Total Posts:140|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Argument from Non Belief

Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2010 10:31:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Okay I started looking up the argument from non belief against God because I saw it mentioned in a debate and I just want to make sure I understand it.

Is it basically saying that if God existed he would want everyone to know he existed. Not everyone believes in him so he can't exist.
Is that a pretty fair summation
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2010 11:55:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/4/2010 10:31:21 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Okay I started looking up the argument from non belief against God because I saw it mentioned in a debate and I just want to make sure I understand it.

Is it basically saying that if God existed he would want everyone to know he existed. Not everyone believes in him so he can't exist.
Is that a pretty fair summation

Either way, it's a dumb argument. At the same time, I want it to be clear that I'm an atheist. Don't waste your time tackling this.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 12:19:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/4/2010 11:55:50 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/4/2010 10:31:21 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Okay I started looking up the argument from non belief against God because I saw it mentioned in a debate and I just want to make sure I understand it.

Is it basically saying that if God existed he would want everyone to know he existed. Not everyone believes in him so he can't exist.
Is that a pretty fair summation

Either way, it's a dumb argument. At the same time, I want it to be clear that I'm an atheist. Don't waste your time tackling this.

That's a horrendous explanation. Done correctly, it is the single most powerful argument against the God of classical theism. The other heavy hitter, the Problem of Evil, can only succeed in showing that God probably doesn't exist.

From one of Freeman's debates:

1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
(b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
(c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
(d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1)
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
.: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3)
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 12:34:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/5/2010 12:19:23 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 7/4/2010 11:55:50 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/4/2010 10:31:21 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Okay I started looking up the argument from non belief against God because I saw it mentioned in a debate and I just want to make sure I understand it.

Is it basically saying that if God existed he would want everyone to know he existed. Not everyone believes in him so he can't exist.
Is that a pretty fair summation

Either way, it's a dumb argument. At the same time, I want it to be clear that I'm an atheist. Don't waste your time tackling this.

That's a horrendous explanation. Done correctly, it is the single most powerful argument against the God of classical theism. The other heavy hitter, the Problem of Evil, can only succeed in showing that God probably doesn't exist.

From one of Freeman's debates:

1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
(b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
(c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
(d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1)
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
.: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3)

Though I'm an atheist, I'm fairly certain that the usual theist response (if there's even an ounce of sense in his head) would be an objection to that "God wants us to believe" argument. If they're classical Christians, they'd likely point to that Bible verse that basically states "blessed are ye who haven't seen me, yet have believed". Essentially, they'll talk about how God wants us to believe, but the stipulation is that he wants us to take him on his word (the Bible) as opposed to having empirical proof, since that destroys the element of placing trust in God despite what one's limited rational faculty suggests to the contrary. Basically, the whole "God wants us to trust Him at his word, rather than proving his existence to us, which would allow us to take the easy way out by trusting our own senses and judgment."

I don't really buy into the Problem of Evil, either. Both of these arguments seem more like smart-@ss attempts to pose a "wat do" kind of situation than arguments which definitively say "based on this observation of reality, God cannot exist".
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 12:50:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/5/2010 12:19:23 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
From one of Freeman's debates:

1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
(b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
(c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
(d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1)
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
.: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3)

God wants us to have faith and do so by choosing to have faith. If he brought about a situation that proved himself to all, there would be no faith. Yet, he wants faith, so no, he wouldn't do that.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 1:30:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/4/2010 11:55:50 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/4/2010 10:31:21 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Okay I started looking up the argument from non belief against God because I saw it mentioned in a debate and I just want to make sure I understand it.

Is it basically saying that if God existed he would want everyone to know he existed. Not everyone believes in him so he can't exist.
Is that a pretty fair summation

Either way, it's a dumb argument. At the same time, I want it to be clear that I'm an atheist. Don't waste your time tackling this.

lol, the argument from non-belief is the most popular argument against the existence of God behind the argument from evil. It's also almost certainly more powerful, and the PoE is pretty strong itself.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 1:32:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Okay, for all the people who seriously think 'faith' solves the problem, I'm probably going to create a non-belief debate sometime soon.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 1:56:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
That's a horrendous explanation. Done correctly, it is the single most powerful argument against the God of classical theism. The other heavy hitter, the Problem of Evil, can only succeed in showing that God probably doesn't exist.

From one of Freeman's debates:

1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
(b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
(c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
(d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1)
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
.: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3)

I agree with J. Kenyon's assessment, albeit I don't know why he distinguishes the argument from evil as being an evidential argument (as the argument from nonbelief is as well).

I would respond to Cody's and Geo's comments (concerning God's priority with faith as a proper theist response), but that would delve into a forum debate I hate getting into. I know Cody won't take it, but anyone up for a debate on this?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 2:02:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Lord, are there few that be saved?"

"Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and not be able."

(Luke 13:23,24)
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 6:21:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/5/2010 12:50:33 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
God wants us to have faith and do so by choosing to have faith. If he brought about a situation that proved himself to all, there would be no faith. Yet, he wants faith, so no, he wouldn't do that.

This is what i dont understand. People like the Eagle fellow will claim that they have proof of God, and that proof is that theyve either felt, talked to, or heard the presence or spirit of God. Wheres the faith in that, if theres evidence.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 6:29:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/4/2010 11:55:50 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/4/2010 10:31:21 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Okay I started looking up the argument from non belief against God because I saw it mentioned in a debate and I just want to make sure I understand it.

Is it basically saying that if God existed he would want everyone to know he existed. Not everyone believes in him so he can't exist.
Is that a pretty fair summation

Either way, it's a dumb argument. At the same time, I want it to be clear that I'm an atheist. Don't waste your time tackling this.

It's weakly applicable to specific Gods, but not in overall terms. Either way it is pretty weak.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 6:32:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/5/2010 12:19:23 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 7/4/2010 11:55:50 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/4/2010 10:31:21 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Okay I started looking up the argument from non belief against God because I saw it mentioned in a debate and I just want to make sure I understand it.

Is it basically saying that if God existed he would want everyone to know he existed. Not everyone believes in him so he can't exist.
Is that a pretty fair summation

Either way, it's a dumb argument. At the same time, I want it to be clear that I'm an atheist. Don't waste your time tackling this.

That's a horrendous explanation. Done correctly, it is the single most powerful argument against the God of classical theism. The other heavy hitter, the Problem of Evil, can only succeed in showing that God probably doesn't exist.

From one of Freeman's debates:

1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
(b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
(c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
(d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1)
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
.: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3)

That argument is so weak I may even attend a church service because of it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 6:46:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/5/2010 6:32:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2010 12:19:23 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 7/4/2010 11:55:50 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/4/2010 10:31:21 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Okay I started looking up the argument from non belief against God because I saw it mentioned in a debate and I just want to make sure I understand it.

Is it basically saying that if God existed he would want everyone to know he existed. Not everyone believes in him so he can't exist.
Is that a pretty fair summation

Either way, it's a dumb argument. At the same time, I want it to be clear that I'm an atheist. Don't waste your time tackling this.

That's a horrendous explanation. Done correctly, it is the single most powerful argument against the God of classical theism. The other heavy hitter, the Problem of Evil, can only succeed in showing that God probably doesn't exist.

From one of Freeman's debates:

1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
(b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
(c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
(d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1)
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
.: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3)

That argument is so weak I may even attend a church service because of it.

Care to explain?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 6:50:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/5/2010 6:29:28 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/4/2010 11:55:50 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/4/2010 10:31:21 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Okay I started looking up the argument from non belief against God because I saw it mentioned in a debate and I just want to make sure I understand it.

Is it basically saying that if God existed he would want everyone to know he existed. Not everyone believes in him so he can't exist.
Is that a pretty fair summation

Either way, it's a dumb argument. At the same time, I want it to be clear that I'm an atheist. Don't waste your time tackling this.

It's weakly applicable to specific Gods, but not in overall terms. Either way it is pretty weak.

Does it even matter? I mean, to most Theists, they couldnt care less about the existance of any other God other than their own.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 6:56:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/5/2010 6:29:28 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/4/2010 11:55:50 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/4/2010 10:31:21 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Okay I started looking up the argument from non belief against God because I saw it mentioned in a debate and I just want to make sure I understand it.

Is it basically saying that if God existed he would want everyone to know he existed. Not everyone believes in him so he can't exist.
Is that a pretty fair summation

Either way, it's a dumb argument. At the same time, I want it to be clear that I'm an atheist. Don't waste your time tackling this.

It's weakly applicable to specific Gods, but not in overall terms. Either way it is pretty weak.

It's strongly applicable to the Gods the vast majority of people on the planet believe in.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 6:56:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/5/2010 6:46:12 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/5/2010 6:32:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2010 12:19:23 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 7/4/2010 11:55:50 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/4/2010 10:31:21 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Okay I started looking up the argument from non belief against God because I saw it mentioned in a debate and I just want to make sure I understand it.

Is it basically saying that if God existed he would want everyone to know he existed. Not everyone believes in him so he can't exist.
Is that a pretty fair summation

Either way, it's a dumb argument. At the same time, I want it to be clear that I'm an atheist. Don't waste your time tackling this.

That's a horrendous explanation. Done correctly, it is the single most powerful argument against the God of classical theism. The other heavy hitter, the Problem of Evil, can only succeed in showing that God probably doesn't exist.

From one of Freeman's debates:

1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
(b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
(c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
(d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1)
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
.: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3)

That argument is so weak I may even attend a church service because of it.

Care to explain?

1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;

This is a sweeping judgement that may not apply. You can argue that Jehovah may want this because he is meant to be 'benign' though sends non-believers to hell. One way out of that contradiction is to claim that he will give everyone belief, but then how many Christians believe that? In which case the argument should be in reference to him or similar Gods. Not all Gods (or by implication monotheistic Gods).
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 7:52:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/5/2010 6:56:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2010 6:46:12 AM, Kinesis wrote::
1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;

This is a sweeping judgement that may not apply. You can argue that Jehovah may want this because he is meant to be 'benign' though sends non-believers to hell. One way out of that contradiction is to claim that he will give everyone belief, but then how many Christians believe that? In which case the argument should be in reference to him or similar Gods. Not all Gods (or by implication monotheistic Gods).

1. The Christian God is not supposedly benign. He is supposedly omni-benevolent.

2. What matters is not what Christians believe, but what they should believe based on the properties of God and scripture they accept as accurate.

3. The argument is aimed specifically at the Christian God, or perhaps the Muslim God. It wouldn't be capitalised if it wasn't, but even putting that aside, you're playing semantics.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 7:58:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/5/2010 7:52:51 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/5/2010 6:56:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2010 6:46:12 AM, Kinesis wrote::
1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;

This is a sweeping judgement that may not apply. You can argue that Jehovah may want this because he is meant to be 'benign' though sends non-believers to hell. One way out of that contradiction is to claim that he will give everyone belief, but then how many Christians believe that? In which case the argument should be in reference to him or similar Gods. Not all Gods (or by implication monotheistic Gods).

1. The Christian God is not supposedly benign. He is supposedly omni-benevolent.

What is the difference?

2. What matters is not what Christians believe, but what they should believe based on the properties of God and scripture they accept as accurate.

Yea trying telling them that.

3. The argument is aimed specifically at the Christian God, or perhaps the Muslim God. It wouldn't be capitalised if it wasn't, but even putting that aside, you're playing semantics.

I am not playing semantics, the stated argument does not confine itself to the Judaeo-Christian God. When you state 'God' without qualifiers it can be taken that you are referring to a single or overarching creator God. That covers quite a lot of ground.

It's also defeated by the free will argument, and various views of the afterlife that allow for post death redemption.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 8:00:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/5/2010 6:32:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2010 12:19:23 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 7/4/2010 11:55:50 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/4/2010 10:31:21 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Okay I started looking up the argument from non belief against God because I saw it mentioned in a debate and I just want to make sure I understand it.

Is it basically saying that if God existed he would want everyone to know he existed. Not everyone believes in him so he can't exist.
Is that a pretty fair summation

Either way, it's a dumb argument. At the same time, I want it to be clear that I'm an atheist. Don't waste your time tackling this.

That's a horrendous explanation. Done correctly, it is the single most powerful argument against the God of classical theism. The other heavy hitter, the Problem of Evil, can only succeed in showing that God probably doesn't exist.

From one of Freeman's debates:

1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
(b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
(c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
(d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1)
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
.: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3)

That argument is so weak I may even attend a church service because of it.

You don't/can't understand it if you think it's weak. Most of the people who are commenting on this arguement have never had to deal with it before. However, there are better versions of it out there. I prefer this version now:

The hiddenness of God from human perception provides strong grounds to suppose that the God of theism isn't actually real. For example, if God wanted humanity to know that he existed, as many theists often propose, then he should have brought about a situation whereby everyone reasonably believed in him. Therefore, if God existed and wanted us to know this, then reasonable nonbelief should not occur. But reasonable nonbelief does occur because God has refused to provide any compelling evidence that he exists, if he does exist. In other words, the central concepts about God's nature necessarily entail a contradiction.

John Schellenberg was one of the original pioneers behind the argument from divine hiddenness. And he surmises this argument in the following syllogism:

P1: If there is a perfectly loving God, all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God are in a position to participate in such relationships--i.e., able to do so just by trying to.
P2: No one can be in a position to participate in such relationships without believing that God exists.
P3: If there is a perfectly loving God, all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists (from 1 and 2).
P4: It is not the case that all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists: there is nonresistant nonbelief; God is hidden.
P5: It is not the case that there is a perfectly loving God (from 3 and 4).
P6: If God exists, God is perfectly loving.
C: It is not the case that God exists (from 5 and 6). (Schellenberg [4])

Of course, there are some who argue that free will would be compromised if every single person actually did believe in God. But this objection cannot be valid – for there are certainly ways in which an omnipotent God could reveal himself to the world so that every person capable of believing in him actually did believe in him. Surely, a sufficiently persuasive display of magical powers from a deity would be enough to convince any skeptic. As a result, God's failure to reveal himself clearly and unambiguously provides strong grounds to conclude that He isn't real.

As can be plainly seen, the presence of reasonable nonbelief presents a very real problem for the existence of God. Another common (and irrelevant) response to this argument usually alludes to the notion that the ways of God are mysterious. However, this proposition is entirely contrary to the central doctrines surrounding theism. According to theism, God wants humans to have a relationship with him. Meanwhile, this God has also cloaked Himself from the greatest tools and insights of modern science. Surely, any God that would bother to involve Himself in the affairs of one primate species in a universe teeming with over 70 sextillion stars is not as inscrutable as all that.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 8:04:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/5/2010 6:21:49 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/5/2010 12:50:33 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
God wants us to have faith and do so by choosing to have faith. If he brought about a situation that proved himself to all, there would be no faith. Yet, he wants faith, so no, he wouldn't do that.

This is what i dont understand. People like the Eagle fellow will claim that they have proof of God, and that proof is that theyve either felt, talked to, or heard the presence or spirit of God. Wheres the faith in that, if theres evidence.

Eagle fellow, I like that

But Faith proceeds the miracle there have been many instances where people have seen, heard, felt, smelt, God but these people had faith before God revealed himself unto them. So first you must have faith then God may reveal himself. Although the amount of faith required to see God and his person is an incredible amount as few people throughout all history have seen him
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 8:10:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/5/2010 8:00:15 AM, Freeman wrote:
At 7/5/2010 6:32:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2010 12:19:23 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 7/4/2010 11:55:50 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/4/2010 10:31:21 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Okay I started looking up the argument from non belief against God because I saw it mentioned in a debate and I just want to make sure I understand it.

Is it basically saying that if God existed he would want everyone to know he existed. Not everyone believes in him so he can't exist.
Is that a pretty fair summation

Either way, it's a dumb argument. At the same time, I want it to be clear that I'm an atheist. Don't waste your time tackling this.

That's a horrendous explanation. Done correctly, it is the single most powerful argument against the God of classical theism. The other heavy hitter, the Problem of Evil, can only succeed in showing that God probably doesn't exist.

From one of Freeman's debates:

1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
(b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
(c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
(d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1)
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
.: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3)

That argument is so weak I may even attend a church service because of it.

You don't/can't understand it if you think it's weak.

What a pathetic response.

Most of the people who are commenting on this arguement have never had to deal with it before. However, there are better versions of it out there. I prefer this version now:

The hiddenness of God from human perception provides strong grounds to suppose that the God of theism isn't actually real. For example, if God wanted humanity to know that he existed, as many theists often propose, then he should have brought about a situation whereby everyone reasonably believed in him. Therefore, if God existed and wanted us to know this, then reasonable nonbelief should not occur. But reasonable nonbelief does occur because God has refused to provide any compelling evidence that he exists, if he does exist. In other words, the central concepts about God's nature necessarily entail a contradiction.

This is the sort of stuff that a child might ask their sunday school teacher. Don't get me wrong it's a valid point, but the rebuttal has been out there for millenia. It's also based on one very major assumption.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 8:12:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/5/2010 8:04:52 AM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 7/5/2010 6:21:49 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/5/2010 12:50:33 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
God wants us to have faith and do so by choosing to have faith. If he brought about a situation that proved himself to all, there would be no faith. Yet, he wants faith, so no, he wouldn't do that.

This is what i dont understand. People like the Eagle fellow will claim that they have proof of God, and that proof is that theyve either felt, talked to, or heard the presence or spirit of God. Wheres the faith in that, if theres evidence.

Eagle fellow, I like that

But Faith proceeds the miracle there have been many instances where people have seen, heard, felt, smelt, God but these people had faith before God revealed himself unto them. So first you must have faith then God may reveal himself. Although the amount of faith required to see God and his person is an incredible amount as few people throughout all history have seen him

How do you acquire faith?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 8:14:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/5/2010 8:12:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2010 8:04:52 AM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 7/5/2010 6:21:49 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/5/2010 12:50:33 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
God wants us to have faith and do so by choosing to have faith. If he brought about a situation that proved himself to all, there would be no faith. Yet, he wants faith, so no, he wouldn't do that.

This is what i dont understand. People like the Eagle fellow will claim that they have proof of God, and that proof is that theyve either felt, talked to, or heard the presence or spirit of God. Wheres the faith in that, if theres evidence.

Eagle fellow, I like that

But Faith proceeds the miracle there have been many instances where people have seen, heard, felt, smelt, God but these people had faith before God revealed himself unto them. So first you must have faith then God may reveal himself. Although the amount of faith required to see God and his person is an incredible amount as few people throughout all history have seen him

How do you acquire faith?

How can you explain salt to someone who has never tasted it?
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 8:17:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/5/2010 7:58:46 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2010 7:52:51 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/5/2010 6:56:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2010 6:46:12 AM, Kinesis wrote::
1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;

This is a sweeping judgement that may not apply. You can argue that Jehovah may want this because he is meant to be 'benign' though sends non-believers to hell. One way out of that contradiction is to claim that he will give everyone belief, but then how many Christians believe that? In which case the argument should be in reference to him or similar Gods. Not all Gods (or by implication monotheistic Gods).

1. The Christian God is not supposedly benign. He is supposedly omni-benevolent.

What is the difference?


You're f*cking with me right?

2. What matters is not what Christians believe, but what they should believe based on the properties of God and scripture they accept as accurate.

Yea trying telling them that.


...was that supposed to be a rebuttal?

3. The argument is aimed specifically at the Christian God, or perhaps the Muslim God. It wouldn't be capitalised if it wasn't, but even putting that aside, you're playing semantics.

I am not playing semantics, the stated argument does not confine itself to the Judaeo-Christian God. When you state 'God' without qualifiers it can be taken that you are referring to a single or overarching creator God. That covers quite a lot of ground.


Yes, it does. Otherwise, it wouldn't be capitalised. And you're blatantly playing semantics. I have no idea how you think you aren't.

It's also defeated by the free will argument, and various views of the afterlife that allow for post death redemption.

Christians are welcome to try the Free Will Defence - they will be sorely disappointed. The second point is irrelevant. You can't defeat an argument by appealing to a world view it doesn't aim for.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 8:27:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/5/2010 8:10:20 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2010 8:00:15 AM, Freeman wrote:
At 7/5/2010 6:32:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2010 12:19:23 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 7/4/2010 11:55:50 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/4/2010 10:31:21 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Okay I started looking up the argument from non belief against God because I saw it mentioned in a debate and I just want to make sure I understand it.

Is it basically saying that if God existed he would want everyone to know he existed. Not everyone believes in him so he can't exist.
Is that a pretty fair summation

Either way, it's a dumb argument. At the same time, I want it to be clear that I'm an atheist. Don't waste your time tackling this.

That's a horrendous explanation. Done correctly, it is the single most powerful argument against the God of classical theism. The other heavy hitter, the Problem of Evil, can only succeed in showing that God probably doesn't exist.

From one of Freeman's debates:

1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
(b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
(c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
(d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1)
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
.: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3)

That argument is so weak I may even attend a church service because of it.

You don't/can't understand it if you think it's weak.

What a pathetic response.

Ok...

1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;

This is a sweeping judgement that may not apply. You can argue that Jehovah may want this because he is meant to be 'benign' though sends non-believers to hell. One way out of that contradiction is to claim that he will give everyone belief, but then how many Christians believe that? In which case the argument should be in reference to him or similar Gods. Not all Gods (or by implication monotheistic Gods). ???

I can't make heads or tails of what it is you're trying to say here.

Most of the people who are commenting on this arguement have never had to deal with it before. However, there are better versions of it out there. I prefer this version now:

The hiddenness of God from human perception provides strong grounds to suppose that the God of theism isn't actually real. For example, if God wanted humanity to know that he existed, as many theists often propose, then he should have brought about a situation whereby everyone reasonably believed in him. Therefore, if God existed and wanted us to know this, then reasonable nonbelief should not occur. But reasonable nonbelief does occur because God has refused to provide any compelling evidence that he exists, if he does exist. In other words, the central concepts about God's nature necessarily entail a contradiction.

This is the sort of stuff that a child might ask their sunday school teacher. Don't get me wrong it's a valid point, but the rebuttal has been out there for millenia. It's also based on one very major assumption.

What are you trying to say?
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 9:19:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/5/2010 12:34:49 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/5/2010 12:19:23 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 7/4/2010 11:55:50 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/4/2010 10:31:21 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Okay I started looking up the argument from non belief against God because I saw it mentioned in a debate and I just want to make sure I understand it.

Is it basically saying that if God existed he would want everyone to know he existed. Not everyone believes in him so he can't exist.
Is that a pretty fair summation

Either way, it's a dumb argument. At the same time, I want it to be clear that I'm an atheist. Don't waste your time tackling this.

That's a horrendous explanation. Done correctly, it is the single most powerful argument against the God of classical theism. The other heavy hitter, the Problem of Evil, can only succeed in showing that God probably doesn't exist.

From one of Freeman's debates:

1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
(b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
(c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
(d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1)
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
.: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3)

Though I'm an atheist, I'm fairly certain that the usual theist response (if there's even an ounce of sense in his head) would be an objection to that "God wants us to believe" argument. If they're classical Christians, they'd likely point to that Bible verse that basically states "blessed are ye who haven't seen me, yet have believed". Essentially, they'll talk about how God wants us to believe, but the stipulation is that he wants us to take him on his word (the Bible) as opposed to having empirical proof, since that destroys the element of placing trust in God despite what one's limited rational faculty suggests to the contrary. Basically, the whole "God wants us to trust Him at his word, rather than proving his existence to us, which would allow us to take the easy way out by trusting our own senses and judgment."

I don't really buy into the Problem of Evil, either. Both of these arguments seem more like smart-@ss attempts to pose a "wat do" kind of situation than arguments which definitively say "based on this observation of reality, God cannot exist".

That theist response doesn't make sense, though--the Christian god has supposedly shown all sorts of miracles over the years, and didn't leave it up to faith in his word when it came to Jesus or other Biblical events. So the counter-argument can't be true--either he's been trying to get us to believe in him through direct evidence or he hasn't. Hopefully that made sense.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 9:33:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/5/2010 8:14:07 AM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 7/5/2010 8:12:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2010 8:04:52 AM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 7/5/2010 6:21:49 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/5/2010 12:50:33 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
God wants us to have faith and do so by choosing to have faith. If he brought about a situation that proved himself to all, there would be no faith. Yet, he wants faith, so no, he wouldn't do that.

This is what i dont understand. People like the Eagle fellow will claim that they have proof of God, and that proof is that theyve either felt, talked to, or heard the presence or spirit of God. Wheres the faith in that, if theres evidence.

Eagle fellow, I like that

But Faith proceeds the miracle there have been many instances where people have seen, heard, felt, smelt, God but these people had faith before God revealed himself unto them. So first you must have faith then God may reveal himself. Although the amount of faith required to see God and his person is an incredible amount as few people throughout all history have seen him

How do you acquire faith?

How can you explain salt to someone who has never tasted it?

Then how on earth can Mormons preach?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 9:38:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/5/2010 8:17:03 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/5/2010 7:58:46 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2010 7:52:51 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/5/2010 6:56:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2010 6:46:12 AM, Kinesis wrote::
1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;

This is a sweeping judgement that may not apply. You can argue that Jehovah may want this because he is meant to be 'benign' though sends non-believers to hell. One way out of that contradiction is to claim that he will give everyone belief, but then how many Christians believe that? In which case the argument should be in reference to him or similar Gods. Not all Gods (or by implication monotheistic Gods).

1. The Christian God is not supposedly benign. He is supposedly omni-benevolent.

What is the difference?


You're f*cking with me right?


Okay then I will look it up myself then.

2. What matters is not what Christians believe, but what they should believe based on the properties of God and scripture they accept as accurate.

Yea trying telling them that.


...was that supposed to be a rebuttal?


A rebuttal is a counterargument.

3. The argument is aimed specifically at the Christian God, or perhaps the Muslim God. It wouldn't be capitalised if it wasn't, but even putting that aside, you're playing semantics.

I am not playing semantics, the stated argument does not confine itself to the Judaeo-Christian God. When you state 'God' without qualifiers it can be taken that you are referring to a single or overarching creator God. That covers quite a lot of ground.


Yes, it does. Otherwise, it wouldn't be capitalised. And you're blatantly playing semantics. I have no idea how you think you aren't.

Until you show me where I am playing semantics then I am going to call BS on you.


It's also defeated by the free will argument, and various views of the afterlife that allow for post death redemption.

Christians are welcome to try the Free Will Defence - they will be sorely disappointed.

It directly addresses this.

The second point is irrelevant. You can't defeat an argument by appealing to a world view it doesn't aim for.

I see, so you start of with an argument directed at all theists, you then backtrack to the Judaeo-Christian God only, now it does not apply to Jews, Catholics or Mormons. By this time tomorrow the argument will only be relevant to single 7th day adventist named susan.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2010 9:40:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/5/2010 8:27:14 AM, Freeman wrote:
At 7/5/2010 8:10:20 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2010 8:00:15 AM, Freeman wrote:
At 7/5/2010 6:32:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2010 12:19:23 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 7/4/2010 11:55:50 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/4/2010 10:31:21 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Okay I started looking up the argument from non belief against God because I saw it mentioned in a debate and I just want to make sure I understand it.

Is it basically saying that if God existed he would want everyone to know he existed. Not everyone believes in him so he can't exist.
Is that a pretty fair summation

Either way, it's a dumb argument. At the same time, I want it to be clear that I'm an atheist. Don't waste your time tackling this.

That's a horrendous explanation. Done correctly, it is the single most powerful argument against the God of classical theism. The other heavy hitter, the Problem of Evil, can only succeed in showing that God probably doesn't exist.

From one of Freeman's debates:

1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
(b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
(c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
(d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1)
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
.: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3)

That argument is so weak I may even attend a church service because of it.

You don't/can't understand it if you think it's weak.

What a pathetic response.

Ok...

1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;

This is a sweeping judgement that may not apply. You can argue that Jehovah may want this because he is meant to be 'benign' though sends non-believers to hell. One way out of that contradiction is to claim that he will give everyone belief, but then how many Christians believe that? In which case the argument should be in reference to him or similar Gods. Not all Gods (or by implication monotheistic Gods). ???

I can't make heads or tails of what it is you're trying to say here.


What part dont you understand.

Most of the people who are commenting on this arguement have never had to deal with it before. However, there are better versions of it out there. I prefer this version now:

The hiddenness of God from human perception provides strong grounds to suppose that the God of theism isn't actually real. For example, if God wanted humanity to know that he existed, as many theists often propose, then he should have brought about a situation whereby everyone reasonably believed in him. Therefore, if God existed and wanted us to know this, then reasonable nonbelief should not occur. But reasonable nonbelief does occur because God has refused to provide any compelling evidence that he exists, if he does exist. In other words, the central concepts about God's nature necessarily entail a contradiction.

This is the sort of stuff that a child might ask their sunday school teacher. Don't get me wrong it's a valid point, but the rebuttal has been out there for millenia. It's also based on one very major assumption.

What are you trying to say?

This is the sort of stuff that a child might ask their sunday school teacher. Don't get me wrong it's a valid point, but the rebuttal has been out there for millenia. It's also based on one very major assumption.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.