How to deal with atheists?

[lukn4trth]

Can someone please give me a link to a VERY GOOd document that I can print and give to a friend of mine that doesnt beleive in God? I gave him Thomas Aquinas five reasons to prove God existence and he gave me an aswer on all 5 of them..... (Very complicated for me at least but it goes something like this)For number one, regarding motion he talked to me about some theory of spontaneous motion or something like that. For number four he said that fire is in no way the maximum heat, etc etc etc, he had a scientific explanation for everything so if you know of any other document he could read please post a link to it....thanks

[Paphnutius]

THe thing about spontaneous motion really shouldn't affect the five ways for it is still moving from the potential of motion to the actuality of motion showing that there must be something actualizing it. Spontaneous or not, it was still actualized from a potentiality, and by applying the law of conservation, something had to of actualized it.

The fourth way, to my knowledge, works off of limit concepts so the fire rebuff doesnt work. I will look for a site to explain it.

[Fidei Defensor]

I liked this one:

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

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Mar 30 2005, 11:44 AM'] I liked this one:

[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0002.html"]http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apol...ics/ap0002.html[/url] [/quote]
The problem with proving or disproving god comes down to cosmology. We are always revising the theories of the creation of the universe. Frank Turek wrote a book, I 'dont have enough faith to be any Atheist.

[url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1581345615/theinfideguyl-20/102-6269251-2454542"]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/158...6269251-2454542[/url]

Basicly uses alot of cosmological arguments, primarily the big bang to bolster his views. When debated again an Atheist , Richard Carrier. His theories fell apart in the light of new views and theories about the universe. Primarily, mutli-verse theories by todays astronomers. Heres a good book on that subject.

[url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0738200336/102-6269251-2454542"]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/073...6269251-2454542[/url]

To his defense, maybe if he had more time to study those theories he could revise his own assertions on why god exist. My point is, that arguing the proof or lack of proof of god is really a dead end debate for both sides. Most athiest take an agnostic approach to this topic anyway. Your friend sounds like Strong Athiest, or Hard Athiest.

[Pieta]

I know you are requesting text for your atheist friend, but I had a thought you may consider. I have a great friend whose son is lost. Oddly, while he refused to attend mass or visit our Divine Mercy Cenacle or read ANYTHING of substance he agreed to come to adoration. He was ambushed by the true presence that he did not believe in.

Never underestimate the power of Eucharistic Adoration. I think non-believers are curious about adoration and strangely willing to participate. Perhaps the action of the Holy Spirit softens their hearts and allows them the state of mind necessary to take in the complexity of God.

The young man that I speak of is a confirmed Catholic who had turned away. I don't know if it is appropriate to attend adoration under other circumstances but it is a thought.

Peace.

[Nathan]

Maybe your friend just isn't ready to accept the reality of God yet. It took me a LONG time, on my own, before I started warming to the idea. Lord knows, people attempting to "push" His reality on me -- even through the Proofs of Thomas Aquinas! -- would have probably pushed me even further away.

Atheists usually grow up on their own sooner or later.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 30 2005, 04:06 PM'] The problem with proving or disproving god comes down to cosmology. We are always revising the theories of the creation of the universe. Frank Turek wrote a book, I 'dont have enough faith to be any Atheist.

[url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1581345615/theinfideguyl-20/102-6269251-2454542"]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/158...6269251-2454542[/url]

Basicly uses alot of cosmological arguments, primarily the big bang to bolster his views. When debated again an Atheist , Richard Carrier. His theories fell apart in the light of new views and theories about the universe. Primarily, mutli-verse theories by todays astronomers. Heres a good book on that subject.

[url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0738200336/102-6269251-2454542"]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/073...6269251-2454542[/url]

To his defense, maybe if he had more time to study those theories he could revise his own assertions on why god exist.  My point is, that arguing the proof or lack of proof of god is really a dead end debate for both sides.  Most athiest take an agnostic approach to this topic anyway. Your friend sounds like  Strong Athiest, or Hard Athiest. [/quote]
Actually, St. Thomas's use of the five ways is in no way dependent on cosmology. If it was a big bang that happened, God was behind that. If it was something else God was behind that. The five ways argue to God being the pure actuallity that gave the potentiality of creation actuality. How it was done or created does not matter. It is a philosophical arguement based on the law of conservation applied to actuality and potentiality. It is not an arguement that is grounded in any specific theory of the universe other than that philosophical principle. It is more of a metaphysic thing then a physics thing.

Edited March 31, 2005 by Paphnutius

[phatcatholic]

here are some articles i have collected for the reference section:

[u][b]COMPREHENSIVE ARGUMENTS[/b][/u]
--[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm"]Atheism[/url]
--[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm"]Agnosticism[/url]
--Contemporary Atheism: Parts [b][url="http://answers.org/apologetics/atheism1.html"]One[/url][/b] * and [b][url="http://answers.org/apologetics/atheism2.html"]Two[/url][/b] *
--[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0023.html"]There Are No Atheists[/url]
--[url="http://www.carl-olson.com/articles/atheism_envoy.html"]The Blind Faith of Atheism[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202fea3.asp"]Does Faith Equal Gullibility?[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105clas.asp"]Rationalism's Fatal Inconsistency[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109clas.asp"]Authority and the Adventurer [/url]


[u][b]SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS[/b][/u]

[b]Possible Causes of Unbelief[/b]
--[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0384.html"]The Pyschology of Atheism[/url]
--[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ526.HTM"]Why Some People Become Atheists: The Defective Father Theory[/url]
--[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/parenting/pa0035.html"]The Power of a Father's Strong Faith[/url]
--[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ532.HTM"]The Multiple Complex Causes of Atheist Disbelief, [b]Romans 1 and 2[/b], and the Possibility of Atheists' Salvation[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Dossier/jan98/truth.html"]On the Will to Know the Truth: Newman on Why Men of Learning Often Do Not Believe[/url]

[b]Pillars of Unbelief[/b]
--[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0008.html"]Niccolo Machiavelli (1496-1527)[/url]
--[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0011.html"]Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)[/url]
--[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0010.html"]Karl Marx (1818-1883)[/url]
--[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0009.html"]Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)[/url]
--[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0012.html"]Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)[/url]
--[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0013.html"]Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)[/url]

[b]Philosophical Arguments for the Existence of God[/b]
--[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm"]Existence of God[/url]
--[url="http://web.archive.org/web/20030416155052/ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ200.HTM"]The Ontological Argument for God's Existence: A Concept Greater Than Which First Meets the Eye[/url]
--[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%f6del's_ontological_proof"]Gödel's Ontological Proof[/url] *
--[url="http://www.formalontology.it/"]Ontology: A Resource Guide for Philosophers[/url] *
--[url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.html"]Thomas Aquinas: Reasons in Proof of the Existence of God[/url]
--[url="http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/Theisticarguments.html"]Theistic Arguments[/url] *
--[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0002.html"]The Reasons to Believe[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303fea1.asp"]Is Pascal’s Wager a Good Bet?[/url]
--[url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm"]The Argument from Pascal's Wager [/url]
--[url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/gods-existence.htm"]Can You Prove God Exists?[/url]
--[url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm"]The First Cause Argument [/url]
--[url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/conscience.htm"]The Argument from Conscience [/url]
--[url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/history.htm"]The Argument from History [/url]
--[url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm"]The Argument From Desire[/url]
--[url="http://www.doesgodexist.org/"]Does God Exist?[/url] * ([b]21 articles[/b])
--[url="http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/eng.htm"]The Existence and Nature of God[/url]
--[url="http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth02.html"]Theism, Atheism, and Rationality[/url] *
--[url="http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth01.html"]The Resurrection of Theism[/url] *
--[url="http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth04.html"]The Experiential Basis of Theism[/url] *
--[url="http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth03.html"]Intellectual Sophistication and Basic Belief in God[/url] *
--[url="http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth09.html"]The Justification of Theism[/url] *
--[url="http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth07.html"]The Mystery of Persons and Belief in God[/url] *
--[url="http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html"]Why the Burden of Proof Is on the Atheist[/url] *
--[url="http://www.skepticalchristian.com/default_atheism.html"]Default Atheism?[/url] *
--[url="http://www.escape.ca/~pekoblue/"]God Exists: An Engineer Explains Why[/url] *
--[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a93.htm"]Does God Exist? Several Arguments For[/url]
--[url="http://www.staycatholic.com/the_case_for_god.htm"]Mere Theism: The Case for God[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0311sbs.asp"]Can God’s Existence Be Proved?[/url]

[b]Scientific and Empirical Arguments For the Existence of God[/b]
--[url="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/leftow.html"]The Special Theory of Relativity and Theories of Divine Eternity[/url] *
--[url="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/timeless.html"]Timelessness and Creation[/url] *
--[url="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/creation-conservation.html"]Creation and Conservation Once More[/url] *
--[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04413a.htm"]Cosmology[/url]
--[url="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/kalam_davis.html"]A Swift and Simple Refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument?[/url] *
--[url="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/theism-origin.html"]Theism and the Origin of the Universe[/url] *
--[b]note:[/b] also see the "Science and the Existence of God" section of the [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=5973"][b][i]Faith and Science[/i] entry[/b][/url]

[b]Popular Works Against Unbelief[/b]
--[url="http://www.ccel.org/c/chesterton/orthodoxy/orthodoxy.html"]Chesterton's [i]Orthodoxy[/i][/url]
--[url="http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dcs0mpw/gkc/books/everlasting_man.txt"]Chesterton's [i]The Everlasting Man[/i][/url]
--[url="http://www.ccel.org/p/pascal/pensees/pensees.htm"]Pascal's [i]Pensees[/i][/url]
--[url="http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc.htm"]Aquinas' [i]Summa Contra Gentiles[/i][/url]
--[url="http://web.archive.org/web/20030803002215/http://www.newmanreader.org/works/apologia/index.html"]Newman's [i]Apologia Pro Vita Sua[/i][/url]
--[url="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/boethius/boethius.html"]Boethius' [i]Consolation of Philosophy[/i][/url]
--[url="http://www.ccel.org/b/bonaventure/journey/journey.html"]St. Bonaventure's [i]The Journey of the Mind Into God[/i][/url]
--[url="http://www.ccel.org/d/dostoevsky/karamozov/"]Dostoevsky's [i]The Brothers Karamazov[/i][/url]

[b]Debating with Unbelievers[/b]
--[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101clas.asp"]How to Approach an Intelligent Skeptic [/url]
--[url="http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dcs0mpw/gkc/books/debate.txt"]Do We Agree?: G.K. Chesterton and George Bernard Shaw, with Hilaire Belloc as Moderator[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/CHESSHAW.TXT"]Chesterton-Shaw Debate Speaks to the Present Crisis[/url]
--[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm"]BBC Debate (1948) on the Existence of God: Fr. Copleston and Bertrand Russell[/url]
--[url="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/washdeba-intro.html"]Does God Exist?: William Lane Craig and Corey G. Washington[/url] *
--[url="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/jesseph-craig0.html"]Does God Exist?: William Lane Craig and Douglas M. Jesseph[/url] *
--[url="http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/martin_TAG.html"]Does God Exist?: John Frame and Michael Martin[/url] *
--[url="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/fernandes-martin/"]On the Existence of God: Phil Fernandes and Michael Martin[/url] *
--[url="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/drange-wilson/"]On the Existence of God: Ted Drange and Douglas Wilson[/url] *
--[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ451.HTM"]The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Deo-Atomism ("The Atom-as-God"): Dave Armstrong and Eric Smallwood[/url]
--[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ531.HTM"]Atheists on Souls, Bodily Resurrection, and Heaven[/url]: Dave Armstrong with Steve Conifer and Sue Strandberg
--[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ364.HTM"]Relativist vs. Absolutist Morality and Natural Law: Dave Armstrong and Dr. Jan Schreurs[/url]

[b]Other Arguments[/b]
--[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0003.html"]The Christian Response to Atheism: Dostoevsky[/url]
--[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a86.htm"]The Problem of Evil[/url]
--[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ515.HTM"]Was Skeptical Philosopher David Hume an Atheist?[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102fea3.asp"]Love Alone is Believable: Hans Urs von Balthasar and Encountering Beauty[/url]
--[url="http://www.chesterton.org/gkc/theologian/skeptic.htm"]Skepticism and Spiritualism[/url]


[u][b]SCRIPTURE REFERENCES[/b][/u]
--[url="http://www.biblebb.com/files/tniv/GLORIFY.NIV"]On Glorifying God[/url]
--[url="http://www.biblebb.com/files/tniv/GOD.NIV"]On God[/url]
--[url="http://www.biblebb.com/files/tniv/IGNORANC.NIV"]On Ignorance[/url]
--[url="http://www.biblebb.com/files/tniv/RELIGION.NIV"]On Religion[/url]
--[url="http://www.biblebb.com/files/tniv/TRINITY.NIV"]On the Trinity[/url]
--[url="http://www.biblebb.com/files/tniv/UNBELIEF.NIV"]On Unbelief[/url]


[u][b]TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS[/b][/u]
--[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100200.htm"]Aquinas' [i]Summa Theologica[/i]: The Existence of God[/url]
--[url="http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc.htm"]Aquinas' [i]Summa Contra Gentiles[/i][/url]
--[url="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/boethius/boethius.html"]Boethius' [i]Consolation of Philosophy[/i][/url]
--[url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-monologium.html"]Anselm's [i]Monologium[/i][/url]
--[url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-proslogium.html"]Anselm's [i]Proslogium[/i][/url]

[phatcatholic]

also this, from the Faith and Science entry:


[b]Science and the Existence of God[/b]
[color=gray][b]note:[/b] also see the "Atheism and Agnosticism" section of the [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=8784"][b][i]Non-Christian Religions[/i] entry[/b][/url][/color]
[i]Cosmological Argument[/i]
--[url="http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html"]The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe[/url] *
--[url="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.html"]The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe[/url] *
--[url="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/creation.html"]Creation and Big Bang Cosmology[/url] *
--[url="http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm"]The Kalam Cosmological Argument: A Summary[/url] *
--[url="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/smith.html"]The Caused Beginning of the Universe[/url] *
--[url="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/cossingu.html"]God and the Initial Cosmological Singularity[/url] *
--[url="http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1992"]The Meaning-Full Universe[/url] *
[i]Divine Design Argument[/i]
--[url="http://web.archive.org/web/20030604154045/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ537.HTM"]Intelligent Design: Scientists' Observations[/url]
--[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ527.HTM"]Albert Einstein's "Cosmic Religion"[/url]
--[url="http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm"]Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference[/url] *
--[url="http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html"]Science and Design[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/BIOBELIE.TXT"]Biochemistry and Belief[/url]
--[url="http://www.faithquest.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=81"]Argument from Design[/url] *
--[url="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html"]The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle[/url] *
--Does Science Point to God?: The Intelligent Design Revolution, Parts [url="http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1422"][b]One[/b][/url] * and [url="http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1575"][b]Two[/b][/url] *
--[url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/design.htm"]Argument from Design[/url]
--[url="http://www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/EvidenceForDesignInTheUniverse.html"]Evidence for Design in the Universe: A Color Chart[/url] *

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

lukn4trth,
Could you post his reply to the First Cause arguement?

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 30 2005, 10:06 PM'] Actually, St. Thomas's use of the five ways is in no way dependent on cosmology. If it was a big bang that happened, God was behind that. If it was something else God was behind that. The five ways argue to God being the pure actuallity that gave the potentiality of creation actuality. How it was done or created does not matter. It is a philosophical arguement based on the law of conservation applied to actuality and potentiality. It is not an arguement that is grounded in any specific theory of the universe other than that philosophical principle. It is more of a metaphysic thing then a physics thing. [/quote]
I'm still learning about Aquinas, very fascinating stuff. But I do believe the first argument of the five ways is partly arabic in nature. Called the Kalam argument. That does rely on the big bang to support it. But I dont think metaphyics is a good way to debate an atheist. I'd suggest more scientific means.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 31 2005, 10:22 AM'] I'm still learning about Aquinas, very fascinating stuff. But I do believe the first argument of the five ways is partly arabic in nature. Called the Kalam argument. That does rely on the big bang to support it. But I dont think metaphyics is a good way to debate an atheist. I'd suggest more scientific means. [/quote]
Oh really? Not challanging you one it, I just dont see the connection. Perhaps you could explain, because I dont see the link between potentiality/acctuality and big bang. Perhaps I am missing something. I think that metaphysics is a good place to discuss because it does not depend upon Religion and it is not linked with something that changes with the wind like science. Sorry, but it is true. Science is continually change, your very statement shows that, and does not provide a solid stance for many things. Otherwise we could of made a whole Theology on ether...or spontaneus generation...or many misconceptions about human anatomy. I consider it a very good thing to use philosophy because although it does evolve, it provides a far more solid basis that many people can relate to.

[Pistos]

I just wanted to say: Wow, this is a great thread. The links, anyway. I'm still munching on the catholiceducation.org one, and will get to phatcatholic's link lists some time.

I have always met with only extremely limited success talking with atheists and agnostics, they seem like the toughest nuts to crack.

I praise God that I found phatmass.com.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 31 2005, 02:51 PM'] Oh really? Not challanging you one it, I just dont see the connection. Perhaps you could explain, because I dont see the link between potentiality/acctuality and big bang. Perhaps I am missing something. I think that metaphysics is a good place to discuss because it does not depend upon Religion and it is not linked with something that changes with the wind like science. Sorry, but it is true. Science is continually change, your very statement shows that, and does not provide a solid stance for many things. Otherwise we could of made a whole Theology on ether...or spontaneus generation...or many misconceptions about human anatomy. I consider it a very good thing to use philosophy because although it does evolve, it provides a far more solid basis that many people can relate to. [/quote]
Considering metaphysics relate to things unseen, it is difficult to expect an atheist to respond to arguments based off of it. Yes, the theories of science do change indeed, some more dramatically than others. When it comes to cosmology, I see us at a very infant stage. Most atheist are agnostic towards god. So using current science to disprove a god is reserved usually for Strong atheism. Using metaphysics to prove a god, is reserved for the philosophers. Both are: 'Not my bag,..... baby"

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 31 2005, 03:40 PM'] Considering metaphysics relate to things unseen, it is difficult to expect an atheist to respond to arguments based off of it. [/quote]
I have not really delt much with athiests. So do most believe that seeing is believing? I refer to metaphysics because they usually apply to overarching truths that are accepted by many. At least so I thought. Kind of a pesonal question, feel free not to answer, but why are you an athiest?

Also still curious as to how the first way is dependent on the big bang. I was unaware that they believed in a big bang around that century.