Let's suppose God did....

[Dave Ellis]

Mr. Ellis, I have an argument that has been formulated by a gentleman whose line of reasoning is similar to yours and I would venture to say the majority of atheists here regarding this issue. I will present the argument below and I would like for you to tell me if you think it represents your view.

1. The Christian God strongly desires a loving relationship with almost every human being, and desires it to last for all eternity. [Christian assumption]

2. A loving relationship with God is possible only if one (a) believes that he exists and (b) chooses to be in a loving relationship with God.

3. Therefore, if the Christian God exists, since he wants humanity to have a loving relationship with him, he would make his existence well-known to almost everyone, thereby ensuring condition (a). (from 1, 2)

4. There are multitudes of conflicting religions and religious beliefs (Christianity, Islam, Hindus, Buddhism, secularism, etc), and more people who don't believe that the Christian God exists than those who do. [empirical assumption]

5. Therefore, not almost every human being believes that the Christian God exists. (from 4)

6. Therefore, the Christian God's existence is not well-known to almost everyone. (from 5)

7. Therefore, the Christian God doesn't exist. (from 6, 3)

Does this argument represent your view?

Up until point #7, yes.

However I disagree with point #7, it's a possibility based on the line of argument that he doesn't exist, however it's also a possibility that he does exist, and just hasn't provided sufficient evidence to non believers.

But still, non believers are still in the same position they are now. If there isn't sufficient evidence to convince them, they still aren't going to believe even if the God in question does exist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Let's suppose for a moment that God did do what many atheists here have said He has not done, and reveal Himself to mankind in a way that is undeniable.

How would you know it was God revealing Himself and not just some natural event with a natural explanation?

Let's suppose He caused a message to appear in the clouds in the sky over Israel. How would you know it was really God doing it and not just a chance, random arrangement of clouds to look like words?

Or let's suppose God appeared to you, an atheist, personally. How would you know it was really God and that you were not just hallucinating?

Let's suppose He appeared to hundreds of people at one time and did miracles. How would you know that it was not just some magician doing magic tricks with the help of people who were working secretly with the magician?

Let's suppose a booming voice from the sky cried: "I am God and Jesus Christ is my beloved Son, listen to Him!" How would you know it was not just you imagining the voice inside your head?

The possibility of hallucination, sufficiently advanced technology, or sufficiently advanced magic, can never be discounted. If that means that the existence of God is fundamentally impossible to substantiate, then so be it.

I keep hearing over and over again: "If God is real, then He can make His presence known." Well heck, I agree!

But if He did, how would you distinguish the supernatural from the natural?

What marks or qualities would such a revelation possess? Would you even be able to recognize it?

If God is omnipotent, then he has the ability to convince me. If God is omniscient, he knows what'll convince me, even if I don't

 

[Dave Ellis]

What caused this change?



Are you familiar with the statement that C.S. Lewis once made which goes something like:

"Jesus Christ was either God, a liar, or a lunatic"?

Do you agree with that statement?

If so, then since you say you have no reason to believe He was God incarnate, then He must either be a liar or a lunatic or both. Why do you think Jesus was a liar and or a lunatic?

C.S. Lewis did not cover all possible categories with this one... He could indeed be a liar, a lunatic or lord, however he could also be legend.

There have been dozens of "messiahs" running around the Middle East for thousands of years, the fact one of these cults got a foothold and started to grow isn't surprising.... Muhammad and Joseph Smith created religions based on the same texts, and that was after smith was convicted of fraud in an American court on an unrelated matter.

So, in short, Jesus could be a lunatic, liar, lord or legend. There's precedent for three of the four options, and lord is the odd one out. The other three are more likely, although that doesn't definitively disprove the Lord option

 

[variant]

If it were so obvious why doesn't everyone believe?

Further, if it is obvious what god is and how it operates, then why can I get ten different answers from any number of religions which are all subscribed to by various believers?

Obviously the proposed God could, if it so chose, show itself to me in a way I would accept, unless it's power is limited to creating universes, raising the dead, and Judging the unrighteous who dare not believe it exists without some appropriately good reason or evidence to say so, and of course making more bread appear (that one is a good one).

Perhaps God should just make more bread appear in my refrigerator until I believe.

I would find it unlikely that there was some sort of saintly ninja who would sneak bread into my refrigerator over several months.

 

[Elioenai26]

Up until point #7, yes.

However I disagree with point #7,

Mr. Ellis, if you agree with premises 1 through 6, then 7 which is the conclusion follows logically. You cannot accept 1 through 6 and then disagree with 7. If you disagree with 7 then you must show which of the premises 1 through 6 you disagree with.

 

[Elioenai26]

If it were so obvious why doesn't everyone believe?

1. If God existed, then His existence would be obvious to everyone
2. God's existence is not obvious to everyone
3. Therefore, God does not exist

Is this your argument?

 

[Elioenai26]

C.S. Lewis did not cover all possible categories with this one... He could indeed be a liar, a lunatic or lord, however he could also be legend.

There have been dozens of "messiahs" running around the Middle East for thousands of years, the fact one of these cults got a foothold and started to grow isn't surprising.... Muhammad and Joseph Smith created religions based on the same texts, and that was after smith was convicted of fraud in an American court on an unrelated matter.

So, in short, Jesus could be a lunatic, liar, lord or legend. There's precedent for three of the four options, and lord is the odd one out. The other three are more likely, although that doesn't definitively disprove the Lord option

Mr. Ellis, aside from the fact that Jesus' historicity is affirmed by virtually all ancient historians, secular and Christian, I was speaking to Paradoxum who stated she believed Jesus was indeed real.

I was not talking to you when I provided the C.S. Lewis quote.

 

[JGG]

I don't see a problem with it at all because I do not presume that everything must have a natural explanation. I don't question beg for naturalism.

Perfect. Tell us everything you know about the supernatural. Provide supernatural evidence please.

 

[Elioenai26]

The possibility of hallucination, sufficiently advanced technology, or sufficiently advanced magic, can never be discounted. If that means that the existence of God is fundamentally impossible to substantiate, then so be it.

1. If the possibility of hallucination, sufficiently advanced technology, or sufficiently advanced magic can never be discounted, then it is fundamentally impossible to substantiate God's existence.

2. The possibility of hallucination, sufficiently advanced technology, or sufficiently advanced magic can never be discounted.

3. Therefore, the existence of God is fundamentally impossible to substantiate


Is this your argument?

 

[Elioenai26]

Perfect. Tell us everything you know about the supernatural. Provide supernatural evidence please.

I have never argued the following:

1. If a person does not question beg for naturalism, then they know at least one thing about the supernatural

2. I do not question beg for naturalism

3. Therefore I know something about the supernatural

I have never argued the above because premise 1 is clearly not true. Just because someone does not question beg for naturalism, it does not necessarily follow that they know something about the supernatural.

However, if you would like to know about the supernatural, do not take my word for it, but rather, read the Bible.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

1. If the possibility of hallucination, sufficiently advanced technology, or sufficiently advanced magic can never be discounted, then it is fundamentally impossible to substantiate God's existence.

2. The possibility of hallucination, sufficiently advanced technology, or sufficiently advanced magic can never be discounted.

3. Therefore, the existence of God is fundamentally impossible to substantiate


Is this your argument?

No, as I never stated premise 1. If nothing else, premise 1 could just as easily apply to anything and everything.

 

[Paradoxum]

What caused this change?

When I found one of my beliefs was wrong, I realised that others could be wrong. I tried to make sure my faith and beliefs were based on evidence and reason. But, I still started to wonder if the things I called God or God produced were in fact just psychology. In the end alot of what I thought was God started to look more like bias, coincidence, and placebo.

Are you familiar with the statement that C.S. Lewis once made which goes something like:

"Jesus Christ was either God, a liar, or a lunatic"?

Do you agree with that statement?

If so, then since you say you have no reason to believe He was God incarnate, then He must either be a liar or a lunatic or both. Why do you think Jesus was a liar and or a lunatic?

I am familiar with that quote. Jesus could have been a preacher that was misrepresented by time. So I would say the writers of the Bible got it wrong, for whatever reason.

Or perhaps that Jesus meant his claims to understood less literally. Like if a Hindu said they were God, they might mean they are God just like everyone else, not that they are a special manifestation of God.

 

[JGG]

I have never argued the following:

1. If a person does not question beg for naturalism, then they know at least one thing about the supernatural

2. I do not question beg for naturalism

3. Therefore I know something about the supernatural

I have never argued the above because premise 1 is clearly not true. Just because someone does not question beg for naturalism, it does not necessarily follow that they know something about the supernatural.

So, to be clear, you're saying you don't have any supernatural evidence? So considering that we're talking about a supernatural entity, how could I be expected to speculate about supernatural evidence?

However, if you would like to know about the supernatural, do not take my word for it, but rather, read the Bible.

Why would I take anything in the bible as evidence?

 

[variant]

1. If God existed, then His existence would be obvious to everyone
2. God's existence is not obvious to everyone
3. Therefore, God does not exist

Is this your argument?

You were the one acting like God's existence is self evident, not me.

And I quote:

There is undeniable proof that God exists. But you have to be willing to see it. The sun cannot be seen by a blind man even at noonday when it shines in all its strength.

So, mind your straw man.

My argument is that God is not obviously something that exists.

It is within God's power to be obvious about it so I blame him for my Atheism if (God) exists and it thinks It's important that I believe.

I even kindly outlined a scenario that would convince me.

< waits for bread related miracle.

 

[Elioenai26]

No, as I never stated premise 1. If nothing else, premise 1 could just as easily apply to anything and everything.

So you do not agree with one then correct?

If not, why?

 

[Elioenai26]

When I found one of my beliefs was wrong, I realised that others could be wrong.

Do you mind sharing what that belief was?

I am familiar with that quote. Jesus could have been a preacher that was misrepresented by time. So I would say the writers of the Bible got it wrong, for whatever reason.

I think you misunderstand Lewis' point here. You say Jesus could have been a preacher. Well, the historical evidence affirms this. He proclaimed, among other things, that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand and things of that nature.

But He was either lying or crazy my dear. If He was not really God incarnate, then His statement regarding the Kingdom of Heaven, and Him being able to forgive sin, and Him receiving worship, and Him rebuking the religious leaders of His day was either a result of Him lying about who He was, or either He really believed He was the Son of God but really was not. There is no third option of saying: "Well He was a good teacher or He was just a Rabbi."

A man who is not God would be evil if he were lying about being God and knew he was not God, and a man would be crazy if he said he was God and really believed he was God when he actually was not.

So which do you think Jesus was? Crazy or a liar, or both?

 

[Elioenai26]

You were the one acting like God's existence is self evident, not me.

So which premise of that argument do you disagree with? One or two?

 

[Elioenai26]

So, to be clear, you're saying you don't have any supernatural evidence?

No. That is not what I said at all.

So considering that we're talking about a supernatural entity, how could I be expected to speculate about supernatural evidence?

I do not expect you to speculate about supernatural evidence.

Why would I take anything in the bible as evidence?

Why would you not?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So you do not agree with one then correct?

Correct.

If not, why?

Because the inability to discount hallucination (etc) does not mean we cannot substantiate all the other explanations. Though the evidence for atoms could be a grand conspiracy concocted by the mischievous fairies who live in my shoe, this possibility alone does not negate the overwhelming evidence that atoms are real.

Though empiricism can never attain 100% certainty, it can attain 99.999% certainty, and that's good enough. We can never remove that last 0.00001%, we can never discount hallucination and so forth, but that doesn't mean we can't be confident in our conclusions.

Looping back to the OP, while we can't discount hallucination (etc) as a possible explanation for God's Big Reveal, that doesn't mean we can't confidently conclude that the event in question is, in fact, God.

So though there are two (or more) possibilities - it's really God, or it's just a hallucination - that doesn't mean both possibilities are equally likely. Depending on the circumstances and so forth, it may simply be that the "It's actually God" explanation is the most likely one.

(These discussions are always interesting, as it shows non-believers to be quite ready to accept God's existence, and believers to be adamant that his existence is unprovable )

 

[Paradoxum]

Do you mind sharing what that belief was?

That evolution was false.

I think you misunderstand Lewis' point here. You say Jesus could have been a preacher. Well, the historical evidence affirms this. He proclaimed, among other things, that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand and things of that nature.

But He was either lying or crazy my dear. If He was not really God incarnate, then His statement regarding the Kingdom of Heaven, and Him being able to forgive sin, and Him receiving worship, and Him rebuking the religious leaders of His day was either a result of Him lying about who He was, or either He really believed He was the Son of God but really was not. There is no third option of saying: "Well He was a good teacher or He was just a Rabbi."

A man who is not God would be evil if he were lying about being God and knew he was not God, and a man would be crazy if he said he was God and really believed he was God when he actually was not.

So which do you think Jesus was? Crazy or a liar, or both?

I think you misunderstand what my point was. I was saying that the Bible could have falsely claimed that Jesus said he was God. Maybe Jesus never claimed such a thing.

I also gave another reason, which you either didn't see or ignored.