Help for atheists

[elite-sky]

The Cosmological Argument attempts to prove that God exists by showing that there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to things that exist. It states that there must be a final uncaused-cause of all things. This uncaused-cause is asserted to be God.
The Cosmological Argument takes several forms but is basically represented below.
Cosmological Argument

1. Things exist.
2. It is possible for those things to not exist.
3. Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
   1. Something cannot bring itself into existence, since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
   1. An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence.
   2. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
5. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
6. The uncaused cause must be God.

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion. He stated that things in motion could not have brought themselves into motion but must be caused to move. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers. Therefore, there must be an Unmoved Mover. This Unmoved Mover is God.
Strengths of the argument

The strengths of the Cosmological Argument lie in both its simplicity and easily comprehensible concept that there cannot be an infinite number of causes to an event. Some arguments for God's existence require more thought and training in terms and concepts, but this argument is basic and simple. Also, it is perfectly logical to assert that objects do not bring themselves into existence and must, therefore, have causes.
Weaknesses of the argument

One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be.
Also, by definition, God is uncaused.

 

[elite-sky]

The Teleological Argument is also known as the "argument from design." Quite simply, it states that a designer must exist since the universe and living things exhibit marks of design in their order, consistency, unity, and pattern.
A typical analogy of this is the Watchmaker Argument, which was given by William Paley (1743-1805). The argument goes as follows. If you found a watch in an empty field, you would logically conclude that it was designed and not the product of random formation. Likewise, when we look at life and the universe, it is natural to conclude there is a designer since we see how perfectly the universe and life forms operate. The eye is typically used as an example of design. It is a marvelous development. In order for it to work, there must be many different convergent parts that individually have no function but have value only in a designed whole. It is only in the combined total that they exhibit their total function. This function is by design.
Paley's argument is as follows:

1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design.
2. The universe resembles human artifacts.
3. Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design.
4. But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison to human artifacts.
5. Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe.

Strengths of the argument

This argument is simple to understand and has merit, since humans are designers by nature and it is natural to think in terms of things having purpose. It is also consistent with Rom. 1:20:

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."​

I think the teleological argument carries weight because it is consistent with Scripture. The Bible states that we are made in God's image. Therefore, there are certain things with which we will resonate. Even though the unbeliever suppresses the truth of God in his unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-32), the truth is still there.
Additionally, evolutionists have difficulty accounting for apparent design in objects like the eye, the heart, and the brain where many different parts come together to form the whole. These individual parts have no purpose except in the function of the whole. How can evolution account for these detailed congruent occurrences? So far, it can't.
Weaknesses of the argument

The idea that the universe is designed is subjective. Different observations in the natural world can produce different theories to account for their existence. Also, this proof is built upon an analogy. If we find things in the universe that are chaotic, then by analogy, that would imply there is no designer.

 

[elite-sky]

both of these arguments is pretty much the sum of the big debate of athiesm and our religion. It is impossible to prove not only for us but for atheists aswell, the best we can to is stay on top of the game and everything will fall into its place

 

[elite-sky]

this could also be a good one for you hapigrl give it a go cheers

 

[Consumed]

an atheist will tell you they believe in nothing, well they are a liar straight up, they do, they believe in their theory of nothing lol

 

[elite-sky]

ahaha yeah of course they believe in their own theroy otherwise they wouldnt even be an athiest lol but the thing is no one can prove anything about god existing or not existing aye its just a stale-mate until we die and find out for ourselves

 

[nisha_philips]

deeds express best dan words

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

ahaha yeah of course they believe in their own theroy otherwise they wouldnt even be an athiest lol but the thing is no one can prove anything about god existing or not existing aye its just a stale-mate until we die and find out for ourselves

That depends on how you define the word "proof". How would you define it?

If a proof is nothing more than a sound argument, then proving God is easy. The hard part is getting people to recognize it as a sound argument.

A. P. Martinich defines a proof (if I remember correctly) as a cogent argument in his book "Philosophical Writing." And I believe he defines a cogent argument as one that has a valid form with true premises and is constructed in a way that is understandable to the person receiving the argument and is persuasive.

I think that's a good definition of proof. But that also means that proof is subjective. I may be able to prove God's existence to some people but not others. And it may be the case that the only reason I can't prove it to some people is because they misunderstood one of or all of the premises.

In addition, this means that my not being able to prove a thing may have absolutely no relationship to how good a reason I have for believing in that thing. Maybe I have the best reasons anyone could possible have for believing that the moon is made of cheese, but it just so happens that those reasons are so complex that no one can understand it but me. In this case, my lack of ability to prove something doesn't have any relationship to the degree of certainty I can have about the truth of the thing.

The type of proof that an atheist is usually looking for when he says "Prove to me that God exists" is usually a very naive notion, which, if applied to any other type of belief, would be equally absurd.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

The Cosmological Argument attempts to prove that God exists by showing that there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to things that exist.

I think most persons who use the Cosmological Argument (at least in its Kalam form) only attempt to show that it is *more probable* that there is not an actual infinite.

1. Things exist.
2. It is possible for those things to not exist.
3. Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
   1. Something cannot bring itself into existence, since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.

1. 
   
   I've never seen the argument in this form. The first two premises look like the argument from contingency. Prima facie, I can't see that the third premise is valid as it is constructed. I've only seen this in the form of "whatever begins to exist." I would quibble with some other points, but instead I'll just jump to the end.
   
   
   One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be.
   Also, by definition, God is uncaused.
   This is why persons use the Kalam version of the argument, which simply says that everything that *begins* to exist must have a cause. Since God didn't begin to exist, it doesn't make sense to ask what caused him. But since the universe began to exist, it does make sense to ask what caused it.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

The idea that the universe is designed is subjective. Different observations in the natural world can produce different theories to account for their existence. Also, this proof is built upon an analogy. If we find things in the universe that are chaotic, then by analogy, that would imply there is no designer.

Again, I think there are stronger forms of the argument. Ones which argue from irreducible complexity. I agree with your criticism that chaos would imply no designer, but even here I think there have been attempts to fit chaos into the design argument. Still, I think the argument is good in that the universe shows more purpose and design at a level that suggests an intelligent designer more than it suggests randomness and chance processes (this is basically what Immanuel Kant said after rejecting the argument, if I remember correctly).

 

[elite-sky]

yeah well it goes to show aye

 

[superdave5221]

One way to prove the existence of God, is to prove that the Old Testament is a reliable historical document. Archeological evidence continues to verify the accuracy of the O.T., and a new interpretation of evidence from secular sources such as Egyptian and Assyrian documents, have brought the dates of the bible much closer to agreement with Egyptian calendars. In addition, mathematical statistics and natural chronometers have completely disproven scientific theories of evolution and a ten billion year old universe, but match up perfectly with creation. The information contained in DNA could not have occurred by accident and logic dictates that it had to have been placed there by an intelligence. Jesus and the apostles referred to Old Testament history many times, including Adam and Eve. This is an indication that Jesus and the apostles considered the Old Testament to be an accurate history. Since we have the eyewitness accounts of many reliable witnesses that Jesus lived, died, and lived again, performing many miracles, as well as the apostles, proving His divine and all knowing nature, then we can be assured that the Old Testament history is accurate.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Each person that you speak to will have different standard of proof. Some will say, I will not believe because I know it not to be true. Others will be truly open to your testimony and your reasoning. You must discern that first. Every argument has weaknesses and strengths. what is important is that you are ready to give an answer to the hope that is within you. You know why you believe--ultimately that is your apologetic. If it is different from others, it is not "wrong". It is what brought you into relationship with Jesus, so it worked. Your testimony is what someone needs to hear. It is our common call to share that.

 

[mcubed]

One of my favourite lines is "don't tell 'em - show em". Never underestimate the power of example if you are able to just be a genuine friend and be real about who you are, in synch with genuinely living for God, loving and growing in him. You don't always have to work too hard to try to steer conversations or find a way to work God into it all, if you are living for God and are a real friend, it'll just come up, and when it does just relax, be yourself, be honest... don't be afraid to say "I don't know" if that is the answer to a question.

I find my unsaved friends respond much better when they realise that I am just as human as them, and that being a Christian doesn't mean that I have all the answers and don't have to struggle, grow, learn and scratch my head in contemplation just like everyone else. So I'll often say "I don't entirely know... here's what I've learned.. here's what I think... here's what some argue..." It really is ok to let them think for themselves, and just keep praying for them. Trust the Holy Spirit to do his own job, we don't need to panick on his behalf. Besides meeting them on their level and allowing them to realise that Christianity really is accessable to them, it also means that if and when they do accept Christ, they don't start out with misconceptions about needing to be perfect before coming to him or trying to earn their way into heaven.

As you simply walk the walk and fall in love with God, while being their true friend at the same time, they'll see it - they'll see that you are saved by grace and are not cocky but grateful for what you've received and hopefully they'll come to terms with the idea that it is available to them to. Let them catch it. It's a much nicer road of discovery than hearing the frantic words of a desperate religious person with the mysterious need to convince them of foreign conepts they have no interest in.


I know there's more to it than what I'm saying, and maybe others can offer some strategies and insights into sharing the gospel that might help you. But I was glad to be the first one to read your question, cos I think showing above telling is a really important thing to grasp before you say anything.


A wise man speaks because he has soemthing to say. A fool speaks because he has to say something.


Love

This is a great topic because I have a debate coming up Creation vs. evolution.... although I have me data together proving the ice-age is a result of the flood, I have found the same when debating or not debating that the Scripture never misses it when Yeshua said I go to My Father but you will do greater works than this .... and it is by the power of our testimony!!! Great comment!!!!!!!

 

[hapigrl]

WOW!!! thank you guys sooo much! The next time I see this guy, I will try to help him with his questions.
thanks again to...Assiyha, Ellie, mpaper, commendez, wonderland, charisen, great, loves, super, and pickles.

Love in Christ, Hapigrl