"Bringing Atheists to God"

[POI]

In a recent exchange, the following quote was made, at the very bottom (viewtopic.php?t=39637&start=410):

"Someone that recently read my argument for God, emailed me and thanked me for bringing him to God."

For Debate:

What is this argument for God, and why is it so convincing?

[William]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #20]

If you wish folk to understand that you are not speaking about any religions idea of The Creator, why not raise the bar and avoid any confusion when writing about the subject, by writing it as GOD and informing folk that you are doing so, so as not to conflate the Eternal Creator with any religious idea of The Creator, since you are saying that you are NOT speaking about religion anyway.

Are you a religious person? You call yourself a Catholic, and generally it is understood that Catholics are religious folk and that Catholicism is a religion, so the onus is on you to make sure you are crystal clear that when you use the name "God" you are NOT speaking about religion/religious ideas.

[William]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #20]

The atheists that converted did not become Catholic. He is a protestant right now.

You give yourself away AFG.

In another thread you created recently, you argue that if there is any religion YHVH created, it must be Catholic and wrote;

So for me, if there is any truth in the Abrahamic faith, it is Catholicism.{SOURCE}

That, from the OP in a thread you labelled "If YHVH exists what religion would be his?"

Your reasoning in that thread would have to mean that you did not really "bring an atheist to God" if indeed, that atheist didn't join what you believe is the organization that is "Gods".

It also underlines what I showed [Post #19] re your essay post - that even that you deny you were talking about religion and any religious idea of "GOD" - you actually were - and I have to ask - "Why the deception?" - and "Why pretend that you weren't?"

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to William in post #22]

I don't see the problem here. In Catholicism others can make it to heaven even if they are not Catholic.

Also, finding God doesn't mean you find God's religion.

I can seek out to find a great Kung Fu master, and find him and thus believe he is more than a legend, but never bother to learn his martial art.

Satan knows God is real yet doesn't follow him anymore.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #22]

I don't see the problem here. In Catholicism others can make it to heaven even if they are not Catholic.

Also, finding God doesn't mean you find God's religion.

I can seek out to find a great Kung Fu master, and find him and thus believe he is more than a legend, but never bother to learn his martial art.

Satan knows God is real yet doesn't follow him anymore.

I was going to say hat you may be making up your own religion to suit your thinking to get round the problems of cult - exclusivism, but it may be that some Christian sects, like Catholicism, perhaps accept that other creeds may be equally valid. Though I actually doubt that's policy, let alone Dogma. But you see the problem, where this is going. There's an apologetic called the 'atheist afterlife' and it suggests that while there is no evidence for one, if there is, no one religion can claim exclusive rights and whether there is one god, many gods or none, all persons get entry because it is as natural as birth, life and death. Deeds might matter, but probably not. There is no sense in revenge, presented as 'justice'.

Thus, rather than your argument bringing atheists to god, your view is more likely to bring God believers to atheism.

[William]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #23]

Satan knows God is real yet doesn't follow him anymore.

The converted atheist knows "God" is real, yet doesn't follow him? Is that the gist of your reasoning?

Because;

Also, finding God doesn't mean you find God's religion.

"God" has a religion you must join in order to "follow God"...

Where is "God" going, that "God" can be "followed"?

I can seek out to find a great Kung Fu master, and find him and thus believe he is more than a legend, but never bother to learn his martial art.

What is this specialty "God" has, which one can learn, if one finds "God's Religion"?

I don't see the problem here. In Catholicism others can make it to heaven even if they are not Catholic

Indeed...then who needs religion? Or are you perhaps referring to the lower heavens where hierarchy exists and special places for the masters over the ordinary are the norm?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to William in post #25]

Most of your questions seem rhetorical or not worth responding to.

The converted atheist knows "God" is real, yet doesn't follow him? Is that the gist of your reasoning?

No. Why would an atheist know God is real?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #25]

Most of your questions seem rhetorical or not worth responding to.

The converted atheist knows "God" is real, yet doesn't follow him? Is that the gist of your reasoning?

No. Why would an atheist know God is real?

Oh, there are various apologetics. Some that we feel God inside, just as theists do, but we dismiss it as all in the head; we see that nature Shews forth the Glory of God, as Paul argues, but we refuse to see it; and some say that we believe in God but just hate him.

They are sorta right the first two times, The logic and evidence (we claim) supports the idea that the world works fine without a god, and the God - feeling could well be a human mental effect common to all peoples, cultures and creeds, and we don't fully understand it yet. Though I think it is an evolved survival - instinct. And of course we can't Hate something we don't think exists.

I can understand why the Theists think that atheists know that God is real, or ought to, but they are wrong.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #27]

I agree because I once disbelieved. I was not angry with God or disappointed. I just lost faith that there is a personal creator that knows or cares or is aware of us. I was fine with there being an eternal thing that caused the universe to be, but it was an impersonal force like energy, and would be pointless to talk or pray to because it did not interact with the world. It would be like praying to energy, which seems rather pointless.

But in that time of disbelief, I was never angry at Yhwh because I did not believe he existed. At best, he was an evil alien. I didn't have this deep down since that God actually existed. I was convinced he did not exists. I was so convinced that I used to display it in chatrooms by asking on the mic if God is real to strike me down. I said this with zero fear at the time.

Aquinas is who brought me back to God. Him and Aristotle and Ed Feser.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #27]

I agree because I once disbelieved. I was not angry with God or disappointed. I just lost faith that there is a personal creator that knows or cares or is aware of us. I was fine with there being an eternal thing that caused the universe to be, but it was an impersonal force like energy, and would be pointless to talk or pray to because it did not interact with the world. It would be like praying to energy, which seems rather pointless.

But in that time of disbelief, I was never angry at Yhwh because I did not believe he existed. At best, he was an evil alien. I didn't have this deep down since that God actually existed. I was convinced he did not exists. I was so convinced that I used to display it in chatrooms by asking on the mic if God is real to strike me down. I said this with zero fear at the time.

Aquinas is who brought me back to God. Him and Aristotle and Ed Feser.

'
Thank you. Ypu'll know then that I ain't foolin' when I explain what an atheist thinks about the god - claim and (mostly) what they don't. I found your conversion story interesting. It might have happened to me, after reading Shroud apologetics or 'History proves Jesus' books or real (Christian) miracle books. It just so happened that I could see some some doubts about those claims and eventually the Bibleclaims failed. I think you might find that Aquinas and the rest fail, too, but that's up to you.

I have to ask this - when and how did you make the leap of faith? That is from some sort creator to Biblegod, assuming you did and Catholicism isn't just your vehicle for meditation, like Buddhism has the Great Vehicle and the little vehicle and there is the 'you have to drag the baggage train' along vehicle.

p.s. Feser is a bamboozler. I don't say he sets out to do it, but I think he can't help it, because he argues from Godfaith and that ,as is ALWAYS the case that makes Theist apologetic illogical, is the Flaw with Aquinas and all the rest. You have seen me argue that First cause is not a case for an intelligent creator because it multiplies logical entities. Feser makes the same error with his argument This comment sums it up where it really is the flaws in all his arguments:
"space-time itself is not a mind that knows things). Therefore my model is simpler. And everything is thereby explained." Now, this doesn't need abstruse Aristotelian reasoning but Logic 101. Cosmic intelligence requires more to explain than not. Now what you have to do chum, is either opt for argument from incredulity (a fallacy) or admit that Feser's arguments are unsound because taking God as a given has invalidated all his convoluted arguments, or you have to admit that you want to cling to Godfaith.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #27]

I agree because I once disbelieved. I was not angry with God or disappointed. I just lost faith that there is a personal creator that knows or cares or is aware of us. I was fine with there being an eternal thing that caused the universe to be, but it was an impersonal force like energy, and would be pointless to talk or pray to because it did not interact with the world. It would be like praying to energy, which seems rather pointless.

But in that time of disbelief, I was never angry at Yhwh because I did not believe he existed. At best, he was an evil alien. I didn't have this deep down since that God actually existed. I was convinced he did not exists. I was so convinced that I used to display it in chatrooms by asking on the mic if God is real to strike me down. I said this with zero fear at the time.

Aquinas is who brought me back to God. Him and Aristotle and Ed Feser.

'
Thank you. Ypu'll know then that I ain't foolin' when I explain what an atheist thinks about the god - claim and (mostly) what they don't. I found your conversion story interesting. It might have happened to me, after reading Shroud apologetics or 'History proves Jesus' books or real (Christian) miracle books. It just so happened that I could see some some doubts about those claims and eventually the Bibleclaims failed. I think you might find that Aquinas and the rest fail, too, but that's up to you.

I have to ask this - when and how did you make the leap of faith? That is from some sort creator to Biblegod, assuming you did and Catholicism isn't just your vehicle for meditation, like Buddhism has the Great Vehicle and the little vehicle and there is the 'you have to drag the baggage train' along vehicle.

p.s. Feser is a bamboozler. I don't say he sets out to do it, but I think he can't help it, because he argues from Godfaith and that ,as is ALWAYS the case that makes Theist apologetic illogical, is the Flaw with Aquinas and all the rest. You have seen me argue that First cause is not a case for an intelligent creator because it multiplies logical entities. Feser makes the same error with his argument This comment sums it up where it really is the flaws in all his arguments:
"space-time itself is not a mind that knows things). Therefore my model is simpler. And everything is thereby explained." Now, this doesn't need abstruse Aristotelian reasoning but Logic 101. Cosmic intelligence requires more to explain than not. Now what you have to do chum, is either opt for argument from incredulity (a fallacy) or admit that Feser's arguments are unsound because taking God as a given has invalidated all his convoluted arguments, or you have to admit that you want to cling to Godfaith.

If you listen to the agnostic Majesty of Reason (Joe Schmid), a philosopher discuss what he finds to be the short comings of Feser's Aristolean argument, he doesn't not say Ed Feser is illogical. In fact, he praises how well he constructs his arguments. Instead, he nick picks at some parts of it as he does with all arguments either for God or against God. He says for the same reasons other are no arguments to convince one to be atheist. You ought to be agnostic.

One of the things he points out is that EIT and EET are on equal grounds. Existential Inertia Thesis and Existential Expiration Thesis.

All good arguments for God, when two intelligent philosophers discuss it turns into a metaphysical debate. It comes down to what you are willing to accept a metaphysical truths. That determines if the argument convinces you or not.

Aristotle convinced me of his explanation for change, his principle of causality and the principle of proportional causality stems directly from it. Once you accept this metaphysic, then it follows that there exists a purely actual being.

But if you are convinced that fundamental material things can somehow have existential inertia, they somehow how the power to subsist here and now, even though most matter has a half-life, then you can find a reason to doubt the Aristotelean argument. However, it comes at the cost of accepting this idea that some material things have existence in themselves. They keep themselves existing from moment to moment.

It is similar to believing that things can just pop into existence without cause. Some actually use that as if it is a counter to God. Hey, if you can accept spontaneous existence, more power to ya, but most of us cannot. There are good arguments against the idea, just as there are good arguments against the idea of EIT.

Anyway, my point is to claim Ed Feser is illogical or that his arguments are easily refuted, then you must be greater than the great philosophers that respect him.


Try watching Graham Oppy, a metaphysical naturalists and atheists debate Ed Feser on this. You will see it turns into what we can accept metaphysically. If it is possible for things to exist in themselves, that Oppy calls simples.



Whatever position you take will have logical consequences. If you can live with those, even if the consequence is well, material things can subsist of themselves or sure things can just pop into existence with out cause, then you will not ever conclude God. IMO, you have concluded something far more perplexing and unbelievable.

And here is ED Feser responding to Joe Schmid about EIT and EES

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2021/07 ... ertia.html