How to deal with atheists?

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 31 2005, 05:28 PM'] 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. [/quote]
Now I'm just starting to get into saint aquinas. The second way - causation off existence. There must have been a uncaused first cause. Now in regards to the kalam argument.

[quote]The Kalam Cosmological Argument states that the Big Bang Theory means that the whole universe of space and time had a beginning, and postulates that the beginning of time had to be initiated by a causal agent outside of time, that is God[/quote]

Alot of people feel that the big bang verifies this. Also the theory of relativity would require someone to start time, I believe. But with the new theories of today like a multiverse, it throws out that argument all together. Rather interesting none the less.

Edited April 1, 2005 by Melchisedec

[Paphnutius]

Ok please forgive me if I misrepresent the multiuniverse theory, but I did some semi-hasty research on it.

It seems that you forgot that it seems to refute the arguement from design as well. I can see why you decided not to bring it up since it did not pretain to Aquinas, but it throws a wrench in there as well. I think it might be able to be salvaged, but I have never put too much faith in the arguement from design. I like it, it gives me pride to be human, but I dont think it holds too much water on converting people to the faith. If you want to discuss that too we can.

From what I have read I cannot see why this would refute Aquinas. Aquinas argues from two laws: 1)law of conservation 2)there cannot be an infinite regress (actually an application of conservation). The multiuniverse might threaten that in the fact that each universe is created from a star collapsing unto istelf, distorting laws of physics and thus creating another universe. So each universe is created from the collapse of a star, or something similiar, in another universe. They think this went on forever, infinite in both directions. An infinite series of bigbangs. Well the question still remains, where did the first universe come from? How did that first come into existence? To that Aquinas would answer God. He the first mover, uncaused causer, etc... Since there cannot be an infinite regress. Something would still be required to "jump start" the system. Until the come up with an explination that argues there can be an infinite regress and thus violate the law of conservation, I do not see how this threatens Aquinas.

They seem to evidence this by saying that computers "communicate" with other computers in other universes. How on Earth can they do that? Is there some giant lan party going on that I am missing out on? Not expecting you to have an answer to that, but if you do please share I am indeed interested as you are. The people that I have read say well this happens, and this seems to be why so lets go with it. They miss out on the point that if there really is an alternate universe we cannot really interact with it. I read that from another article. So maybe there is a different explination for quantam computers. I dont know, it is really weird in a good way though.

Your thoughts?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Has anyone tried the Handbook of Christian Apologetics? The author, Peter Kreeft (he wrote the Catholic Education article above), has posted many of his wiritings on the existence of God at his website:
[url="http://peterkreeft.com/featured-writing.htm"]http://peterkreeft.com/featured-writing.htm[/url]

Edited April 1, 2005 by thedude

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 31 2005, 10:56 PM'] An infinite series of bigbangs. Well the question still remains, where did the first universe come from? How did that first come into existence? To that Aquinas would answer God. He the first mover, uncaused causer, etc... Since there cannot be an infinite regress. Something would still be required to "jump start" the system. Until the come up with an explination that argues there can be an infinite regress and thus violate the law of conservation, I do not see how this threatens Aquinas.
[/quote]
What is up for debate is if time had a beginning at all. Current cosmologist are in odds over this. But truly, I am not the best person to discuss this with considering I dont really feel there are any absolutes in that arena. That could imply more my ignorance on the subject, which I cannot deny. Hence I am currently reading this book:

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

I would suggest going to [url="http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name=Forums"]InfidelGuy Forums[/url] . There are alot of very knowledgable people there and there is a thread exactly about this topic currently going on. There was a good show last week about this subject. Its good spot for appologetics to go and speak their mind.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Apr 1 2005, 02:32 PM'] What is up for debate is if time had a beginning at all. Current cosmologist are in odds over this. [/quote]
That is something kinda hard to grasp. That there was always time. Almost sounds by definition that time always had to exist. For what was there before time? Hmm sounds interesting. We believe though that God exists outside and inside of time. He transcends it.

We believe that the Trinity existed before creation, thus before time. They Trinity also exists outside of time so all appears to God at the same instant. All of this is theological theory though.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='thedude' date='Apr 1 2005, 09:43 AM'] Has anyone tried the Handbook of Christian Apologetics? The author, Peter Kreeft (he wrote the Catholic Education article above), has posted many of his wiritings on the existence of God at his website:
[url="http://peterkreeft.com/featured-writing.htm"]http://peterkreeft.com/featured-writing.htm[/url] [/quote]
yes, that is an excellent book

[Antonius]

[quote name='Pieta' date='Mar 30 2005, 05:48 PM'] 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. [/quote]
I would say it is rather that we, theists and atheists alike, do not understand the[i]simplicity[/i] of God.

He is infinitely simple according to Aquinas.

It is a very simple concept to think about, if not to actually do. God exists, He loves us (more than we can understand), and we conform our lives to His Will. The words are simple...

Jesus didn't give us the Summa Philosophica at the Last Supper. He didn't write a huge book and in it there is the Theory of Everything.

Nonetheless, Truth is Truth. One will not see God until he looks farther than himself and even the human race. But that's my humble opinion.

Did you give the guy Pascal's Wager?

[Pistos]

I read that Pascal's Wager is a bit off because it does not take into account a parallel comparison of the costs involved, only the outcomes.

If the four outcomes all have equal cost, then Pascal's Wager is quite convincing.

But when the cost of being Christian equals self-denial, being ostracized, misunderstood, rejected by family, friends and society at large, and maybe even physical trials and martyrdom, it colours the argument somewhat.

It would be like asking: "Would you pay a dollar now, to get this thousand bucks you see in my hand; or would you rather pay me ten thousand dollars today, and receive a billion dollars next week, which I have to *cough* mail to you *cough*?"

[url="http://www.google.com/search?q=pascal's+wager"]Googling for Pascal's Wager[/url] gives a handful of rejections and rebuttles.

[cmotherofpirl]

Get a copy of [i]Handbook of Chistian Apologetics.[/i]

[argent_paladin]

I have found that atheists respond well to CS Lewis, who was an atheist. I would recommend "Mere Christianity" or "Surprised by Joy" which tells of how he converted from atheism to Christianity.

Edited April 10, 2005 by argent_paladin

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
4/9 - Third Sunday of Easter (Eighth Day of the Novendiales)

The best philosophical argument that I've ever seen argues against the atheist's assertion, "I know that a god or gods do/does not exist." In order to [i]know [/i]the falsity of a conclusion, one must [i]know [/i]the falsity of one of the premises. If we can both agree that "a being independent of the universe that caused the world to come to be" is a working definition of "God", then...

(1) The universe came to be.
(2) All things that come to be have a cause independent of themselves.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause independent of itself.

Premise (1) might be attacked by atheists, but remember, to [i]know [/i]that (3) is false, they have to [i]know [/i]that (1) is false. No cosmologist today would assert that he KNOWS that the universe did not come to be. It's at least as probable as it is not. Premise (2) is self-evident in my mind, but I'm willing to call it as probable as it is not as well.

[phatcatholic]

interesting.....

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
4/10 - Third Sunday of Easter (Eighth Day of the Novendiales)

BTW, my argument doesn't prove the existence of God - all it does it show that we can't [i]know[/i] (in the way that atheist wants knowledge) that God does not exist.

[phatcatholic]

its interesting how we can't know that he doesn't exist, but we can know that he does exist. how does that work exactly? (maybe i need to re-read this thread....)

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
4/10 - Third Sunday of Easter (Eighth Day of the Novendiales)

Well, as I see it anyway (take that for what it's worth), there are three ways we can know something - let's call it "X".

(1) We can know everything about X.
(2) We can know something about X, but not everything.
(3) We can know nothing about X.

The atheist, so it seems, would like to assert proposition (1). If X is God, then the atheist claims we can know everything about God - since there's only one thing to know, namely, that He does not exist.

The theist, especially the Christian theist, would like to assert proposition (2). We can know some things about God (i.e. omniscience, omnipotence, &c.), but we can't know everything about Him.

The agnostic, so it seems, would like to assert proposition (3). However, I stand to say that proposition (3) is self-refuting. If the agnostic says, "We can know nothing about God," I would respond, "Can we really know nothing? It seems that we know one thing, namely, that God has the property of being-unknowable-to-us."

I'll shut up with the philosophy now.