Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Archaeopteryx]

Zippy and I view humans differently than you do.

We view humans as people who can love. As people who can reject love. As people who can love God and reject Him.

That only undermines your position further, since human beings would still have the option to reject him.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why suppose God's approach is suboptimal?

Based on the results.

This all relates to the central idea that, "If not everyone is Christian, then God has not done his part." The person possessing free will is to blame. (They were not created with a disposition that forever precludes them from forming a relationship with their creator.)

What free will does one exercise in being born to a culture dominated by a religion other than Christianity?

God can't force someone to have a relationship with him any more than you can force a woman to love or marry you. Relationships are bidirectional by nature.

Making himself known to the world as the god of Christianity still leaves open the possibility of a relationship. It doesn't force anyone to have a relationship with him, but it does make his message unambiguously clear.

 

[anonymous person]

Based on the results.

What free will does one exercise in being born to a culture dominated by a religion other than Christianity?

Making himself known to the world as the god of Christianity still leaves open the possibility of a relationship. It doesn't force anyone to have a relationship with him, but it does make his message unambiguously clear.

People in non-Christian cultures who are confessing Christ as Lord by the millions are trusting in Christ as Lord and Saviour, many are doing this at great personal cost.

China, India, the Middle East, Russia, all are seeing people abandon the culturally prevalent views in their countries for Christianity.

So I don't really agree that people who are born in a culture dominated by a religion other than Christianity can't exercise free will in becoming followers of Jesus. The facts would not support this.

 

[anonymous person]

Based on the results.

What free will does one exercise in being born to a culture dominated by a religion other than Christianity?

Making himself known to the world as the god of Christianity still leaves open the possibility of a relationship. It doesn't force anyone to have a relationship with him, but it does make his message unambiguously clear.

Your sub optimal hypothesis does not take into account that some people want nothing to do with God. This is a fact.

To say that God's method of communicating with humanity is sub optimal when many want nothing to do with God would be like me saying your method of communicating with a person you love who thinks you utterly disgusting is sub optimal. You could speak to this person in the most poetic terms and wax eloquent with your proclamations of love. You could buy this person gifts, and shower them with rose petals until you were blue in the face. If the person has something against you personally and hates you and what you are and what you stand for, then the mere proclamation of your love for them is not going to change this.

You would have to personally change who you are. You would have to become a totally different person. A person conformed into the image of the fancy of this person who hates you as you currently are.

God is not going to change who He is. He is immutable. Holy, righteous, and pure.

As such, some will find Him not worth the time.

The fact that they have this disposition is no indictment against God's methods of communicating anymore than the person's rejection of your attempts at communicating would be an indictment against your efforts.

 

[quatona]

Your sub optimal hypothesis does not take into account that some people want nothing to do with God. This is a fact.

To say that God's method of communicating with humanity is sub optimal when many want nothing to do with God would be like me saying your method of communicating with a person you love who thinks you utterly disgusting is sub optimal. You could speak to this person in the most poetic terms and wax eloquent with your proclamations of love. You could buy this person gifts, and shower them with rose petals until you were blue in the face. If the person has something against you personally and hates you and what you are and what you stand for, then the mere proclamation of your love for them is not going to change this.

You would have to personally change who you are. You would have to become a totally different person. A person conformed into the image of the fancy of this person who hates you as your currently are.

God is not going to change who He is. He is immutable. Holy, righteous, and pure.

As such, some will find Him not worth the time.

The fact that they do is no indictment against God's methods of communicating anymore than the person's rejection of your attempts at communicating would be an indictment against your efforts.

Hang on - you are rashing things.
At this point we are discussing communicating in a way that makes your existence unquestionably known and making your stances clearly known. We are not talking about communicating in a way that makes everybody love you immediately.

 

[Colter]

Which is why secular morality is better than the morality of the god described by men in the bible.

The collective human speculations of the Bible are about the God who is the source of mans personality. Morality is enate to personality. There is no such thing as secular morality, rather the common morality of societies comes from the collective of moral personalities that come from God.

So called secular morality that denies God is a plagerized morality.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

People in non-Christian cultures who are confessing Christ as Lord by the millions are trusting in Christ as Lord and Saviour, many are doing this at great personal cost.

China, India, the Middle East, Russia, all are seeing people abandon the culturally prevalent views in their countries for Christianity.

So I don't really agree that people who are born in a culture dominated by a religion other than Christianity can't exercise free will in becoming followers of Jesus. The facts would not support this.

Actually, the facts would: most people adopt the religion of their parents. As you yourself observed, there is less personal cost associated with adopting Christianity in a culture dominated by it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Your sub optimal hypothesis does not take into account that some people want nothing to do with God. This is a fact.

To say that God's method of communicating with humanity is sub optimal when many want nothing to do with God would be like me saying your method of communicating with a person you love who thinks you utterly disgusting is sub optimal. You could speak to this person in the most poetic terms and wax eloquent with your proclamations of love. You could buy this person gifts, and shower them with rose petals until you were blue in the face. If the person has something against you personally and hates you and what you are and what you stand for, then the mere proclamation of your love for them is not going to change this.

But they would at least believe that I exist, and still have the option of rejecting me. That's the point. You are pretending that God's existence and desire for a relationship is obvious, and that it is merely a matter of reciprocating or rejecting his love. It's not.

The fact that they have this disposition is no indictment against God's methods of communicating anymore than the person's rejection of your attempts at communicating would be an indictment against your efforts.

My efforts would at least establish my character and my desire for a relationship. They would still have the option to reject me thereafter. Again, that's the point.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The collective human speculations of the Bible are about the God who is the source of mans personality. Morality is enate to personality. There is no such thing as secular morality, rather the common morality of societies comes from the collective of moral personalities that come from God.

So called secular morality that denies God is a plagerized morality.

Why would one need to invoke a god to make moral claims?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your sub optimal hypothesis does not take into account that some people want nothing to do with God. This is a fact.

To say that God's method of communicating with humanity is sub optimal when many want nothing to do with God would be like me saying your method of communicating with a person you love who thinks you utterly disgusting is sub optimal. You could speak to this person in the most poetic terms and wax eloquent with your proclamations of love. You could buy this person gifts, and shower them with rose petals until you were blue in the face. If the person has something against you personally and hates you and what you are and what you stand for, then the mere proclamation of your love for them is not going to change this.

You would have to personally change who you are. You would have to become a totally different person. A person conformed into the image of the fancy of this person who hates you as you currently are.

God is not going to change who He is. He is immutable. Holy, righteous, and pure.

As such, some will find Him not worth the time.

The fact that they have this disposition is no indictment against God's methods of communicating anymore than the person's rejection of your attempts at communicating would be an indictment against your efforts.

Efficiency of god's message to mankind has nothing to do with whether or not they convert. It has everything to do with what god "meant" in his message. It's the lack of clarity in what god meant in his message that leads to multiple interpretations and denominations.

So for the 8th time, the flaw in god's creation (message to mankind) is a lack of clarity (inefficiency flaw) that has led to multiple interpretations and denominations (evidence of the flaw).

 

[Colter]

Why would one need to invoke a god to make moral claims?

You don't, but when one says values exist apart from the source of values then they are wrong.



Merry Christmas

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why would one need to invoke a god to make moral claims?

Lol do you still have that link regarding bull spit? The study on it?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Efficiency of god's message to mankind has nothing to do with whether or not they convert. It has everything to do with what god "meant" in his message. It's the lack of clarity in what god meant in his message that leads to multiple interpretations and denominations.

So for the 8th time, the flaw in god's creation (message to mankind) is a lack of clarity (inefficiency flaw) that has led to multiple interpretations and denominations (evidence of the flaw).

He seems to want to discuss anything but the issue at hand. The moment anyone else addresses an issue that's relevant, although inconvenient to him (e.g., "morally sufficient reasons"), he'll say "red herring. Off-topic."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You don't, but when one says values exist apart from the source of values then they are wrong.

Indeed. I see no need to posit deities as the source of values though.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Lol do you still have that link regarding bull spit? The study on it?

The one that utilised material from Chopra's Twitter feed?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You don't, but when one says values exist apart from the source of values then they are wrong.



Merry Christmas

The old "liar liar, pants on fire!" defense lol...

I don't suppose you could actually show that a god is the "source of values"...can you??

No?

Alright then...I'll just disregard your post as an empty claim then.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The one that utilised material from Chopra's Twitter feed?

That's the one!

IMO, it's just as easily applied to nearly every passage of the UB.

 

[anonymous person]

Hang on - you are rashing things.
At this point we are discussing communicating in a way that makes your existence unquestionably known and making your stances clearly known. We are not talking about communicating in a way that makes everybody love you immediately.

Yes I know.

The issue is more complex than some want to admit.

At this time, I want to use this topic as sort of a segue into another argument some use against the existence of God, namely, the argument in J. L. Schellenberg's work. The argument is an argument against God from divine hiddenness.

It is a train of thought some here hold and so is worthy of mentioning.

I think Dr. Craig sums up my view succinctly.

He states that:

".....if God exists then unbelief that separates one from God would not persist. I think there can clearly be moments of unbelief but there would not be persistent reasonable unbelief until death. At some point in the process, God will bear witness to himself to that individual in such a way that unbelief that separates one from God would become unreasonable. So if he says reasonable unbelief exists, I could be happy to say, yes, temporarily. But ultimately persistent unbelief is not reasonable and that is because of the inner witness of God’s Spirit that he bears to his own reality. It doesn’t need to be through external evidence and argument. Certainly many people are born into situations in the world where they don’t have the advantage of argument and evidence that tips the scales in favor of Christian belief. But I don’t think that is necessary. For an omnipotent and all-loving God it would be easy for him to provide inner witness of his reality to persons such that if they persist in unbelief until death they are doing something quite unreasonable."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/questions-about-gods-hiddeness#ixzz3vLBYUigv


So I think I can agree with an objector who would say something like:

"If God existed, then He would furnish to an individual before they die, enough evidence to make belief in God reasonable and conversely, unbelief unreasonable."

I can agree with that.

Taking the atheist's claim that they have no good reasons to believe God exists at the present at face value, I can wholeheartedly say to them that God is working in your lives even at this very moment to bring you to a place where belief in His existence will be reasonable for you to hold.

Here I think we need to draw a line of distinction between giving a nod to a proposition and putting one's trust in someone.

God can surely bring all men to a place in their lives where they can reasonably conclude God exists, and He will see to it that all are brought to such a place before they die so as to make unbelief in Him inexcusable.

It does not follow from this that all men will put their trust in God and commit their lives into His hands.

We all believe that Kim Jong-un exists. IOW, we give assent to the proposition, Kim Jong-un exists. It does not follow from this though, that we trust in him and we commit our lives into his hands for safe-keeping and love him and place our hope in him.

Whether or not Kim Jong-un is lovely and worthy of our devotion and loyalty is something each individual must judge for themselves.

Too often their is equivocation of the term "believe" by Christians and non-Christians. The term can be used in more than one way and when we fail to distinguish between the two most common ways the term is used, we can become bogged down in ambiguity.

I believe Richard Kuklinski aka the Iceman exists. I definitely don't believe in him though.

What about Jesus?

I believe Jesus Christ exists. I also believe in Him.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes I know.

The issue is more complex than some want to admit.

At this time, I want to use this topic as sort of a segue into another argument some use against the existence of God, namely, the argument in J. L. Schellenberg's work. The argument is an argument against God from divine hiddenness.

What is it that you are fond of saying? "Red herring. Off-topic."

I think Dr. Craig sums up my view succinctly.

Given that your views are entirely derivative of his, that's unsurprising.

God can surely bring all men to a place in their lives where they can reasonably conclude God exists, and He will see to it that all are brought to such a place before they die so as to make unbelief in Him inexcusable.

You say "surely." What evidence do you have in support of this?

 

[anonymous person]

Actually, the facts would: most people adopt the religion of their parents. As you yourself observed, there is less personal cost associated with adopting Christianity in a culture dominated by it.

It is a non-sequitur to conclude that people have no free will because they adopt the religion of their parents. Who is to say that these people that adopt the religion of their parents don't do so as a result of exercising their free will to do so?

To give you another example:

If I argued that scientists have no free will because they adopt the views of their mentors and college professors and parents, then I am arguing fallaciously. They very well may have adopted the views because they exercised their will to follow the evidence where it leads and this evidence just so happens to lead them to conclusions that accord with their mentors and parents and professors.