Atheism and the Universal Knowledge of God

[Hetta]

Ah - I didn't notice you were a Calvinist until now. Never mind.

 

[variant]

I don't see how you can prove this. I know about God because I was taken to church from birth (literally) and raised in a church. I know many people who were not taken to church and had parents who simply never thought about God. They didn't hear about God until some time in grade school. They had no idea what other people were talking about. I have a relative who was born to a Buddhist family in a Buddhist country. She never heard of God until she came to the west. I can't imagine how it must be for those who are on the very margins of non-western societies who have no media, and little contact with the outside world. The original inhabitants of America had 'gods' of nature because that was what they lived with and so that is what they prayed to. According to your theory, they should have had immediate knowledge of God. Obviously they did not. Europeans brought Christianity to America.

It's just a bad premise all around, just because something could be shown to have an effect upon you doesn't mean you have knowledge of it.

The radon in my basement that I am unaware of may be killing me but that doesn't mean I already have knowledge of it.

 

[brightlights]

I don't see how you can prove this. I know about God because I was taken to church from birth (literally) and raised in a church. I know many people who were not taken to church and had parents who simply never thought about God. They didn't hear about God until some time in grade school. They had no idea what other people were talking about. I have a relative who was born to a Buddhist family in a Buddhist country. She never heard of God until she came to the west. I can't imagine how it must be for those who are on the very margins of non-western societies who have no media, and little contact with the outside world, but they certainly have no concept of God - otherwise, why the need for missionaries?. The original inhabitants of America had 'gods' of nature because that was what they lived with and so that is what they prayed to. According to your theory, they should have had immediate knowledge of God. Obviously they did not. Europeans brought Christianity to America.

Romans 1:21

 

[variant]

Continuing...

Let's first look at a dependable universe. We can count on the physical world to continue to function the way it's always functioned because a personal God has promised to uphold it. If you remove the personal God then you have no reason to believe that what's been observed in the past will continue in the future. This is simply a nice thought that you embrace but it is embraced irrationally. People often try to demonstrate this using empiricism:

1. We have always observed a consistent world
2. What we've always observed will continue in the future
3. Therefore we can depend on what we've always observed.

Premise 2 is entirely without support. Scientists predict future events using empiricism but empiricism itself can give no reason to suppose that anything will continue as it has. Hume demonstrated that. Scientists also incorporate the Christian idea of a consistent universe upheld by a personal God, though they may reject the God bit. They're still co-opting the biblical idea.

We believe the universe will continue to be consistent because there is no other option and we have observed consistency. And, if the universe would become inconsistent it would not prove God doesn't exist, it would merely prove your interpretation wrong.

Second premise 2 is not a biblical idea it is the common idea of all sentient beings, it being true doesn't support the Bible one iota.

 

[Hetta]

"They" is about people who know who God is. There is no preface that states that everyone knows.

 

[steve_bakr]

If the God of the Bible is divine then all people have immediate knowledge of him.

This is a plain statement of scripture but rather than demonstrating this from the Bible I'd like to explain it with syllogism. First, defining some terms:

By "God of the Bible" I mean the person who created the world, appeared to the fathers, raised Israel from Egypt, and raised Jesus from the dead.

By "divine" I mean something or someone on which all other things depend. If anything is foundational, eternal, and necessary it is divine. Divinity defined in this way is a concept that cannot easily be escaped. In this sense there is something divine within every worldview.

By "knowledge of God" I mean personal acquaintance. Knowledge means an awareness of his presence and either friendship or enmity with him.

Now some syllogisms:


[*]If God is divine then he is the ultimate cause of every event.
[*]If God is the cause of every event then every experience of the world is also an experience of God.
[*]If every experience is an experience of God then every living person is always acquainted with God.


So to have any experience at all is to be acquainted with God.


[*]If God is a divine person then our personality depends on his. We are persons only insofar as he is a person. Our personality is a minature model of his personality. Our personality is an image of his.
[*]If our personality is an image of God then we experience God by simply being persons.
[*]If by being a person we experience God, then by being a person we are acquainted with God.


So to be a person is to be intimately acquainted with God.

If a divine person exists it must be this way. It's not possible for a divine person to exist and us be ignorant of his existence. Yet many people claim ignorance or agnosticism toward the existence of God. What does this mean?

It means either that God does not exist or that those who identify as atheists and agnostics are actually denying and suppressing what they know to be true -- the existence of God. All people are acquainted with him. The difference between belief and unbelief is a difference of friendship and enmity. Believers like God and unbelievers do not like him. They dislike him so much that they seek to explain his existence away.

I follow you up to the point where you say that agnostics and atheists don't have a knowledge of God. Karl Rahner might say that every person has a transcendental experience of God, but that experience is easily missed.

We are finite beings, so God will always be a mystery to us, even if we have the beatific vision. But we all have an inherent experience and therefore knowledge of God, who can also be refered to as the Holy Mystery.

But God is not an object in the universe among other objects, like a tree or a chair. So God is not known like other things are known. And God is not necessarily experienced or known in a direct way.

Our senses give us access to the finite world. Our experiences of the finite world mediate our experience of the Infinite. The Infinite is then like the Silence that is in the background in our noisy world.

It is like the One Note that always sounds and thus permeates the music of the sitar. It plays so constantly that you can easily miss it. That is what the experience of the Holy Mystery is like or how it is experienced.

But it can also be experienced through love or by making a moral decision for no other reason than it is the right thing to do.

You can only get so far through philosophical or scientific reasoning. We must not forget that God is not something alongside other things. God cannot be placed in a test tube or be measured because God is that by which all things are measured.

 

[pgp_protector]

...snip....

1. If God is divine then he is the ultimate cause of every event.
2. If God is the cause of every event then every experience of the world is also an experience of God.
3. If every experience is an experience of God then every living person is always acquainted with God.

So to have any experience at all is to be acquainted with God.
...snip....

If Every experience at all is to be acquainted with God because "If God is the cause of every event then every experience of the world is also an experience of God."

To say that God is the cause of Every Event leads down a road you really don't want to travel.

 

[variant]

To say that God is the cause of Every Event leads down a road you really don't want to travel.

Indeed, the Jews would be experiencing God through the holocaust.

 

[steve_bakr]

If Every experience at all is to be acquainted with God because "If God is the cause of every event then every experience of the world is also an experience of God."

To say that God is the cause of Every Event leads down a road you really don't want to travel.

Yes, that line of reasoning is too superficial; it would be like putting a mother in jail because her son commited a crime.

 

[pgp_protector]

Yes, that line of reasoning is too superficial; it would be like putting a mother in jail because her son commited a crime.

More along the line of punishing a robot, not me when I'm the one that programmed the robot to go out and commit all these crimes.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If God is the cause of every event then every experience of the world is also an experience of God.

So stubbing my toe is an experience of God?

If every experience is an experience of God then every living person is always acquainted with God.

When I stub my toe, I feel pain. I experience the hardness of the leg of the coffeetable. But I am not acquainted with any divine person.

So to have any experience at all is to be acquainted with God.

I deny this.

It means either that God does not exist or that those who identify as atheists and agnostics are actually denying and suppressing what they know to be true -- the existence of God.

I wish your statement was correct, because then I would know there are no gods.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

If the God of the Bible is divine then all people have immediate knowledge of him.

This is a plain statement of scripture but rather than demonstrating this from the Bible I'd like to explain it with syllogism. First, defining some terms:

By "God of the Bible" I mean the person who created the world, appeared to the fathers, raised Israel from Egypt, and raised Jesus from the dead.

By "divine" I mean something or someone on which all other things depend. If anything is foundational, eternal, and necessary it is divine. Divinity defined in this way is a concept that cannot easily be escaped. In this sense there is something divine within every worldview.

By "knowledge of God" I mean personal acquaintance. Knowledge means an awareness of his presence and either friendship or enmity with him.

Now some syllogisms:

1. If God is divine then he is the ultimate cause of every event.
2. If God is the cause of every event then every experience of the world is also an experience of God.
3. If every experience is an experience of God then every living person is always acquainted with God.

So to have any experience at all is to be acquainted with God.

1. If God is a divine person then our personality depends on his. We are persons only insofar as he is a person. Our personality is a minature model of his personality. Our personality is an image of his.
2. If our personality is an image of God then we experience God by simply being persons.
3. If by being a person we experience God, then by being a person we are acquainted with God.

So to be a person is to be intimately acquainted with God.

If a divine person exists it must be this way. It's not possible for a divine person to exist and us be ignorant of his existence. Yet many people claim ignorance or agnosticism toward the existence of God. What does this mean?

It means either that God does not exist or that those who identify as atheists and agnostics are actually denying and suppressing what they know to be true -- the existence of God. All people are acquainted with him. The difference between belief and unbelief is a difference of friendship and enmity. Believers like God and unbelievers do not like him. They dislike him so much that they seek to explain his existence away.

I do so enjoy this particular brand of presuppositional argument.

I have a syllogism of my own,

p1 - brightlights' god is a god whom everyone knows exists
p2 - I do not know that brightlights' god exists
c - brightlights' god does not exist

You'll notice this is just an inverse of your own apologetic. However, my syllogism has a feature that yours does not and cannot possibly possess, in that you are in no position to discern the truth of the assertion 'everyone knows god exists', but I am. All I need to refute this assertion is knowledge of at least one person who does not have 'knowledge of god', which I do - that person is me.

Your apologetic has inadvertently put me in the position to know, with 100% certainty, that your god does not exist, at least as you've described him. Thanks for that.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Premise 2 is entirely without support. Scientists predict future events using empiricism but empiricism itself can give no reason to suppose that anything will continue as it has. Hume demonstrated that. Scientists also incorporate the Christian idea of a consistent universe upheld by a personal God, though they may reject the God bit. They're still co-opting the biblical idea.

Sure, van Til. Talking donkeys, talking snakes, talking bushes, parting seas, resurrections, ascensions, walking on water, multiplication of loaves and fishes, demons, angels, immaculate conceptions, magical plagues and earthquakes... it all just screams 'uniformity of nature'.

To be clear to those reading along, I don't object to the philosophical challenges raised by presuppositional apologists. These are real problems that should be unpacked and answered. What I object to is their own hilariously inept attempts at addressing those same problems, and their self-aggrandized pretending to have a 'world-view' that is 'co-opted' by non-believers.

 

[KCfromNC]

Sure, van Til. Talking donkeys, talking snakes, talking bushes, parting seas, resurrections, ascensions, walking on water, multiplication of loaves and fishes, demons, angels, immaculate conceptions, magical plagues and earthquakes... it all just screams 'uniformity of nature'.

Yep, pretty much. Either you accept that your "uniformity of nature"-enforcing god can't intervene in the universe - which kind of undermines the "everyone is experiencing god's actions all the time" story, or you're stuck with explaining how arbitrary divine magic tricks are somehow part of the consistent behavior of the universe.

 

[KCfromNC]

Continuing...

Let's first look at a dependable universe. We can count on the physical world to continue to function the way it's always functioned because a personal God has promised to uphold it. If you remove the personal God then you have no reason to believe that what's been observed in the past will continue in the future.

There's more to this philosophy thing than just spouting random nonsense, you know. Since you've provided no evidence or logic to accept your claims, a simple "is not" is more than enough to dismiss them.

This is simply a nice thought that you embrace but it is embraced irrationally.

Again with the mind reading. Why do apologists think that incorrectly guessing what I'm thinking is going to make me trust them?

People often try to demonstrate this using empiricism:

Who, exactly?

Scientists predict future events using empiricism but empiricism itself can give no reason to suppose that anything will continue as it has.

False. There's good evidence that the universe operates consistently. That's not proof, but it is a reason which is more than enough to trash your "no reason" claim.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I would also add that the uniformity of nature is not a singular assumption. It's comprised of thousands and thousands of disparate assumptions, not all of which are complimentary or codependent.

For example, if we discovered tomorrow that the freezing temperature of water had suddenly changed by one degree, E would still equal MC squared.

Presuppers get this problem exactly backwards. They assert that people with non-supernaturalist world-views have no good reason to expect the uniformity of nature, because there is no supervening mind in control of everything.

In fact, it's precisely because I don't believe in the possibility of supernatural interference that I accept the uniformity of nature. The supernaturalist's assumption of uniformity is at the mercy of a supremely powerful cosmic being that not only can violate the apparent laws of reality, but according to their own holy book, does so. Far from 'co-opting' their word-view, I reject it outright as absurd and untenable.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If everyone "knew" god existed, there wouldn't be any atheists, because purposely refusing to worship a being you know can either give you eternal happiness or eternal torture and that this being is willing to do so on the basis of faith is stupid. There is no logical benefit to being atheist in this case.

However, if you don't know if a god exists or not, and you never see strong enough evidence one way or the other, people will seek out other possibilities about how we came to be. When we find that the evidence doesn't match up with the proposed religious reality, we have valid cause to doubt.

 

[bhsmte]

If the God of the Bible is divine then all people have immediate knowledge of him.

This is a plain statement of scripture but rather than demonstrating this from the Bible I'd like to explain it with syllogism. First, defining some terms:

By "God of the Bible" I mean the person who created the world, appeared to the fathers, raised Israel from Egypt, and raised Jesus from the dead.

By "divine" I mean something or someone on which all other things depend. If anything is foundational, eternal, and necessary it is divine. Divinity defined in this way is a concept that cannot easily be escaped. In this sense there is something divine within every worldview.

By "knowledge of God" I mean personal acquaintance. Knowledge means an awareness of his presence and either friendship or enmity with him.

Now some syllogisms:

1. If God is divine then he is the ultimate cause of every event.
2. If God is the cause of every event then every experience of the world is also an experience of God.
3. If every experience is an experience of God then every living person is always acquainted with God.

So to have any experience at all is to be acquainted with God.

1. If God is a divine person then our personality depends on his. We are persons only insofar as he is a person. Our personality is a minature model of his personality. Our personality is an image of his.
2. If our personality is an image of God then we experience God by simply being persons.
3. If by being a person we experience God, then by being a person we are acquainted with God.

So to be a person is to be intimately acquainted with God.

If a divine person exists it must be this way. It's not possible for a divine person to exist and us be ignorant of his existence. Yet many people claim ignorance or agnosticism toward the existence of God. What does this mean?

It means either that God does not exist or that those who identify as atheists and agnostics are actually denying and suppressing what they know to be true -- the existence of God. All people are acquainted with him. The difference between belief and unbelief is a difference of friendship and enmity. Believers like God and unbelievers do not like him. They dislike him so much that they seek to explain his existence away.

You sound like William Lane Craig - you make far too many assumptions in what you write.

 

[bhsmte]

He is also the most evident reality there is.

How so?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You sound like William Lane Craig - you make far too many assumptions in what you write.

William Lane Craig is not a presuppositionalist. He sounds more like he's been reading Bahnsen and van Til.