A Little Help Here

[point5]

I have for many years tried to show my brother the God I know and experience daily. He is an extreme atheist...one who studies and researches all sides of the spectrum. I catch him reading Churchill, or "The History of Christianity" along with countless philosophers and what not. I have been poor in defending my beliefs untill recently, as I have began to actually seek more truth, and not be comfortable with where I was in Scripture knowledge and Church history.

Anyway, through a series of emails I told him that he will never be able to grasp God on an intellectual level alone. If he ever beliefs it will not be because of me or some author, but by the opening of his heart by the spirit, along with the tools (me author etc) used by God. I tell him he can not grasp this.

then he responded:

"You do realize that the Catechism and Vatican Councils assert that:

"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." "

he later writes:

"According to the Catechism
and Vatican Councils, you should be able to proof that God exists without
any special pleading or emotional appeals. Use the natural light of pure
reason alone. I'm waiting and so are five billion non-Catholics across the
globe. What if you could actually do what the Catholic Church says you
should be able to do? What if you could convert all five billion of us and
save us from eternal hellfire? What if you could show that the truth of
Catholicism is as obvious as the truth that 2+2=5 (why shouldn't it be that
obvious?)? Is that not a goal worth chasing?"

And Im not sure how to approach this. I feel as though he is taking the quote it way out of context. I also feel he is almost acting as Martin Luther and incerting the word "alone" after "human reason" . I still am very unfamiliar with the statement...where it is found in the Catechism (I do not know the Catechism well). Any responses in helping me refute this would help.


Thank you so much
In Love
-Kiel

Edited April 21, 2004 by point5

[cmotherofpirl]

Actually he is right. You can decide the God exists from reason alone.

Have you read CS Lewis [i]Mere Christianity[/i]? He sets the case out quite convincingly, and has converted more people than any author I know. Including me.

Get a copy of it, and the [i]Handbook for Christian Apologetics[/i] by Peter Kreeft.
Mr Kreeft sets forth 20 arguments for the existance of God, by reason alone.

Read the sections of the Catechism. your brother is referring to.

Reason, science and logic are all parts of Truth, which is God.

Edited April 21, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[dUSt]

I would have your brother read "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis. He's not Catholic, but almost. Very good book though.

Another good book is called "Handbook of Christian Apologetics".

Also, you may want to introduce your brother to St Thomas Aquinas. Here is an excerpt from his Summa Theologica, where he uses 5 proofs that God exists:

[color=purple]Whether God exists?[/color]

[b]Objection 1.[/b] It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

[b]Objection 2.[/b] Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Exodus 3:14)

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

[b]The first and more manifest way[/b] is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

[b]The second way[/b] is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

[b]The third way[/b] is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

[b]The fourth way[/b] is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

[b]The fifth way[/b] is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

[b]Reply to Objection 1.[/b] As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

[b]Reply to Objection 2.[/b] Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.

[dUSt]

LOL at me and Cmom recommending the [b]exact[/b] same books. That's freaky.

[Jake Huether]

[quote]What if you could show that the truth of
Catholicism is as obvious as the truth that 2+2=5 [/quote]

If the Truth of Catholicism was as obvious as 2+2=5 then we'd have no converts.

[cmotherofpirl]

No Dust its not freaky, we both have excellent taste.


Also read:[i]the Existance of God[/i] at

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm[/url]

[willguy]

God can be proven by reason, but people have to be willing to hear reason. Also, the Council does NOT say that Catholicism can be proven true by reason alone, but that the existence of God can be.

[Dave]

To those who believe, no explanation is necessary.
To those who don't, no explanation is possible.

[point5]

All good insight...not particularly the responses I assumed I would get but good. I guess I feel that for someone to believe God they have to have a heart change...I dont see this happening by human reason alone...I guess I am in contradiction with the Catholic church and I need to fix that. I will show him these arguments...but as I said....my brother studies all this almost like an obsessions...he is not a big fan of Aquinas by any means...I'm not sure if he read "Mere Christianity" but I know he is familiar with C.S.Lewis. I just see almost all debates with knowledgeable Christians and knowledgable atheists leading to no where. That is why I hold to the belief I have. Maybe "Mere Christianity" will be different...who knows.


-Kiel

[cmotherofpirl]

Some people get there by human reason, some people get there by experience.
Either way God is leading them.

I think its a very hopeful sign that your brother is very interested in this. Sounds like he is looking for a reason TO believe.

[dUSt]

I don't think you're out of line with Catholic teaching because you believe that a belief in God can come from a conversion of the heart--not at all.

[point5]

He is looking for a reason to believe...but is under the impression that it will never happen. I gave him many of the arguments for the existence of God by Aquinas and others, and he refuted them basically to the simple statement that they do not imply that there is a creator or God, and that there are many other ideas that can be substitued for "God". Does anyone know of a place that has refutation to atheists attacks on the theistic arguments?
-Kiel

[cmotherofpirl]

THe two books recommended.

[dUSt]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Apr 22 2004, 10:55 AM'] THe two books recommended. [/quote]
Next time you're at my house, you can take 'em. I think I have multiple copies of both.

[ironmonk]

Here is a GREAT article:

[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0002.html"]http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...ics/ap0002.html[/url]

Please read it...

God Bless,
ironmonk