Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Colter]

Assuming of course you could deonstrate a "source" exists.

Values exist. You may not like that they come from an absolute source that cannot be comprehended by a finite mind but that's the conundrum one would have.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

At least you concede my views are not entirely derivative of Craig's, which was my only point.

Only mainly derivative of his.

Not at all. To argue thus would be to erect a strawman.

First of all, being brought to a place where one holds belief in the existence of God to be reasonable is a necessary condition of becoming a Christian, not a sufficient condition.

Secondly, it is not a matter of people being brought to a place where unbelief in the existence of God is impossible, but to a place where unbelief is unreasonable. There is a distinction.

And once again, if you agree that God is able to bring people to a place in their lives before they die where belief in His existence is reasonable, then why are you asking for evidence when you already affirm this?

If you do not agree that God is able to bring people to a place in their lives before they die where belief in His existence is reasonable, then the argument against the existence of God from divine hiddenness loses it's thrust, because it has to assume He can in order for it to go through.

I will repeat what I said, highlighting the bits you seemed to ignore in your response: Given the number of people who die without converting to Christianity, I would say that the argument doesn't have thrust anyway. You would have to assume that they each died at a point where sincerely doubting the claims of Christianity was no longer possible. What reason do you have to think this? In other words, what reason do you have to think that they were each brought "to a place where [sincere] unbelief is unreasonable"?

 

[anonymous person]

Only mainly derivative of his.

I will repeat what I said, highlighting the bits you seemed to ignore in your response: Given the number of people who die without converting to Christianity, I would say that the argument doesn't have thrust anyway. You would have to assume that they each died at a point where sincerely doubting the claims of Christianity was no longer possible. What reason do you have to think this? In other words, what reason do you have to think that they were each brought "to a place where [sincere] unbelief is unreasonable"?

God has said so.

 

[Ana the Ist]

By the same token I can then disregard you as you are unable to prove the certainty of your doubts.

The "certainty of my doubts'? What?

I have good evidence that i don't hold any doctrines of doubt...are you ready to hear it? Pay close attention....

You made it up. It's a meaningless phrase you trot out whenever atheists point out the fact that you're making empty claims. I've asked you what it means before and you couldn't explain it.

So I've actually got a great reason to dismiss it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Values exist. You may not like that they come from an absolute source that cannot be comprehended by a finite mind but that's the conundrum one would have.

Correction...

It would be a conundrum if you could demonstrate any of what you're claiming...which, of course, you can't. This is always the problem of your position, despite what your axioms of bare assertion tell you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God has said so.

That's an additional claim in need of support. You have argued that, in the course of their lives, all people are brought to a point where sincerely doubting the claims of Christianity is no longer reasonable. This argument still needs support.

 

[quatona]

the certainty of your doubts.

Word salad.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Kuklinski

Kuklinski died back in 2006. He doesn't exist anymore.

I don't see how this argument has anything to do with mine. The flaw I've mentioned regarding god's message to mankind is but one tiny part of my overall argument. It's a useful example of my argument until it can be shown that it is successfully refuted. Once it's refuted, I need to only present another example of a flaw in god's creation...like the human appendix or epilepsy. Once the new example of a flaw is logically shown to be a flaw...the argument holds once again.

Furthermore, I think the argument here is actually rather easily refuted. It's this sentence...

"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."

...that creates some logical problems for the argument as a whole. Well, suppose that I would require evidence of god that is of such a quality that it gives me an unfair advantage over others. Some examples of this would be...

1. I require god to manifest itself before me physically...and with at least two dozen other witnesses so that I cannot convince myself that I'm crazy/hallucinating. I also require a thorough Q&A session with god so that I can indeed verify that it is indeed a god. Would it not be possible for me to then exploit such an experience for personal gain? I think it wouldn't just be possible...it would be easy.

2. Part of what I might require for evidence of god is evidence that it did indeed create the universe...so to give me "reasonable belief" god takes me back in time to the beginning of the universe and I can then use such information to write a book on the beginning of the universe and (unfairly) get wealthy off of knowledge that others spend a lifetime searching for.

So, while it's a rather interesting proposal...it's also rather obvious that it doesn't happen.

 

[Colter]

The "certainty of my doubts'? What?

I have good evidence that i don't hold any doctrines of doubt...are you ready to hear it? Pay close attention....

You made it up. It's a meaningless phrase you trot out whenever atheists point out the fact that you're making empty claims. I've asked you what it means before and you couldn't explain it.

So I've actually got a great reason to dismiss it.

I didn't make it up, just as faith in God becomes the basis of religion, faith in a Godless universe becomes the basis for carping unbelievers. You just keep framing your rebellious unbelief in a thousand different ways.

Values are demonstrated by living them weather they be faith based or Godless secularism.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I didn't make it up, just as faith in God becomes the basis of religion, faith in a Godless universe becomes the basis for carping unbelievers. You just keep framing your rebellious unbelief in a thousand different ways.

Values are demonstrated by living them weather they be faith based or Godless secularism.

Didn't you just imply that "godless secularism" was also based on faith?

 

[Colter]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Kuklinski

Kuklinski died back in 2006. He doesn't exist anymore.

I don't see how this argument has anything to do with mine. The flaw I've mentioned regarding god's message to mankind is but one tiny part of my overall argument. It's a useful example of my argument until it can be shown that it is successfully refuted. Once it's refuted, I need to only present another example of a flaw in god's creation...like the human appendix or epilepsy. Once the new example of a flaw is logically shown to be a flaw...the argument holds once again.

Furthermore, I think the argument here is actually rather easily refuted. It's this sentence...

"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."

...that creates some logical problems for the argument as a whole. Well, suppose that I would require evidence of god that is of such a quality that it gives me an unfair advantage over others. Some examples of this would be...

1. I require god to manifest itself before me physically...and with at least two dozen other witnesses so that I cannot convince myself that I'm crazy/hallucinating. I also require a thorough Q&A session with god so that I can indeed verify that it is indeed a god. Would it not be possible for me to then exploit such an experience for personal gain? I think it wouldn't just be possible...it would be easy.

2. Part of what I might require for evidence of god is evidence that it did indeed create the universe...so to give me "reasonable belief" god takes me back in time to the beginning of the universe and I can then use such information to write a book on the beginning of the universe and (unfairly) get wealthy off of knowledge that others spend a lifetime searching for.

So, while it's a rather interesting proposal...it's also rather obvious that it doesn't happen.

How would a finite question an absolute for comparisons?

 

[Colter]

Word salad.

Speaking for yourself.

 

[quatona]

Speaking for yourself.

Back then in kindergarten that might have been a winner.

 

[Colter]

Didn't you just imply that "godless secularism" was also based on faith?

In a way yes, it's a foolish kind of faith like when a child knows better than their parent but they can't quite explain it. The prodigal son going off the rails until he learns the leasons of life the hard way. The heathen come together in a kind of faith community, a cumrodery of unbelievers aligned against positive faith in God.

 

[Colter]

Back then in kindergarten that might have been a winner.

You said word salad, I assume it was over your head. Others will understand the intransigent attitude of unbelievers when I use the term "certainty of your doubts".

 

[Ana the Ist]

I didn't make it up, just as faith in God becomes the basis of religion, faith in a Godless universe becomes the basis for carping unbelievers. You just keep framing your rebellious unbelief in a thousand different ways.

Values are demonstrated by living them weather they be faith based or Godless secularism.

How does one "live" the "value of godlessness"? I'd like to know this...since I can't think of any way in which my atheism affects my values.

You still haven't explained how any of what you said becomes a "doctrine of doubt". You haven't explained what the doctrine is...nor have you explained what it is that I'm doubting.

How can "unbelief" be "rebellious"? Or in other words....how does one rebel against that which they don't believe?

None of what you said here makes any sense.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In a way yes, it's a foolish kind of faith like when I child knows better than their parent but they can't quite explain it. The prodigal son going off the rails until he learns the leasons of life the hard way. The heathen come together in a kind of faith community, a cumrodery of unbelievers aligned against positive faith in God.

I'm not sure what "faith" you are referring to. No faith is needed to reject unsupported claims.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You said word salad, I assume it was over your head. Others will understand the intransigent attitude of unbelievers when I use the term "certainty of your doubts".

The intransigent attitude appears to be yours. Please don't project your personal flaws onto others.

 

[quatona]

You said word salad, I assume it was over your head. Others will understand the intransigent attitude of unbelievers when I use the term "certainty of your doubts".

It´s a contradiction in terms.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How would a finite question an absolute for comparisons?

I don't know what you're asking me...

If you need me to explain something in more detail, just point that out, I'll be happy to help you.