The Argument from Nonbelief

[Maynard Keenan]

I am looking for good counterarguments for the argument of nonbelief (or the problem of divine hiddenness). It’s about the only argument that seems reasonable against the existence of the theistic God.

1. If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
2. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
3. Reasonable nonbelief occurs.
4. No perfectly loving God exists (from 2 and 3).
5. Hence, there is no God (from 1 and 4).

Premise 1 is a given for any mainstream Christian, so cannot be challenged reasonably. 4 is a deduction and 5 is a conclusion, so neither can be challenged because the argument is logically sound. That leaves us with 2 and 3 to challenge.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

This is as inane as the similarly structured ontological argument to "prove" the existence of a god.

 

[Chany]

This is as inane as the similarly structured ontological argument to "prove" the existence of a god.

Please explain.

 

[MKJ]

This is as inane as the similarly structured ontological argument to "prove" the existence of a god.

The ontological argument is widely misunderstood. It is not meant to work like some sort of cute logical proof, it is a way to think about the nature of Being.

I do not know how many times I have seen people try and deal with Anselm in particular, by just reading Chapter 5 (I think - its been a while) of the Proslogion, which contains the ontological argument. Well, Anselm wrote the other 10+ chapters for a reasons, they all work together and are part of the same contemplation of the Divine nature.

Somehow we have become hooked on the philosophical version of the empty but easy to remember and repeat phrases used by politicians being interviewed by the media.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

The ontological argument is widely misunderstood. It is not meant to work like some sort of cute logical proof, it is a way to think about the nature of Being.

I do not know how many times I have seen people try and deal with Anselm in particular, by just reading Chapter 5 (I think - its been a while) of the Proslogion, which contains the ontological argument. Well, Anselm wrote the other 10+ chapters for a reasons, they all work together and are part of the same contemplation of the Divine nature.

Somehow we have become hooked on the philosophical version of the empty but easy to remember and repeat phrases used by politicians being interviewed by the media.

I've just encountered in when people have thrown it at me as a "proof" without any other context. Regardless, I still think it's lacking in any substance and relies on unjustified assumptions.

Original form:

1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.

I'd challenge point 1 to day that "greatest being" is a term similar to "largest number." It's an undefined concept. Also, what is meant by "greatness" is undefined and left to be defined relative to human thought and language. What is "great" on a fundamental, absolute level?

I could continue with a number of further criticisms, but that was never my point. Merely to point out that the so called "anti-proof" given in the OP is as worthless as some of the supposed proofs. I don't think this sort of thing has much use or value.

 

[chilehed]

#2 is necessary to the argument, but if it's true then 3 begs the question.

No one has any comment on this?

Are you denying that reasonable nonbelief exists?

The way #3 is presented looks to me like a premise, in which case it begs the question.
Otherwise it's merely a bare assertion.

Yes, I deny that reasonable doubt exists. There are doubts that seem reasonable at first glance, but I've never heard of one that stands up to close scrutiny... they all end up being unreasonable in some fashion. Most (if not all) are based on manifestly false assumptions such as "all causes are observable" or "a transcendent deity will always behave in a manner that makes sense to me" or some such.