is no action(or cause) then there is no reaction.
Another question is where did the original peice of mass come from for the big bang? It didn’t just come from nowhere. Something had to put it there.
 
40.png
jimmy:
Your natural causes like the big bang needed a caus too. What caused the big bang? You need a spark to cause an explosion.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t. Quantum fluctuations occur without a cause (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle).
Newtons own laws point to God. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So if there is no action(or cause) then there is no reaction.
Click to expand...
But Newton’s laws apply only at low velocities (compared to light speed) and low gravity. Otherwise they are plain wrong. They rely on an absolute space-time frame, which does not exist, proven by various experiments that led to the relativity theory.
Furthermore they do not consider quantum effects.
Another question is where did the original peice of mass come from for the big bang? It didn’t just come from nowhere. Something had to put it there.
Click to expand...
The total energy of the universe may be zero. Mass is energy. I see no problem here.
 
Not to forget the blind spot of all the PoE’s: The most you can prove that at least one deity exists. It does not follow which one.

So, for the sake of argument, I’ll grant you that a god exists. Prove that it must be the Christian god and none other.
 
40.png
wolpertinger:
Not to forget the blind spot of all the PoE’s: The most you can prove that at least one deity exists. It does not follow which one.

So, for the sake of argument, I’ll grant you that a god exists. Prove that it must be the Christian god and none other.
Click to expand...
Exactly. A rational approach to a god leads to the god of Spinoza, if one accepts the arguments. Einstein subscribed to that view as well.

And that’s very near theistic agnosticism, which is not that far from weak atheism.
 
HEY!!! i DIDN’T WANT AN ARGUMENT TO EXPLODE IN HERE RATHER THERE IS A GOD OR NOT, I JUST WANT AN ANSWER TO HIS QUESTIONS, NOT TO ARGUE WITH A BUNCH OF ATHEISTS OVER THE EXISTANCE OF GOD!
 
40.png
RomanRyan1088:
I have a friend who is a practicing Atheist. We were talking about the existance of God. I told him it is impossible that we just came together. Everything has to had come from something. He said “Well then, if your theory is true, then where did Gos come from.” I couldn’t say nothing because he had just proved my little theory wrong.
Click to expand...
William Lane Craig, for example, has argued for the Kalam Cosmological Argument which claims that “Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. The Universe began to exist. Therefore the Universe has a cause of its existence.” The first premise applies to what we know about the world–it doesn’t apply to God, unless we claim he began to exist. The second premise affirms the current scientific thinking about the universe. By limiting your argument to only what we know begins to exist (He would have to claim to know that God begins to exist), you defeat his response. If you claim everything has a cause (which we don’t know), then he wins.
 
I used to pose the same questions your friend pose to you, to myself. I concluded that to ask such questions and demand an answer eminates from an assumption that I am capable of understanding all of lifes many mysteries. Which I am not.

For instance I cannont “prove” the last hour in fact existed or, for that matter that the next hour will. Being an engineer I often work in a concept of a time domain. What if the lowest level time mechanism were subject to change ,would we know it? The only way we would know it would be if we were comparing it to yet another time base. BUT, what if all time bases changed accordingly? Then did the length of a second change? Time, is not something we can fully explain. It’s a tool we can use but not a dimension we can fully comprehend. We could ask troubling questions about time that would be infinately disputable. For instance, how do we know for certain that the last hour was precisely as long as the previous hour?

I’m not bringing this up so that we can begin a discussion on the definition of time. I bring it up to (attempt) to illustrate that the Atheist who demands answers is demanding so from a standpoint of assuming the answer is attainable. It’s a lesson in pride and humilty. Which, In my opinion is the foundation of our faith or lack-thereof. Once one fully admits that some mysteries will remain so until he dies, one can begin to allow his heart as well as mind to guide him in his pursuits. At that point, he can become more joyful about life. 🙂 . Again, in my opinion.

AnAthiest, question for you. You have over 250 posts in a Catholic newsgroup. Why? Are you questioning your non-faith, or is it a hobby of some sort?

I have no interest in ballet. But I do not spend hour after hour in a ballet newsgroup. I don’t believe in witch-craft. I’d find spending time in a witch-craft newsgroup exceedingly boring. Glad you are here though.
 
40.png
RomanRyan1088:
HEY!!! i DIDN’T WANT AN ARGUMENT TO EXPLODE IN HERE RATHER THERE IS A GOD OR NOT, I JUST WANT AN ANSWER TO HIS QUESTIONS, NOT TO ARGUE WITH A BUNCH OF ATHEISTS OVER THE EXISTANCE OF GOD!
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but did you really need to shout at us bunch of atheists?
 
40.png
wolpertinger:
Fair enough, but did you really need to shout at us bunch of atheists?
Click to expand...
no, i guess not, but i just wanted to get my point across. :yup:
 
40.png
wolpertinger:
Not to forget the blind spot of all the PoE’s: The most you can prove that at least one deity exists. It does not follow which one.

So, for the sake of argument, I’ll grant you that a god exists. Prove that it must be the Christian god and none other.
Click to expand...
If you are starting from the premise that you do not believe then no proof will ever be sufficient. Likewise there is no absolute proof that a God does not exist. At some point people decide which they deem to be the most likely, God or no God. Given this situation, no one will likely convince you of anything.

But if you grant for the sake of argument that a God exists, you must therefore grant that this God would have the ability to make himself known to those He created (He is GOD after all). Thus divine revelation enters into the argument and then everyone argues about whose divine revelation is authentic, yada yada yada.

Granting that a God exists and divine revelation is possible (there are arguments that revelation is in fact probable given that a God exists, but I’m not prepared to go into them), then we examine the various claims to divine revelation and make a judgement as to which has the greatest likelihood of being authentic. There are many reasons (and volumes of philosophy written) about why the Christian God is the most likely to be true and why many other “gods” lead to mutually contradictory claims.

Any such “proof” hinges on whether a person believes that there are real truths that can be arrived at through philosophical reasoning. Apart from maybe witnessing an obvious miracle for themselves, there really isn’t any proof that would be sufficient for a pure empiricist or a pure materialist. Butting heads over it usually accomplishes nothing but making each side more firm in their own belief. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top