How do you prove the Catholic God is the true God?

Challenge your friend to read C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” and refute the logic. It’s only about 100 pages, so it’s not “War & Peace”.

I haven’t met a single athiest yet who has been able to do so.

Good luck, God bless, and pray for your friend to be led to Christ,

RyanL

[quote=The Iambic Pen]salival:
True. Many people do die for their beliefs, even beliefs that are false. However, I think it would be very difficult to find someone who knew a belief was false and still died for it. If the Apostles had made up all of that stuff about Jesus, I doubt that all eleven of them would have been willing to die for it. Christians who are willing to die for their faith today do so based on a very strong belief that Christianity is true, but ultimately their knowledge is based on the experiences of others. The Apostles knew Christ personally, had seen what He had done, had seen Him after His death and had seen Him ascend into Heaven. There wasn’t any doubt in their minds.

God Bless!
[/quote]

The difference is that a Christian does not commit suicide for his/her faith. A christian would avoid being killed if there were any way he/she could without denying the faith. A terrorist or Kamakazi pilot does commit suicide. They are not being persecuted for their faith.

I think the miraculous birth, the miracles Jesus did, and his resurrection are proof that Jesus is God. If Jesus is God, can we afford to not listen to what he told us? Can we afford to not belong to the only church He founded?

Other religions do not claim that God has revealed himself. Only Christians can say that and have historic reasons to back it up. Other religions seem to be just guessing what God is like or how to live the spiritual life. The Bible is God revealing himself to us, so God does not keep us guessing. If God wants a relationship with us, would he keep us in the dark?

Some bring islam into the table, but it is a false religion and easily shown to be. You just need to look at how much the quran contradicts The Bible.

Valz, would you mind elaborating on this a bit? If an atheist does not accept the authority of the Bible, they would say the Bible is wrong because it conflicts with the Quran, Webster’s Dictionary and today’s newspaper. How do you think contradiction proves Islam false? Can you please give me more reasons? Does the Quran contradict itself? Does it contradict what is now taught or logic? Have teachings changed? These seem more cogent arguments.
I am struggling with how to explain this to my daughter. I could use some help.

Although Pascal’s Wager was being discussed on another thread as not being the best reason to believe in God, it is an interesting thing to propose to your friend to get her thinking. It has worked in my experience to at least open some doors into deeper belief.

In case you don’t know what Pascal’s Wager is, it works like this.

Let’s say belief in God was like a bet. If you believe in God, and there is no God, then you lose nothing. But if you don’t believe in God, and there is God, you lose everything–eternal life.

For a believer, there are deeper things to ground one’s belief in. But it is a good way to get a nonbeliever to think about it.

[quote=bettyg51]Valz, would you mind elaborating on this a bit? If an atheist does not accept the authority of the Bible, they would say the Bible is wrong because it conflicts with the Quran, Webster’s Dictionary and today’s newspaper. How do you think contradiction proves Islam false? Can you please give me more reasons? Does the Quran contradict itself? Does it contradict what is now taught or logic? Have teachings changed? These seem more cogent arguments.
I am struggling with how to explain this to my daughter. I could use some help.
[/quote]

Sure, check your PM.

Valz

[quote=salival]Well that didn’t work, he claimed that many die for their beliefs but that that does not makes their beliefs true.

Is there some other way to prove that the Catholic Gos is the true God? Like say from a metaphysical perspective? Any apologists here that can help?

salival
[/quote]

No matter how brilliant an argument may be, if the person hearing it has no capacity to be convinced by it, it will be useless.

God can only be received by us according to the capacity we have for Him. Someone with an allergy to nuts has no capacity for them - an atheist, if sufficiently intelligent, as so many are, is going to be wholly unimpressed by attempts to argue him or her into being Christian. Christianity is not a philosophy - it is a Divine revelation: and God alone can “bring it home” to those who don’t or can’t accept it.

Metaphysics will only be of help if the atheist regards metaphysics as a valid path to knowledge. ##

[quote=salival]Well that didn’t work, he claimed that many die for their beliefs but that that does not makes their beliefs true.
[/quote]

Ahhh, but most religious martyrs die for what they have been told. These men died for what they personally witnessed.

If they made up the Resurrection, would they have died horrible torturous deaths for it?

[quote=D Quintero]I found this, it might help The True Story
"It is 97 per cent certain that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead - based on sheer logic and mathematics, not faith - according to Oxford professor Richard Swinburne."
[/quote]

That sort of argument is disgusting :frowning: it’s as bad as - if not worse than - the idiotic suggestion that the efficacy of prayer can be tested by praying for one set of patients, and not for another.

The stupidity of supposedly intelligent people never ceases to be astonishing.

The whole point about the Resurrection of Christ is that it is a purely Divine act, in which what is created and of this world has no part; one which is for that reason completely beyond being measured or calculated by human reason. One either believes - or one denies. What one does not even dream of doing, is trying to prove it. It cannot be proved, because it is without any analogies in human experience: there is nothing with which to compare it; any more than there is anything which which to compare God; or the creation by God of all things from nothing.

Even to say why it cannot be proved concedes too much to human reason and the world of human experience - if one believes it happened, the only proper reaction is worship of the Risen Christ.
It is intolerable that a purely Divine act should be accepted on any basis other than faith. No other basis is provided, is needed, is appropriate to the nature of the Resurrection. ##

[quote=Gottle of Geer]## That sort of argument is disgusting :frowning: it’s as bad as - if not worse than - the idiotic suggestion that the efficacy of prayer can be tested by praying for one set of patients, and not for another.

The stupidity of supposedly intelligent people never ceases to be astonishing.

The whole point about the Resurrection of Christ is that it is a purely Divine act, in which what is created and of this world has no part; one which is for that reason completely beyond being measured or calculated by human reason. One either believes - or one denies. What one does not even dream of doing, is trying to prove it. It cannot be proved, because it is without any analogies in human experience: there is nothing with which to compare it; any more than there is anything which which to compare God; or the creation by God of all things from nothing.

Even to say why it cannot be proved concedes too much to human reason and the world of human experience - if one believes it happened, the only proper reaction is worship of the Risen Christ.
It is intolerable that a purely Divine act should be accepted on any basis other than faith. No other basis is provided, is needed, is appropriate to the nature of the Resurrection. ##
[/quote]

Yes, true faith is the only thing you need, but reasoning and logic can help bring a skeptic into believing. Is it possible that God created logic so people could be closer to him? Why did he create our brains?

[quote=D Quintero]Yes, true faith is the only thing you need, but reasoning and logic can help bring a skeptic into believing. Is it possible that God created logic so people could be closer to him? Why did he create our brains?
[/quote]

Agreed, reasoning and logic have their place - but not as means of attempting to prove what cannot be proved: such as the Resurrection.

Logic and reason are ultimately God-given - but they are not always appropriate. ##

Try Peter Kreeft’s website here:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/home.htm

It is full of his writings and audio files… I have found them very helpful.

For example, you can find his writings on the proof for the existence of God here:

peterkreeft.com/featured-writing.htm

Malia

God is.

It is not a matter of proof.

The thing that divides us is not whether God exists, but what form our image of him/her/it is.

Even athiests believe there are forces beyond their control. I haven’t heard any of them claim to effectively steer a hurricane.

To different people “god” can mean anything from some old grandfatherly dude with a beard off in the sky somewhere, loving but firm, pressing buttons on his control panel and watching monitors kind of like a cosmic Santa Claus, to the mere acceptance that there are powers in this earth we cannot control.

Our gods, IMO, are anything we fear, and in general anything that controls us; if we are Catholic those are all the things that keep us from perfection in the eyes of what we believe our God asks of us. If we fear being moneyless, than money is our God. God is whatever or whoever we fear.

Therefore we all have our own gods; the question is does your image of God match mine, and how adept are we at assessing our true gods? For example, to what degree is my God the Father or Christ, and to what degree is my stomach my god?

Alan

Challenge your friend to read C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” and refute the logic. It’s only about 100 pages, so it’s not “War & Peace”.

I haven’t met a single athiest yet who has been able to do so.

Well I challenge you to post anything that you think can not be refuted, and I will show you an agnostic who can refute it.

No matter how brilliant an argument may be, if the person hearing it has no capacity to be convinced by it, it will be useless.

True, but an inevitable truth is undeniable. If you have a truly brilliant argument, it will be saturated with undeniable truth.

Ahhh, but most religious martyrs die for what they have been told. These men died for what they personally witnessed.

Or so you’ve read. This will not convince any atheist of anything. This kind of argument is just going to assure him of what he already believes about you.

I think the miraculous birth, the miracles Jesus did, and his resurrection are proof that Jesus is God. If Jesus is God, can we afford to not listen to what he told us? Can we afford to not belong to the only church He founded?

Well Buddha had a miraculous birth, and performed “miricles”. So he must be the true God too. And Marduk and Osiris(or was it Horus) had a resurection, both were the sons of gods…so they must be true too. Jesus set in motion christianity, not catholicism specifically.Again this argument is worthless, because you use one suspect “fact” to support another. If the atheist in question, wants to debate religion, it is most likely to point out your errors in reasoning, not expose his own. If he truly seeks truth, that is another matter and you may be able to convince him by refering him to other ancient texts including the ones that major portions of the OT were borrowed from. That is what started to open me up to judaism and christianity as philosophies.

We are the Bride of Christ. We are the Body of Christ. God is a mystery. St. John said they wrote that which they witnessed and also that our joy may be complete. We live by faith.

I wish you well…

I really apreciate all the help.

But the atheist I was talking with simply said the following.

“You are just speculating, you have no proof that God is a trinity, that God is who or what the Catholic Church says he is or even that God actually aproves of what Catholicism says about it. You simply have no proof at all and anything you say about it is pure speculationg. Anyone can do that, the pagans did it, the muslim did it, the romans, etc…everyone. Yet none of them have any proof on support of their particular god.”

So, how can I deal with this? :confused:

salival

[quote=salival]I really apreciate all the help.

But the atheist I was talking with simply said the following.

“You are just speculating, you have no proof that God is a trinity, that God is who or what the Catholic Church says he is or even that God actually aproves of what Catholicism says about it. You simply have no proof at all and anything you say about it is pure speculationg. Anyone can do that, the pagans did it, the muslim did it, the romans, etc…everyone. Yet none of them have any proof on support of their particular god.”

So, how can I deal with this? :confused:

salival
[/quote]

This probably is not much help but isn’t proof sort of relative? Don’t you have to have faith in someone else’s opinion or observation sometimes?

You “know” the world is round, right? But do you really “know”? Aren’t you accepting someones elses “truth”. Unless you have been in outer space and witnessed it with your own eyes you must still have faith in another persons statement that it is indeed round?

You can use the same argument for the change in the 12 Apostles after Pentecost. And if your friend is “listening” to you then his/her argument about dying for a belief is not valid. Point out to him/her the differences in the Apostles before and after.

how do you reconcile this:

[quote=Wormwood]Well I challenge you to post anything that you think can not be refuted, and I will show you an agnostic who can refute it.
[/quote]

with this:

[quote=Wormwood]True, but an inevitable truth is undeniable. If you have a truly brilliant argument, it will be saturated with undeniable truth.
[/quote]

how do you reconcile this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormwood
Well I challenge you to post anything that you think can not be refuted, and I will show you an agnostic who can refute it.

with this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormwood
True, but an inevitable truth is undeniable. If you have a truly brilliant argument, it will be saturated with undeniable truth.

The first was in response to a challenge that no one could refute a certain logic. I stand by my claim that no such “logic” concerning God exists.
The second statement was pointing out that no such “brilliant” argument has yet been presented. I see the connection you are trying to force between these two statements, but they actually both agree.
I was trying to stop the thread starter from using terrible logic to try and deal with their atheist friend.

This probably is not much help but isn’t proof sort of relative? Don’t you have to have faith in someone else’s opinion or observation sometimes?

You “know” the world is round, right? But do you really “know”? Aren’t you accepting someones elses “truth”. Unless you have been in outer space and witnessed it with your own eyes you must still have faith in another persons statement that it is indeed round?

This is a good argument. The main difference here is that people that are alive now are in space. They can see the round earth. Mathematically the earth is round. And if you drink (7up i think) you could win a trip to space and see for yourself.

You can use the same argument for the change in the 12 Apostles after Pentecost. And if your friend is “listening” to you then his/her argument about dying for a belief is not valid. Point out to him/her the differences in the Apostles before and after.

I take it you are refering to the apostles being willing to die for christ after his death.(?) If so, good because no one else would die for their religion…well except the muslims…and those buddhist monks during vietnam…and unrepentant pagans…well you get the point.

**

**“You are just speculating, you have no proof that God is a trinity, that God is who or what the Catholic Church says he is or even that God actually aproves of what Catholicism says about it. You simply have no proof at all and anything you say about it is pure speculationg. Anyone can do that, the pagans did it, the muslim did it, the romans, etc…everyone. Yet none of them have any proof on support of their particular god.”

**

So, how can I deal with this? :confused:

The real trick here is figuring out what his/your motivation is. If he is just trying to shake your faith, or convert you, then he is in an unreachable place right now, because he doesn’t even want an answer to his questions. If he truly wants to know more about spirituality, but is simply skeptical, “logic” in the traditional sense won’t work either. As I said before, if he wants writings and scriptures refer him to other ancient texts from other cultures(babylonians, summerians, assyrians ). These cultures beliefs sync up with some of the more fantastic stories from OT. So that is comparative data, but the true answer is…that you don’t KNOW. You have faith, and that faith makes you feel complete and secure. His natural response will be something to the effect of " you are using religion as escapism, or religion is something people use to make themselves feel better"…something that will downplay the spiritual fulfillment. The correct response to this is that all people are innately spiritual, and meeting your spiritual needs makes you happy. This spiritual Joy is all the proof you need that you are at least on the right track (and happy people live longer).
If he rufutes that all people are innately spiritual, just remind him that eventhough he doesn’t believe in God, he is constantly in discussion of Him. You have to appeal to the part of the atheist that doubts (it is usually a big part), and make him doubt his own judgement and fulfillment…make him admit that he is at least agnostic, and then you have your foot in the door. Good luck.**

[quote=Wormwood]The first was in response to a challenge that no one could refute a certain logic. I stand by my claim that no such “logic” concerning God exists.
[/quote]

St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine of Hippo both used logic to create proofs about God. Since they were both sainted, you obviously disagree with the Catholic Church about the value of logic.

St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine of Hippo both used logic to create proofs about God. Since they were both sainted, you obviously disagree with the Catholic Church about the value of logic.

If that is what you call logic, then yes, I disagree. Their arguments are based on assumptions. For example the mover of the unmoved(beggining of perpetual motion or however you know the theory). This theory assumes that something HAD to set the universe in motion. Then you must also assume that God has therefore always existed…why could one not assume that the universe has simply always existed? See it is flawed logic. Also consider that you can use mathematics to both prove and disprove the existance of God…both also flawed because they are based on certain assumtions that must be made when dealing with the nature of the divine.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.