Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Colter]

Sure, just like Christianity is a religion of Doubt about Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology, paganism, the Urantia Book, Science, etc.

Everyone doubts something.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Religion is generally the positive belief in a deity, you are talking about comparative religion. The promotion of atheism is the promotion of a negative.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Atheists have worldviews.

Not in dispute.

Every atheist here has particluar answers for the big questions of life.

Possibly, though in some cases the "answer" may be "I don't know".

They have belief systems, belief structures, which like everbody else's, are founded upon certain beliefs that are taken for granted as being true and are thus, articles of faith, i.e. articles that we are reasonable in trusting are true in the absence of some logically or mathematically rigorous proof.

Possibly, but this is not really a problem in the case of self-evident axioms, such as "I think, therefore I am". It's not really faith if the basis for your belief is something that you experience with your senses, or simply noting that you have a mind through introspection.

No one here is arguing every single atheist believes the exact same way.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

But every atheist has answers to the questions:

1. Who/what are we?
2. Where did we come from?
3. Why are we here?
4. Where are we going?

Every human being does... again, including "I don't know".

Atheists have specific answers to these specific questions. These answers and others, form their worldview.

Worldviews.

If you aren't going to use the plural, you aren't going to be very convincing here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Religion is generally the positive belief in a deity, you are talking about comparative religion. The promotion of atheism is the promotion of a negative.

Religion includes Doubt of all competing religions. That is a negative.

I agree that atheism as such is a negative position, though of course atheists have positive beliefs in a natural universe and regarding human life.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

Good.

Connect the dots, and you will understand why the world is the way it is, flaws and all.

What do you mean by "flaws", other than what we ourselves project onto the world around us?

 

[anonymous person]

It's not really faith if the basis for your belief is something that you experience with your senses, or simply noting that you have a mind through introspection.

G.K. Chesteron once remarked:

"Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all."

IOW, you trust the veridicality of your senses. You trust the deliverances of introspection.

Here G.K. Chesterton is arguing that the concept of faith is not restricted to that caricature of believing something in the absence of good reasons to believe. Nor is it that caricature of blindly accepting something for which one has no good reasons to accept, for he knows, as well as you and I do, that we trust our senses because we have good reasons to. These reasons just happen to be reasons that, by virtue of their nature, do not lie within the purview of the empirical.

Faith is not some sort of epistemology. It is simply trusting in that which we have good reason to trust.

Worldviews.

If you aren't going to use the plural, you aren't going to be very convincing here.

Worldviews, yes. Thank you for the correction.

 

[Davian]

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.

I would say that your hypothetical god's method of communication is "sub optimal" in that it is, but every external measure, indistinguishable from being a product of the imagination.

 

[Davian]

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.

Does not Christian theology boil down to "anything goes, as long as you believe"? I do not see that at all in secular morality.

 

[anonymous person]

What do you mean by "flaws", other than what we ourselves project onto the world around us?

Anything contrary to God's design and purpose for us.

I think the perenniel flaw would be evil. It has been rightly recognized by philosophers for centuries that evil would be a flaw in a world created by an all-Good God, in the sense that it would be contrary to God's nature as the Supreme Good.

 

[anonymous person]

I would say that your hypothetical god's method of communication is "sub optimal" in that it is, but every external measure, indistinguishable from being a product of the imagination.

And see this is the beauty of it.

You see, God, if He existed, would know exactly what it would take for you to come to the place in your life where you give assent to the proposition, "God exists".

In addition to that, He would also know exactly what it would take for you to come to the place in your life where you would not be content with merely knowing that He existed, but would want to know Him, i.e. to have a filial knowledge of Him. One that speaks of an intimate relationship. One where you desire to be like Him in Holiness, purity, and righteousness and love.

God would know your heart. He would know your thoughts. He would know the hurts, the ups, the downs, the disappointments, the pain, the joy, the love, the desires, the passions, the ambitions, the hopes, and the dreams you have.

He would love you. He would love all of us. And He would make a way for us to be reconciled to Himself. He would make sure that before you die, you would have been given enough light to make unbelief inexcusable, but not too much to make belief in His existence something you are grudgingly forced to give assent to.

 

[Davian]

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.

Yet unbelief in your particular god does persist. Do you consider this evidence against the existence of your god, or does this go under the rug?

I think there can clearly be moments of unbelief but there would not be persistent reasonable unbelief until death.

Mind-reading hat fail. Does WLC use the professional version?

Mind-Reading Hat

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

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.

Or, one god concept or another somehow makes it past one's critical judgment process of one's brain, and you can believe amazing things. I recall my experience with Santa, at the mall. I still get goosebumps.

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.

I guess it would have to, in that - depending on which god concept - large portions of mainstream scientific knowledge have to be tossed to accommodate said beliefs.

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.

Indeed. I have yet to be exposed to this argument and evidence that he alludes to.

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

I would would like to think that an omnipotent deity would detectable in a fashion that could be differentiated from an exercise in self-deception.

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.

I don't even raise the bar that far. I'd like to see evidence that gods are possible in general. Define them in some testable, falsifiable manner, so we can agree upon what we are taking about.

Then we can discuss specifics.

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.

And you base that on what? Your own beleif, which could simply be self-deception?

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.

Hypothetically, of course.

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.

I do not see the analogy. Kim Jong-un is a human in a leadership position of a country. I don't doubt he exists, I need make no excuses to accommodate him in my worldview, and he is not consequence to me as I do not live in his country.

I am not even sure what you mean by "God".

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.

You have yet to address my earlier problem with your 2000-year-old guy:

He's Dead, Jim

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

 

[anonymous person]

Yet unbelief in your particular god does persist. Do you consider this evidence against the existence of your god, or does this go under the rug?

Mind-reading hat fail. Does WLC use the professional version?

Mind-Reading Hat

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

Or, one god concept or another somehow makes it past one's critical judgment process of one's brain, and you can believe amazing things. I recall my experience with Santa, at the mall. I still get goosebumps.

I guess it would have to, in that - depending on which god concept - large portions of mainstream scientific knowledge have to be tossed to accommodate said beliefs.

Indeed. I have yet to be exposed to this argument and evidence that he alludes to.

I would would like to think that an omnipotent deity would detectable in a fashion that could be differentiated from an exercise in self-deception.

I don't even raise the bar that far. I'd like to see evidence that gods are possible in general. Define them in some testable, falsifiable manner, so we can agree upon what we are taking about.

Then we can discuss specifics.

And you base that on what? Your own beleif, which could simply be self-deception?

Hypothetically, of course.

I do not see the analogy. Kim Jong-un is a human in a leadership position of a country. I don't doubt he exists, I need make no excuses to accommodate him in my worldview, and he is not consequence to me as I do not live in his country.

I am not even sure what you mean by "God".

You have yet to address my earlier problem with your 2000-year-old guy:

He's Dead, Jim

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

I respectfully decline the thoughtful invitatioin to discuss these points. Thanks though.

 

[Davian]

Your conceptualization of "perfect" and mine differ. Yours entails God can do the logically impossible. Mine does not.

Yet you declined to share the details of your theology, and how much of it is contrary to mainstream scientific knowledge.

 

[Davian]

Atheist hide behind unprovable truths as if that's proof of something.

"I am not convinced" is not a truth claim.

The fact that they can't disprove God

Define your god in some testable manner.

should give a wise person respect for the dilemma of those who have found God.

Have you found Jesus?

• Davian
• Sep 29, 2015
• 1

So by the same toajan I will ignore your doctrines of doubt.

What is a "doctrine of doubt"?

 

[Davian]

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.

No absolute source, no conundrum.

 

[Davian]

God has said so.

And this "God" is unable to speak for itself?

 

[Davian]

We've been through this before several times, the personal spiritual experiences of the religionists can't be proven in an absolute sense. But you don't seem to want to accept it, using that as justification for your own doubts.

I'm not asking that they be proven. I would like to see, in some testable, falsifiable manner, how they can be differentiated from the imagination. Got anything?

 

[Davian]

Easy, promoting Atheism.

How does one promote "I am not convinced"?

 

[Davian]

Thanks for the info on Kuklinski. I was not aware that he had died.

I think that both of us can agree that God would provide enough evidence for us to be justified in believing He existed if in fact He exists, and created us to inhabit this world with the option to have fellowship and communion with Him. I think we can both also agree that God would love us so much that He would allow us the option of loving Him or not. I think we can agree that if there was anyone that didnt want to love Him and live for Him, then God would not force them to. I think we can both agree that He would want to communicate with us in a way that we can relate to and that He would see to it that this means of communicating to us would be clear enough for us to understand what was essential for us to understand. We both agree that we would expect Him to do something about the sins we have committed and the rebellion we have taken part in and that He would be merciful and gracious and longsuffering and kind and loving to us while being smart enough to come up with a way to reconcile us to Himself.

I am sure that we can agree that if God exists, then He would make it to where we all have the opportunity and the ability to know Him and do His will if that is truly what we wanted, but at the same time, respect those who do not want anything to do with them and let them be.

Why would I not want to believe that there is something more to human existence than this relatively brief biological stint on Earth?

God would know everyone's thoughts and desires and wishes. He would know exactly how you would feel if He rendered it no longer possible for you to deny His existence. He knows if you would be overjoyed and happy, or terrified and sorrowful.

That is why the key to all of this is faith. Ravi Zacharias once said: "God has put enough into the world to make faith in Him a most reasonable thing, and He has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason or observation alone."

Which, I take it, only makes sense to those that already believe.

I think Dr. Craig sums up my view well.

He says:

"The Christian God doesn’t want to be merely some abstract “Ground of Being” or only the “best explanation for the cosmos” — he wants both to be the Lord of our lives and a loving parent. Professor Paul Moser, an eminent philosopher who has done considerable work in area of divine hiddenness, describes this filial knowledge:
In filial knowledge of God, we have knowledge of a supreme personal subject, not of a mere object for casual reflection. This is not knowledge of a vague "first cause," "ultimate power," "ground of being," or even a "best explanation." It rather is convicting knowledge of a personal, communicating Lord who expects grateful commitment by way of our appropriating God's gracious redemption. Such convicting knowledge includes our being judged and found unworthy by the standard of God's morally supreme love. God's will thereby meets, convicts, and redirects our will. Both sides of this relationship are thus personal . . . Filial knowledge of God is reconciling personal knowledge whereby we enter into an appropriate child-parent relationship with God. Such knowledge is personally transforming, not impersonally abstract or morally impotent. It is communicated by God’s personal Spirit in a way that demands full life-commitment.6
Why might, at times, God hide from us? Why wouldn’t he always make himself obvious for all to see, as obvious as the words on this page? Various reasons have been put forward in answering this important question and justice cannot done by reducing those answers to a sound bite or two. I can only sketch a couple of the responses here.7
One reason stems from the observation that if God did make himself obvious to all — as obvious as the words on this page — then for many it would destroy the possibility of developing morally significant freedom (being able to choose freely and often between good and bad courses of action) because our being powerfully aware of God would coerce us into obeying his moral commands.8 (Compare a child who is told not to eat from the cookie jar but is never given the opportunity to refrain from eating the cookies because her parents are always in the room watching). The overall result would be an underdeveloped moral character.
A second reason God might withdraw evidence of himself could be due to human sinfulness, pride, self-centeredness, and personal detachment. This brings us back to the issued mentioned in section 3, “An Objection and a Reply,” namely whether there is good reason to think that if God performed more miraculous events (parting seas for a watching audience, elevating massive objects) then more people’s hearts would be changed to want to enjoy a personal, life-transforming relationship with God. And here I think the quotations from Aldous Huxley and Thomas Nagel are quite instructive, since their heart seems to have settled the question of evidence and argument beforehand. What use is further evidence if one, in Nagel’s words, “hope there is no God!” because he “doesn’t want a universe like that?”


Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-imaginary#ixzz3vT7Y6kB9

Third, "God" is only a character in a book. That would comport with all of the evidence at hand.

 

[Davian]

You are wrong.

A skeptic of one worldview, is a believer in another.

Ah, the false dichotomy. Was the ban on the use of fallacies in this thread only applied to others?

Atheists have worldviews.

As do those that do not collect stamps.

Every atheist here has particluar answers for the big questions of life. Answers that exclude those that contradict them. They have belief systems, belief structures, which like everbody else's, are founded upon certain beliefs that are taken for granted as being true and are thus, articles of faith, i.e. articles that we are reasonable in trusting are true in the absence of some logically or mathematically rigorous proof.

And those things may have nothing to do with their disbelief of anything in particular.

No one here is arguing every single atheist believes the exact same way.

But every atheist has answers to the questions:

1. Who/what are we?
2. Where did we come from?
3. Why are we here?
4. Where are we going?

Or, they don't. You are trying to group people by what they are not.

Atheists have specific answers to these specific questions. These answers and others, form their worldview.

As an atheist, I only have to say, "I am not convinced".

 

[Davian]

G.K. Chesteron once remarked:

"Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all."

IOW, you trust the veridicality of your senses.

I don't. I know that my senses are demonstrably prone to deception.

You trust the deliverances of introspection.

I don't. It is my understanding, based on the modern theory of mind, that what we experience as introspection is really only a narrative constructed by the brain.

Here G.K. Chesterton is arguing that the concept of faith is not restricted to that caricature of believing something in the absence of good reasons to believe. Nor is it that caricature of blindly accepting something for which one has no good reasons to accept, for he knows, as well as you and I do, that we trust our senses because we have good reasons to. These reasons just happen to be reasons that, by virtue of their nature, do not lie within the purview of the empirical.

A positon one should take, if one wants to hold to certain beliefs that cannot be supported empirically.

Faith is not some sort of epistemology. It is simply trusting in that which we have good reason to trust.

I have not seen this "good reason" that you allude to.