Can Someone Respond To This "refutation"

[phatcatholic]

interesting..................i will direct him to these comments and see if he would like to reply further on the matter.

[Archangel]

Found this ...

[b]Get Your Own Dirt![/b]

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"

But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"

[Theoketos]

God's Being is His essence. This unique characteristic makes Him the only necessary being. Everythings else's being relies on God. Thus all things are contingent on Him.

Amongst all things would be the Laws of physics.

[Shawn_H]

Im aware that this part of the forum is not for debating, so please keep in mind that I'm not trying to start one, just to discuss an idea.

I wonder about the value of trying to prove things like the existence of God. It too easily becomes an intellectual excercise, and God cannot be apprehended by the intellect alone.

The Orthodox Church (as in the Eastern Orthodox) have an idea I came across recently which made a lot of sense to me. They believe that knowledge of God comes through the heart alone, and the knowledge of the mind, such as science and reason, through the mind alone, and the two cannot be mixed. What this essentially means is that we cannot prove the existence of God using our minds or through any kind of rational method. God can only be known by experiencing Him through the heart. The Wisdom of the Church, which is Scripture and Tradition, is heart knowledge, not mind knowledge. Even though we can understand the teaching of the Church intellectually, this understanding is not faith. Faith is a response of the heart.

I have found through my own experience debating with atheists that trying to convince them intellectually of the existence of God, or of the truth of the Church, is usually pointless. Because our minds are limited and fallible any intellectual arguments we try to use are also limited and fallible. Any argument you put up in favour of God can be countered by another against Him. And you just end up going in circles with people.

So heres another approach I try to use when people start challenging me as to why I believe in God. Instead of trying to convince them with arguments, I ask them to try an experiment. I challenge them to pretend that God exists and that God loves them totally and unconditionally for one week. Notice I said pretend, not believe. Just live their lives for one week pretending that God is real and that this God is total Love.

If they wont try the experiment, just ask them what they are afraid of. If they are so sure God does not exist, then pretending He does cannot do them any harm right? I have had 2 people agree to this challenge and in both cases they ended up Christians. Not straight away but within weeks of trying this out Why? Because pretending is like children at play, its a heart thing not really a head thing, so it opens their hearts to God. And this is the real issue with atheists. It is not that they think God does not exist because of evidence against Him, it is that their hearts are closed.

[phatcatholic]

shawn h....................i think u and pascal (sp?) are on to something

(see, pascal's wager)

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='Shawn_H' date='Apr 19 2004, 03:01 AM'] Im aware that this part of the forum is not for debating, so please keep in mind that I'm not trying to start one, just to discuss an idea.

I wonder about the value of trying to prove things like the existence of God. It too easily becomes an intellectual excercise, and God cannot be apprehended by the intellect alone.

The Orthodox Church (as in the Eastern Orthodox) have an idea I came across recently which made a lot of sense to me. They believe that knowledge of God comes through the heart alone, and the knowledge of the mind, such as science and reason, through the mind alone, and the two cannot be mixed. What this essentially means is that we cannot prove the existence of God using our minds or through any kind of rational method. God can only be known by experiencing Him through the heart. The Wisdom of the Church, which is Scripture and Tradition, is heart knowledge, not mind knowledge. Even though we can understand the teaching of the Church intellectually, this understanding is not faith. Faith is a response of the heart.

I have found through my own experience debating with atheists that trying to convince them intellectually of the existence of God, or of the truth of the Church, is usually pointless. Because our minds are limited and fallible any intellectual arguments we try to use are also limited and fallible. Any argument you put up in favour of God can be countered by another against Him. And you just end up going in circles with people.

So heres another approach I try to use when people start challenging me as to why I believe in God. Instead of trying to convince them with arguments, I ask them to try an experiment. I challenge them to pretend that God exists and that God loves them totally and unconditionally for one week. Notice I said pretend, not believe. Just live their lives for one week pretending that God is real and that this God is total Love.

If they wont try the experiment, just ask them what they are afraid of. If they are so sure God does not exist, then pretending He does cannot do them any harm right? I have had 2 people agree to this challenge and in both cases they ended up Christians. Not straight away but within weeks of trying this out Why? Because pretending is like children at play, its a heart thing not really a head thing, so it opens their hearts to God. And this is the real issue with atheists. It is not that they think God does not exist because of evidence against Him, it is that their hearts are closed. [/quote]
That was very very helpful and insightful.

Thank you so much!

[luciana]

shawn H , I like that idea!! "pretend" then the heart will be open, awesome!

Also, phatcatholic, maybe a good summary of the points Laude and others get for this guy should be added to the refernce section , for when someone gets some tough ones from atheists to refute, although like Shawn H said it's more a matter of the hearts being closed , esp. in the case of agnostics, rather than an intellectual reasoning against God.

[CreepyCrawler]

I'm not sure if this cmotherofpirl was saying this earlier, but I have a problem with that guys argument that the world exists, humans came about thru the laws of physics, etc.

The fact is, there is a law in biology called 'biogenesis' which says that every living thing comes from something else living -- in other words, life cannot spring from non-life. This is a law like that of gravity, considered an absolute truth in the biological world. The first post guy said that he believes that the laws of physics govern the world but the fact is, you can't deny that a major law is broken when you look around the world and say that it came from non-life. There is life and it came from something living before. The laws of physics can explain how a bubble is a perfect sphere but it cannot explain how life sprang up from inorganic, non-living materials -- how can the laws of physics contradict themselves? The fact that there are living beings on this earth proves that there had to be something living before this world from which all living things came. That being is God. The 'idea' of God fits better with biogenesis than the idea that life just came about from non-life.

I'm not sure if that helps. And sorry for being redundant

[phatcatholic]

if only it were that simple....

[CreepyCrawler]

hey, it works for me!

[Theologian in Training]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Mar 17 2004, 01:26 AM'] pham,

first, [b][url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0002.html"]here[/url][/b] is the article, in which Peter Kreeft proves the existence of God.

now, i posted this at a phorum where some atheists were denying this, and asked if anyone would like to try and refute it. well, i got some interesting replies. they are provided below:



John replies again here:



i'm afraid i may need the church scholars on this one. i know how to respond to some of his arguments, but most of them i feel ill-equipped to tackle. LaudDom, where u at bro!

anyone's help would be greatly appreciated. i want to be able to provide a response that is as detailed, thorough, and comprehensive as possible. i'm sure he will have more to say, but we'll start by tackling this much.

thanks pham,
phatcatholic

ps: if i don't get alot of response, then i may move this topic to the debate table. [/quote]
I would ask him a few questions

What is an undesigned pattern? If it is a pattern, can that develop based on chance alone? Can a pattern develop accidentally?

What does he mean by "chance genetic errors"? How is life formed by an error?

Not only is he trying to remove intelligent design, he is trying to remove any allowance of a Creator of any type (at least he is a consistent atheist)

It is no surprise that he would link you to the atheist Dawkins, you should ask him if he has read Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box," or William Debski's book, "Intelligent Design."

Further, he argues that natural selection is more than just theory, and yet he never answers the fundamental question that natural selection raises, namely, what of the "missing link." The actual being that exists or existed whereby one was not quite human and no longer ape?

He is merely showing off his intelligence and sidetracking the issue.

I would propose a few of those questions to him.

God Bless

[point5]

I too once thought that you will only be able to believe, but according to the Catholic Church God can be found through creation and "human reason" , that is why I must equip myself in this subject.

I am using this argument by Kreeft to converse with my brother, an atheist... he is much more knowledgable on the subject so I must go to other sources to support my claims...her is his last response basically refuting the design and first cause arguments Kreeft gives... I am not sure on how to respond thanks for help!!!! Sory this is a bit long...hope it does not confuse you...if it does I can elaborate on the context of the prior emails.

The eamil response from my brother Kip (he starts by quoting me):

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In most of this I am regurgitating the words of other scholars...as you
>have done with your replys. I try to put them in my own words...I hope
>this does not offend you.

I did not regurgitate -- copy word for word without reference or quotation
-- a single word in my last email. If you think otherwise, feel free to
google what I wrote. You, on the contrary, copied pasted huge portions of
this reply from sites such as:

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

Again, this is argument by hyperlink. If you are going to copy and paste,
at least tell me what website you are using. Please do not waste my time.
Am I the only one who finds your unwillingness to write and think for
yourself alarming?

Moving on. You choose the design argument. I personally think that the
design argument is the strongest argument the theist has. It will perhaps
do more work than any other argument. But the design argument does not go
any where near far enough. I could dispute most of your email and write a
ridiculously long reply but I will cut to the chase:

"First, many say the proofs just don't prove God, but only some vague "first
cause" or other, as you also stated in your email. "God of Abraham, Isaac
and
Jacob, not the God of philosophers and scholars," cries Pascal, who was a
passionate Christian but did not believe you could logically prove God's
existence. It's quite true that the proofs do not prove everything the
Christian
means by "God." But they do prove a transcendent, eternal, un-caused,
immortal,
self-existing, independent, all-perfect Being. It's a pretty thick slice of
God-
much too much for any atheist to digest."

Instead of disputing your design argument, which I could do, I think your
argument is weak enough to simply entertain your conclusion but insist that
you have not proven enough. These are the attributes you think you have
proven:

1. transcendent
2. eternal
3. un-caused
4. immortal
5. self-existing
6. independent
7. all-perfect Being

First I want to distinguish between A. the Ultimate God and B. our creator.
It might be the case that A = B, but you have yet to show that. For
example, it might be the case that aliens seeded the earth and then left us
alone. The ultimate cause A created aliens B, who in turn created us.

But with respect to both A and B, you have not proven that the existence of
a being with ANY of these qualities. Our creator, if we grant your premise
that such a creator exists, could just as well be 1. worldly 2. finite 3.
caused 4. mortal 5. contingent 6. dependent and 7. imperfect. Nothing in
the design argument begins to demonstrate this properties. To do so would
require further controversial arguments, such as those from Thomas. That is
why the:

"First, many say the proofs just don't prove God, but only some vague “first
cause” or other. “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not the God of
philosophers and scholars,” cries Pascal, who was a passionate Christian but
did not believe you could logically prove God's existence. It's quite true
that the proofs do not prove everything the Christian means by “God.” But
they do prove a transcendent, eternal, un-caused, immortal, self-existing,
independent, all-perfect Being. That certainly sounds more like God than
like Superman. It's a pretty thick slice of God, at any rate — much too much
for any atheist to digest."

which you copied and pasted from the Internet is written AFTER the list of
Aquinas four arguments, which you did not copy and paste. So the objection
that the design argument is too weak remains.

Regarding Thom's arguments, I gave multiple objections which I do not think
you have addressed. Instead you have copied and pasted the above text. The
following does seem relevant, however:

"Third, it's sometimes argued (e.g by Bertrand Russell), whom you quoted in
your
email on this specific subject, that there is a "self-contradiction" in the
argument, for one of the premises is that everything needs a cause but the
conclusion is that there is something (God) which does not need a cause.
"Who
made God?". The answer is very simple: The argument does not use the premise
"Everything needs a cause." Everything in motion needs a cause, everything
dependent needs a cause, everything imperfect needs a cause."

So now that you explicitly state how the premise is qualified, how do you
know that the universe-as-a-whole is in motion? How do you know that the
universe-as-a-whole is dependent? How do you know that the
universe-as-a-whole is imperfect (whatever that means)? You do not know
this. The premise is extremely controversial at best. Furthermore, there
are many prominent cosmologists, such as Stephen Hawking, who understand
more about physics and astronomy than Aquinas ever dreamed, and insist that
the universe does not need to have a cause at all. So Thom's argument fails
too.

This brings me to another point:

"There are relatively few atheists among neurologists and brain surgeons or
among astrophysicists, but many among psychologists, sociologists and
historians. The reason seems obvious: the first study divine design, the
second
study human undesign." Peter Kreeft

I do not know the statistics for the social sciences but I know that atheism
increases dramatically with education and science training. For example, if
I google "atheism statistics" I get this wonderful statistic:

"This same Skeptic published the results of another study that compared
professions and likelihood of believing in God. The general public was just
over 90% likely to believe in God. Scientists in general were just under 40%
likely. Mathematicians were just over 40% likely, biologists just under 30%,
and physicists were barely over 20% likely to believe in God."

I subscribe to Skeptic, btw. These numbers are in accordance with countless
other studies showing the same inverse correlation between scientists and
religious belief. My favorite is the famous statistic published in Nature
which reported that if the most elite scientists -- the members of the
National Academy of Sciences -- rather than scientists in general, are asked
not if they believe in God, but if they believe in a personal God who is
interested in human affairs, only 7% said yes. This statistic was so
astonishing that congressmen protested, but what could they do?

This does not disprove the quote from Kreeft. Social scientists might be
even more inclined to atheism (with the influence of Freud, Durkheim, and
Marx -- none of whom I respect). But in both cases, appealing to
scientist's beliefs hurts, rather than helps, your case for theism.

Kip
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

thanks
Kiel

[Theologian in Training]

While I cannot offer you any advice to the particular argument, because your brother does not state his position in this email, I would like to offer you some practical advice on going about apologetics.

If what he is saying is true and you are merely copying and pasting what you find to be relevant from the internet, you give him an easy out, and really do not allow him to argue his points, because he already sees that you don't care. In other words, he wants to talk about certain issues, but instead of you taking into account what he has said, and trying to apply what you have read on the internet to the particular issue, you are giving him "canned responses" to issues that might not even be his own.

Also, it is important to realize that most atheists have a reason for their unbelief, and therefore most of them are incredibly intelligent. As a result, when he realizes that you have not thought out the issue, nor try to engage him with probing questions, it is easier for him to insult you.

Remember that you are trying to go head to head with a very particular person who knows that he has to an idea behind the reasons for his beliefs. Therefore, you might want to try digesting what you read, and formulating a response based on a couple of days of thought and prayer with regard to particular issues. Otherwise, he wil continue to immediately shut the door on your responses, until you give him reason enough to want to respond with something more than uncharity and insults.

Just my .02, take it for what its worth. If I am wrong, and it offers absolutely no help, and I am off in left field, merely ignore it.

God Bless

[Theoketos]

[quote]I wonder about the value of trying to prove things like the existence of God. It too easily becomes an intellectual excercise, and God cannot be apprehended by the intellect alone.[/quote]

I think that we can come to know God through reason alone, though it is not easy and almost no one but those as smart as Aristotle can.

[point5]

theoketos

that is an interesting viewpoint...I am curious to hear you elaborate on it more...I tend to agree with your statement but would like to hear more of your thoughts...thanks

-Kiel