Proof Against Atheism

[David_Brown]

A procedural point and plea for relevancy:

Finding fault with atheists is not finding fault with atheism. Since the thread is about atheism, we need to focus on what is true for all atheists because of their atheism.

Thank you for allowing my rant. Can I get an “amen” at least from any atheists still hanging around?

David

 

[David_Brown]

Gilbert Keith:

MARANTHA
…
Reason by itself, trying to put these things in order, is arrogant in the extreme. Only by revelation from the Holy Spirit (through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tration) can we be sure of anything regarding God.

How then do you explain your disagreement with the Catechism ?:

36 “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God.”
39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.
47 The Church teaches that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty from his works, by the natural light of human reason (cf. Vatican Council I, can. 2, § 1: DS 3026).

David

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

DAVID,

Your point is well taken.

The thing that would have to be provable by all atheists is that God does not exist. No such evidence is possible. This alone negates the central thesis of atheism … which is that God does not exist … for the simple reason that atheists require proof of the existence of God, but do not require proof of the non-existence of God. They cannot demand the requirement of proof for the one side but not for the other.

That God exists may be pondered by the intellect, and consented to by the intellect is a real possibility, but it cannot be proven conclusively by the intellect alone. If that proof had ever been uncovered by the intellect alone, all the world would be theists … which is clearly not the case.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

I said:

Reason by itself, trying to put these things in order, is arrogant in the extreme. Only by revelation from the Holy Spirit (through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tration) can we be sure of anything regarding God.
You said:

How then do you explain your disagreement with the Catechism ?

Again, I said “…can we be sure of anything regarding God.”

The operative word is “sure” or "certain."

Are you saying the Catechism says we do not need Scripture and Sacred Tradition to find our way to God with certainty?

Did the Egyptians do it without Revelation?

Did the Greeks do it without Revelation?

Did the Chinese do it without Revelation?

Did the Catechism do it without Revelation?

With certainty?

I don’t deny that God made our intellects to grasp him, but not without the aid of Revelation. This is why atheists are so certain in their atheism … they deny the necessary aid of Revelation to grasp what the intellect was made to grasp.

And by the way, if you think the unaided reason can prove the existence of God … what would your **certain **proof be?

 

[David_Brown]

Gilbert Keith:

DAVID,

Your point is well taken.

The thing that would have to be provable by all atheists is that God does not exist. No such evidence is possible. This alone negates the central thesis of atheism … which is that God does not exist … for the simple reason that atheists require proof of the existence of God, but do not require proof of the non-existence of God. They cannot demand the requirement of proof for the one side but not for the other.

That God exists may be pondered by the intellect, and consented to by the intellect as a real possibility, but it cannot be proven conclusively by the intellect alone. If that proof had ever been uncovered by the intellect alone, all the world would be theists … which is clearly not the case.

Must all atheists prove God doesn’t exist? Some people claim that “God” is self-contradictory or incapable of being expressed in language. They don’t believe in God’s existence but they claim there is nothing to deny. Are they atheists? Others say they don’t believe God exists (in the Christian sense, or any sense) and don’t see any reason to believe he does (I don’t believe, but if there were proof, I would). Are they atheists? Sometimes this is given not as a “burden of proof” position but as a “default position” kind of view.

I know the “shifting the burden of proof” arguments are popular among many believers and non-believers but they have always left me a bit queasy. William Lane Craig, who I think is one of the best debators with atheists, usually argues “There is no good reason to think x is true” and “There is good reason to think Christianity is true.”

Just curious.

David

 

[Maranatha]

Gilbert Keith:

God is infinite? How do you know? Why can’t God be limited?

A finite or limited being requires a condition or a cause for its existence.
Gilbert Keith:

God is eternal? How do you know? Why couldn’t our God have been created by another god?

If God were creed by another god then he wouldn’t be the first casue.
Gilbert Keith:

God is Intelligent? How do you know God is not irrational … at least by our lights, since we cannot understand Him?

All things in the universe have an intelligent structure and exist within an intelligent structure. It is reasonable to assume God is Intelligent.
Gilbert Keith:

God is good? How do you know God is not evil? Some religions have postulated evil gods?

Since God is the initial source of al that is good, then by definition, God can’t be evil for evil is what should be but is not.
Gilbert Keith:

For that matter, based on reason alone, how can you be sure there are not many gods … as many cultures have suspected throughout the ages?

I forgot to list that property. God is One. If, as has been shown, God is Infinite, then there can’t be two gods because each would not be infinite.

 

[siamesecat]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming in to being
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause for its coming in to being

This is an example of logic and reason to prove Theism and disprove Atheism.

Well as more of an agnostic (Im not totally sure there isn’t a god), you have a good point. I don’t know what created the universe. And as cliched as you think it is, my answer is, but what created God? I believe there may have been some kind of superior power that created the earth, and maybe it still exists, but I dont think its involved in our lives now.

 

[David_Brown]

Gilbert Keith:

I said:

Reason by itself, trying to put these things in order, is arrogant in the extreme. Only by revelation from the Holy Spirit (through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tration) can we be sure of anything regarding God.
You said:

How then do you explain your disagreement with the Catechism ?

Again, I said “…can we be sure of anything regarding God.”

The operative word is “sure” or "certain."

Are you saying the Catechism says we do not need Scripture and Sacred Tradition to find our way to God with certainty?

Did the Egyptians do it without Revelation?

Did the Greeks do it without Revelation?

Did the Chinese do it without Revelation?

Did the Catechism do it without Revelation?

With certainty?

I don’t deny that God made our intellects to grasp him, but not without the aid of Revelation. This is why atheists are so certain in their atheism … they deny the necessary aid of Revelation to grasp what the intellect was made to grasp.

And by the way, if you think the unaided reason can prove the existence of God … what would your certain proof be?

I don’t quite know how to do this, so forgive me if I get it wrong.

You said above: "The operative word is ‘sure’ or 'certain.'The Catechism said “known with certainty” (36) That is the Catechism asserts what you deny. That is a contradiction. A contradiction means both cannot be true–so which is false?

You said above: “Are you saying the Catechism says we do not need Scripture and Sacred Tradition to find our way to God with certainty?” First, the Catechism is quite clear that we can have certainty “by the light of natural human reason” (36). This means and has always been taken to be in contrast to “by the light of revelation.”

Second, the Catechism does not say we can have certainty for all knowledge of God, in fact it denies this (37 and 38). The certain knoweldge of God available to natural reason grounded in natural law allows us to have common ground to talk to atheists (39) but that kind of knowledge is limited (40-43). The Catechism here distinguished between what Aquinas called the “preambles of the faith” and those things that can only be known by revelation. Grace perfects nature. Paul approvingly quoted pagan sources for his sermon on Mars Hill (Acts 17) and discussed this in Romans 1 and 2.

David

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

DAVID

Must all atheists prove God doesn’t exist?

I’m sure not all atheists think they have to prove that God does not exist. Their position might be: “I don’t believe in anything until it is proven by the power of reason. So if you cannot prove God exists, I don’t have to believe in God.”

Now several ancient Greek philosophers believed in the existence of atoms even though they could not prove their existence. We know today that these atoms they believed in (particles of matter so small they cannot be seen) do exist. The atheist is in a comparable position … in that at some moment at the end of his personal history he may discover … with quite a shock … that the thing he spent all his life denying really does exist.

But the atheist really does assert a negative with conviction. Unlike the agnostic, he is certain that God does not exist. From whence does he derive this certainty. It must be from his intellect … since that is the faculty he seems to respect so much. It would seem to follow that he must prove that God does not exist. He cannot merely say that God is a contradiction … and contradictions cannot be suffered.

Tell that to a modern physicist!

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

DAVID

"Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason." Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation.

Yes, … man has the capacity to know. That does not mean that he can do it on his own without revelation. The history of the world has proven this. Certain truth is found only in the Old and New Testaments. All other religions have struggled, sometimes admirably and heroically, to know God. Did they achieve certainty? Does the catechism teach that any of them achieved certainty? Does the catechism teach that modern science has achieved certainty in the knowledge of God?

 

[David_Brown]

Gilbert Keith:

DAVID

Must all atheists prove God doesn’t exist?

I’m sure not all atheists think they have to prove that God does not exist. Their position might be: “I don’t believe in anything until it is proven by the power of reason. So if you cannot prove God exists, I don’t have to believe in God.”

Now several ancient Greek philosophers believed in the existence of atoms even though they could not prove their existence. We know today that these atoms they believed in (particles of matter so small they cannot be seen) do exist. The atheist is in a comparable position … in that at some moment at the end of his personal history he may discover … with quite a shock … that the thing he spent all his life denying really does exist.

But the atheist really does assert a negative with conviction. Unlike the agnostic, he is certain that God does not exist. From whence does he derive this certainty. It must be from his intellect … since that is the faculty he seems to respect so much. It would seem to follow that he must prove that God does not exist. He cannot merely say that God is a contradiction … and contradictions cannot be suffered.

Tell that to a modern physicist!

Ok. If that is how you want to define it. There seem to be an incresingly large number of people, not exactly agnostic, who are not atheists in the 19th Century sense who will not be persuaded by your argument as they won’t accept your definition of their position.

The position of the Greek atomists actually illustrates another problem. As you said, they believed without proof. They turned out to be right. But, as you said, this compares to the Atheist who “may discover … with quite a shock … that the thing he spent all his life denying really does exist.” So you praise the Greeks who believed without proof (does the Christian have no proof too?) just because they happened to be right–and known to be right only long after their deaths. That doesn’t seem particularly praiseworthy. You condemn the atheist who refused to believe without proof just because they happen (you assume) to be wrong. It wouldn’t seem to matter that they might be looking for proof or not. This doesn’t seem particularly damnable. You seem to praise the one and condemn the other for irrelevant reasons.

How does one know what to believe without some evidence? Your analogy assumes a hard distinciton between faith and reason. I think the passages from the Catechism I cited above are sufficient to show that is not the official line.

David

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

David,

Well, young man, you have failed to answer some interesting questions I asked you (for example … which proof for the existence of God is certain?) Then you go on the personal attack using rhetorical language that is unworthy of you as a trained philosopher. I condemn no one. That is God’s business, not mine, and certainly not yours to attribute to me.

 

[David_Brown]

Gilbert Keith:

DAVID

"Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason." Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation.

Yes, … man has the capacity to know. That does not mean that he can do it on his own without revelation. The history of the world has proven this. Certain truth is found only in the Old and New Testaments. All other religions have struggled, sometimes admirably and heroically, to know God. Did they achieve certainty? Does the catechism teach that any of them achieved certainty? Does the catechism teach that modern science has achieved certainty in the knowledge of God?

Again, I repeat myself: The phrase “by the light of natural reason alone” is a technical expression with a long history in Christian philosophy/theology. It is contrasted with “by faith” or “by revelation.” It means and has always meant “by reason without the aid of special revelation.” It contradicts your position. You can find more information at New Advent, you can find the distinction in Aquinas, and JP2 makes that distinction in Fides et Ratio #9.

Your claim that “certain truth is found only in the Old and New Testaments” is not justified in Scripture and not in Catholic theology or philosophy and contradicts the passages in the Catechism I cited (and others). You can find the relevant qualifications in the surrounding passages and in the notes.

The meaning of the Catechism is absolutely clear and you do contradict it–and contradict it in the strongest possible techincal sense.

Sorry,

David

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

David,

You truly disappoint me.

God bless you,
Gilbert

 

[David_Brown]

Gilbert Keith:

David,

Well, young man, you have failed to answer some interesting questions I asked you (for example … which proof for the existence of God is certain?) Then you go on the personal attack using rhetorical language that is unworthy of you as a trained philosopher. I condemn no one. That is God’s business, not mine, and certainly not yours to attribute to me.

Actually there was no personal attack in objecting to your claims. I didn’t call you an idiot who knows nothing about philosophy or theology or say you had bad breath. That would be a personal attack and it would be wrong and bad (and should get me or anyone who said it banned). But I didn’t say anything like it. Do I get to call you “gramps,” by the way?

When I said “condemn” I didn’t mean in a theological sense but you did seem to condemn them in the sense of (from The American Heritage Dictionary ): 1. To express strong disapproval of…2. To pronounce judgment against…4. To lend credence to or provide evidence for an adverse judgment against. Weren’t you saying the atheist did something wrong? Did you mean they just happen to be wrong?

You clearly contradict the Catechism . It can’t be any clearer. The Catechism says we can know with certainty without special revelation, you deny it. One of you is wrong. Giving a specific “proof” doesn’t resolve the contradiction (a contradiction is false in all possible worlds and in all possible states of affairs–to be modal). That is why I didn’t answer those questions. They were irrelevant given the contradiction.

Since your argument seems to be with the Catechism and not with me :

II. Ways of Coming to Know God
31 Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments,” which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world and the human person.
You can read the whole thing, including the arguments, online: usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1.htm#chpt1

May I go to my room now?

David

 

[David_Brown]

Gilbert Keith:

David,

You truly disappoint me.

God bless you,
Gilbert

Why? Because I pointed out that you contradicted the Catechism ?

I thought you were better than that.

David

 

[AnAtheist]

Maranatha:

The way I understand it there are four options:

Reason and Logic:

1. existed before the first cause
2. have always existed alongside the first cause
3. are intrinsically part of the first cause
4. were created and made manifest in realist by the first cause

Option 1 is nonsensical. Option two is self contradictory. I’m not sure we can, using philosophy dicer if 3 or 4 is correct but I’m not sure how it matters.

Reason and logic are abstractions, not physical entities. They “exist” like the number “12” exists, yet nowhere you will find a physical entity called “The Twelve”. Therefore logic neither needs a cause nor a creation.

 

[AnAtheist]

st.jerome:

This argument is clever but I think it has one problem. It implies that something came from nothing. It would be more reasonable to posit that something came from Everything rather than nothing. How could the potential exist if all there was was nothing?

I like to propose the following idea: What if all we see is quantatively nothing?
Matter is basically the same as energy (E=mc^2), and the universe’s total energy is zero, i.e. quantatively nothing.

 

[buffalo]

David Brown:

Perhaps you see the relevance of this question but I don’t. I don’t know the answer. So what?

In speaking of the intellectual problem with atheism, you said: “I believe the biggest one is reasoning from a position of so little knowledge.” I was confused on two main points:
(1) You didn’t say if all atheists were guilty of this or only some .
(2) You didn’t explain what you meant by “so little knowledge.”

Since your “reasoning” depended on what you meant by these, I asked you to explain. Instead of helping me see your point you ask an off-the-wall question. I bit. I said “I don’t know” (I would never claim otherwise). There, I hope you are somehow happy about something. Now, can you get back to the point?

David

The answer is in the question. We possess a minute amount of knowledge. It applies to all.

 

[buffalo]

To anatheist,

You have an unanswered question on the table -

So anatheist - do you believe you are the highest authority?