Let's suppose God did....

[Elioenai26]

That's a lot of posturing. Very impressive. You're wrong of course...

I'm sure you've heard of Charles Hartshorne, "considered by many philosophers to be one of the most important philosophers of religion and metaphysicians of the twentieth century". he disagreed with Anselm's idea of absolute perfection. There are other Christian philosophers that have done the same.

You are exactly right in saying that Charles Hartshorne disagreed with Anselm's conceptualization of God. Following after Whitehead's departure from the classical understanding of change into what is referred to as process philosophy which is a view roundly criticized by contemporary philosophers, Hartshorne fashioned his own "process theology" which posits God as changing, becoming better and better every day and ultimately dependant upon humans for His moral growth. This view, like the philosophy it was based on, has been roundly criticized by philosophers and theologians and actually only serves to reinforce my point. His views are criticized because they are a departure from the classical, traditional and commonly held view of God among the philosophic community.

I know of only two philosophers by name who actually are outspoken supporters of this neoclassical view of God. Cobb and Griffin.

Be that as it may Todd, it is not up for debate or discussion as to what the philosophic community holds to be true regarding the definition of God. No where have I said that each and every philosopher agrees exactly with what Anselm has to say about God. That is not my contention. My contention is simple. God as defined by Anselm as "The Being Greater Than That Which Can Be Conceived" is the standsrd working definition of "God" in contemporary philosophy.

Please reference the various philosophy encyclopedias available for free on the internet for corroboration if you need it.

 

[Elioenai26]

And yet, despite all this armchair philosophising, there's still no evidence that this maximal being actually exist....

And if no such evidence for theism is possible, well, so much for theism. It's not exactly my problem

The bottom line is that there's no proof.

And of course you miss the bottom line ( and more of my posts in general than any other person on the site ) of the issue: There is no proof.

And yet, of it there still is no proof, nor is it likely.

You gentleman are aware that your statements are positive claims to knowledge correct?

 

[KCfromNC]

In order to get clarification from you on what you just said I will need to ask you a question.

If you can refer to what specific post I typed that gave you the idea that it is my view that God does not know how to provide convincing evidence to non believers I would be much obliged.

Post 284 :

Which harkens back to the OP: if God exists, he knows what evidence he could bring forth that would be sufficient to demonstrate his existence.
​

...
To who? To the one not willing to believe in and obey and worship Him as God their Father, Sustainer, and Provider? No, I disagree.

The reason I am asking you this question is because I know I never said that or even implied that.

What I have said is that it is not logically possible for God to force someone to believe in Him of their own free will.

No one asked if your god would force people to believe. The question was does it know what evidence would make people believe. You said it didn't.

It is the same as saying that God cannot make a married bachelor or a round square or a sentence in English with no English words etc. All of these things are logical impossibilities. To say that God cannot do any of those is not in any way to suggest that He is not omniscient or omnipotent.

So you're saying your god knows which evidence will make us believe, since it is omniscient. It just created people in a way that makes it impossible for them to have a reason to do so. Fair enough.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You gentleman are aware that your statements are positive claims to knowledge correct?

Incorrect: it is the default position. "There is no proof/evidence" is not the same as "There can be no proof/evidence" (which would be a positive claim).

 

[Elioenai26]

Incorrect: it is the default position. "There is no proof/evidence" is not the same as "There can be no proof/evidence" (which would be a positive claim).

Both of the above propositions are claims to/of knowledge and as such must be subtantiated.

Whether or not they are "default positions" (which is certainly debatable on several levels) is simply immaterial to them qualifying or not qualifying as claims to knowledge.

I would encourage you to watch some of the more notable debates regarding God's existence among contemporary philosophers and examine how non-theists approach these issues. I assure you, the objections/responses you are using are not used by them.

 

[Elioenai26]

Post 284 :



No one asked if your god would force people to believe. The question was does it know what evidence would make people believe. You said it didn't.



So you're saying your god knows which evidence will make us believe, since it is omniscient. It just created people in a way that makes it impossible for them to have a reason to do so. Fair enough.

My main contention that I am trying to get you to understand is that God is not going to force Himself upon anyone.

God is a person and desires to have a relationship with you. But you have to want that.

If a wild rebellious teen runs away from home seeking the "good life" out on his own with delusions of being "free" from the rule of his father, the father can call his sons telephone, write him letters, and even find out where he is staying and go and talk with him and try to persuade him to come home. But if the son is unwilling, nothing the father says or does can persuade him.

 

[variant]

My main contention that I am trying to get you to understand is that God is not going to force Himself upon anyone.

And why should we believe this?

 

[variant]

Both of the above propositions are claims to/of knowledge and as such must be subtantiated.

It is up to the people claiming God's existance to substantiate their claims, not the unbeliever to substantiate that there is no evidence.

 

[Elioenai26]

It is up to the people claiming God's existance to substantiate their claims, not the unbeliever to substantiate that there is no evidence.

Anyone, whether they be an atheist or theist making a claim to/of knowledge must substantiate their claim.

If someone says that there is no evidence for God (as several atheists here have stated) then this is a claim to knowledge and therefore they must substantiate this claim.

If I claim there is evidence of God, then I too must substantiate that claim.


A person who makes either one of those above statements is making a claim to knowledge.

If the atheist cannot substantiate this claim, then they must rephrase their statement to read something like: "I am not AWARE or I am not COGNIZANT of any evidence for the existence of God" etc. etc.

 

[Gadarene]

Anyone, whether they be an atheist or theist making a claim to/of knowledge must substantiate their claim.

If someone says that there is no evidence for God (as several atheists here have stated) then this is a claim to knowledge and therefore they must substantiate this claim.

If I claim there is evidence of God, then I too must substantiate that claim.


A person who makes either one of those above s
tatements is making a claim to knowledge.

If the atheist cannot substantiate this claim, then they must rephrase their statement to read something like: "I am not AWARE or I am not COGNIZANT of any evidence for the existence of God" etc. etc.

Of course, the most expedient approach for all when confronted with a claim of no evidence is for the believer to present their best evidence.

Evading this is simply dishonest obfuscation.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Both of the above propositions are claims to/of knowledge and as such must be subtantiated.

I disagree.

Whether or not they are "default positions" (which is certainly debatable on several levels) is simply immaterial to them qualifying or not qualifying as claims to knowledge.

Anyone, whether they be an atheist or theist making a claim to/of knowledge must substantiate their claim.

If someone says that there is no evidence for God (as several atheists here have stated) then this is a claim to knowledge and therefore they must substantiate this claim.

If I claim there is evidence of God, then I too must substantiate that claim.


A person who makes either one of those above statements is making a claim to knowledge.

If the atheist cannot substantiate this claim, then they must rephrase their statement to read something like: "I am not AWARE or I am not COGNIZANT of any evidence for the existence of God" etc. etc.

So this is all just a semantic temper-tantrum? You really can't see that "There is no evidence" isn't already implicitly "I'm not aware of any evidence"? If I say "The Earth is round", would you derail the discussion on a meaningless linguistic tangent by declaring "No! You have to say "I believe" the Earth is round"!"?

*sigh*

I would encourage you to watch some of the more notable debates regarding God's existence among contemporary philosophers and examine how non-theists approach these issues. I assure you, the objections/responses you are using are not used by them.

OK. So?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Of course, the most expedient approach for all when confronted with a claim of no evidence is for the believer to present their best evidence.

Evading this is simply dishonest obfuscation.

And he evidently knows exactly what we all meant, he just wanted to avoid the onus of proof looming over his head by derailing the discussion down this pointless semantic tangent.

And Lewis' trilemma was such an interesting conversation (I'm still waiting to see if he still asserts the trilemma).

 

[variant]

Anyone, whether they be an atheist or theist making a claim to/of knowledge must substantiate their claim.

We don't make people prove negatives when positives are not in evidence.

It would be similar to if we expected as our standard in trials for the defendant to prove that there was a lack of evidence for his guilt.

 

[Elioenai26]

Atheists should say that they are unaware of any evidence for the existence of God If they do not want to bear the burden of substantiating a claim of knowledge.

It is not possible to have it both ways.

There are only two options here:

1. You know that there is no evidence for God, which is impossible to substantiate and therefore we disregard.
2. You do not know if there is no evidence for God. There may be and there may not be.

Regarding (2), one can hold to it and still believe that God exists or one can hold to it and not believe that God exists. Hence agnostic theism and agnostic atheism.

Every atheist here that I am aware of is agnostic regarding their orientation to knowledge of God's existence or should be anyway. For ignosticism is self-defeating and gnostic atheism suffers from insuperable difficulties when one seeks to defend it.

 

[Freodin]

Atheists should say that they are unaware of any evidence for the existence of God If they do not want to bear the burden of substantiating a claim of knowledge.

It is not possible to have it both ways.

There are only two options here:

1. You know that there is no evidence for God, which is impossible to substantiate and therefore we disregard.
2. You do not know if there is no evidence for God. There may be and there may not be.

Regarding (2), one can hold to it and still believe that God exists or one can hold to it and not believe that God exists. Hence agnostic theism and agnostic atheism.

Every atheist here that I am aware of is agnostic regarding their orientation to knowledge of God's existence or should be anyway. For ignosticism is self-defeating and gnostic atheism suffers from insuperable difficulties when one seeks to defend it.

Yes... so what?

Wasn't this thread about all this awesome stuff that God could do to show the atheists that he exist, but doesn't do it?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Atheists should say that they are unaware of any evidence for the existence of God If they do not want to bear the burden of substantiating a claim of knowledge.

It is not possible to have it both ways.

There are only two options here:

1. You know that there is no evidence for God, which is impossible to substantiate and therefore we disregard.

Unless there was a logical syllogism demonstrating as such, of course.

2. You do not know if there is no evidence for God. There may be and there may not be.

Regarding (2), one can hold to it and still believe that God exists or one can hold to it and not believe that God exists. Hence agnostic theism and agnostic atheism.

Every atheist here that I am aware of is agnostic regarding their orientation to knowledge of God's existence or should be anyway. For ignosticism is self-defeating and gnostic atheism suffers from insuperable difficulties when one seeks to defend it.

OK.

Can we get back to the topic at hand? Namely, what it means for God to be unable to provide sufficient evidence of his existence - is this a detrimental to you or me?

 

[quatona]

Atheists should say that they are unaware of any evidence for the existence of God If they do not want to bear the burden of substantiating a claim of knowledge.

It is not possible to have it both ways.

There are only two options here:

1. You know that there is no evidence for God, which is impossible to substantiate and therefore we disregard.
2. You do not know if there is no evidence for God. There may be and there may not be.

If there´s evidence for God´s existence (in the definition you have offered) feel free to present it (as you have been invited probably hundreds of times in these threads, to no avail).
If you have any idea as to what would constitute evidence for God´s existence (in the definition you have offered) you are invited to enlighten us.

Instead we keep seeing threads like this in which you tell us how to (semantically) deal with your refusal/inability to do your job.

I fail to see how it´s my problem when you come up with claims about an entity whose existence, per your very definition, cannot be evidenced (in any meaningful way this word is used in).

 

[Davian]

Atheists should say that they are unaware of any evidence for the existence of God If they do not want to bear the burden of substantiating a claim of knowledge.

It is not possible to have it both ways.

There are only two options here:

1. You know that there is no evidence for God, which is impossible to substantiate and therefore we disregard.
2. You do not know if there is no evidence for God. There may be and there may not be.

3. There is plenty of evidence for "God", but to date, it has been presented in a manner that has been unfalsifiable, falsified, or explainable by far more parsimonious means.

You and your predilection for false dichotomies.

Regarding (2), one can hold to it and still believe that God exists or one can hold to it and not believe that God exists. Hence agnostic theism and agnostic atheism.

Every atheist here that I am aware of is agnostic regarding their orientation to knowledge of God's existence or should be anyway.

If you can't convert them, at least tell them they should be agnostic? You *are* lowering the bar for yourself.

For ignosticism is self-defeating

Not in any way that you have been able to substantiate.

and gnostic atheism suffers from insuperable difficulties when one seeks to defend it.

It is not impossible. One might submit your posting history here at CF as justification for a gnostic position.

 

[variant]

Atheists should say that they are unaware of any evidence for the existence of God If they do not want to bear the burden of substantiating a claim of knowledge.

It is not possible to have it both ways.

There are only two options here:

1. You know that there is no evidence for God, which is impossible to substantiate and therefore we disregard.
2. You do not know if there is no evidence for God. There may be and there may not be.

Regarding (2), one can hold to it and still believe that God exists or one can hold to it and not believe that God exists. Hence agnostic theism and agnostic atheism.

Every atheist here that I am aware of is agnostic regarding their orientation to knowledge of God's existence or should be anyway. For ignosticism is self-defeating and gnostic atheism suffers from insuperable difficulties when one seeks to defend it.

And what does this have to do with what I said?

God is not in evidence.

I do not believe in God.

#2 scenario is fine, I would be happy to see conclusive evidence for God but to say that I have to evidence that there isn't sufficient evidence is ridiculous, that burden goes to the people who want to say there is sufficient evidence for God.

If you don't have a substantive evidence based case for God, you AGREE with my statement that God is not in evidence.

 

[Elioenai26]

And what does this have to do with what I said?

God is not in evidence.

I do not believe in God.

#2 scenario is fine, I would be happy to see conclusive evidence for God but to say that I have to evidence that there isn't sufficient evidence is ridiculous, that burden goes to the people who want to say there is sufficient evidence for God.

If you don't have a substantive evidence based case for God, you AGREE with my statement that God is not in evidence.

And if you had this "evidence", what would you do with it?