The Argument from Nonbelief

[Struggling Sinner]

It's a waste of time asking non-experts questions like this since most of us can only articulate our own personal reason for our faith. Someone's lack of ability to articulate in words why they believe in God is not a proof against the existence of God. Another thing is that a lot of the atheists who ask questions like this begin with the assumption that God does not exist. There is no way to prove to someone that God exists when the first conditional rule in their mind is that he does not exist. It's not about proving or disproving God's existence but about whether or not an atheist, who wants to believe he is right, can be persuaded with a good argument. So the question asked by an atheist is rhetorical.

But I recommend this: FINDING GOD THROUGH FAITH & REASON - DVD



Here's a sample of it:

Finding God through Faith and Reason - St. Thomas Aquinas' Proof of an Uncaused Cause Part 1 - YouTube


I have this video series in a DVD set, and Fr. Spitzer uses visual aids which this YouTube video doesn't show since on YouTube it's only in audio. So it's better to own the actual video series which is available through EWTN's religious catalogue.

 

[Chany]

It went something like this. If there is a god, he is a perfectly loving god. I asked how you can tell there is a perfectly loving god. The answer was that god forgave Adam and Eve. So if Adam and Eve don't exist how do we know there is a perfectly loving god?

Because we are on a Christian forum, we are assuming that the being we are discussing, God, is perfectly loving.

Also, he was meaning it more of an allegorical sense.

Also, are you even a Christian?

 

[Chany]

Am I Christian? I was raised up Lutheran, was baptized, and confirmed. I studied the bible and professed my faith in Jesus as Christ the only son of God. I believe that makes me christian regardless of what comes afterwards. According to Ephesians 2:8 it is by grace alone one is saved, so... yeah that would make me a Christian according to Christian standards.

The question remains. How do we prove that a god is perfectly loving? If he only meant it figuratively are we proving a figurative god?

Sorry, I thought I saw the atheist sign on your icon the other day. First, the definition of love. Love is to will ultimate good, or the best, onto another.

Is this definition true?

 

[Gwendolyn]

Am I Christian? I was raised up Lutheran, was baptized, and confirmed. I studied the bible and professed my faith in Jesus as Christ the only son of God. I believe that makes me christian regardless of what comes afterwards. According to Ephesians 2:8 it is by grace alone one is saved, so... yeah that would make me a Christian according to Christian standards.

Technicalities.

If you don't believe in God, then it is disingenuous to masquerade as a Christian, regardless of your past.

However, I am very interested in this whole discourse, as I have mentioned on this forum that I struggle severely with strong doubts of the existence of God. As per the current discussion, I don't believe that saying merely "God forgave Adam and Eve" proves that such a God is perfectly loving. Forgiving, yes, merciful, perhaps, but not perfectly loving.

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

I don't think God's actions towards Job (and even more so his family) were perfectly loving. If God killed your children for a bet, and then said, don't worry, I'll send you some replacements, would you be OK with that?

The Job story is one of my big struggles with faith, just FYI.

 

[MKJ]

Stay on topic, please, about the particular argument.

truefiction1, your argument has a couple of flaws in it.

1) The case of those who witnessed Jesus and other miracles. People saw miracles, undeniable proof that God existed, yet turned away. By your logic, these events should never happen because they present an undeniable proof of God and these people would have no freewill, yet they turned away.

2) The case of Paul. He was presented with a pretty compelling case for Christ. Apparently, God did not care about Paul's freewill.

3) Your statement appears to (I could be wrong) assume that every Christian must accept God by blind faith, at least to an extent. I disagree with this notion. One, it eventually reduces things to a coin flip. Two, reason is a valid way to know God.

This is not the argument by the existence of evil; it argues by the existence of reasonable nonbelief. That is, it assumes the nonbeliever to have disbelief on no fault of his own; therefore, freewill cannot apply.

My thoughts:

I am not sure that the things you describe in 1 are undeniable proof, even in the sense of being undeniable without activly trying to deny them. My observations ha been that is possible for people to doubt almost anything, often even when they want to believe.

It does seem that paul had a pretty compelling spiritual encounter, but I would be disinclined to say that was over-riding his free-will. He already believed in God, and he could still have chosen to reject Christ, or name him as some sort of demon or result of illness. After all, Adam and Eve walked with God himself in the garden, with no veil at all between them, and still chose with their free will to reject God.

 

[MKJ]

I don't think God's actions towards Job (and even more so his family) were perfectly loving. If God killed your children for a bet, and then said, don't worry, I'll send you some replacements, would you be OK with that?

The Job story is one of my big struggles with faith, just FYI.

God does kill all our children, or we do, depending on how you look at it.

In any case, I think the story of Job has to be understood as a sort of theological allegory when it talks about Gods motivations and actions.

 

[Chany]

My thoughts:

I am not sure that the things you describe in 1 are undeniable proof, even in the sense of being undeniable without activly trying to deny them. My observations ha been that is possible for people to doubt almost anything, often even when they want to believe.

It does seem that paul had a pretty compelling spiritual encounter, but I would be disinclined to say that was over-riding his free-will. He already believed in God, and he could still have chosen to reject Christ, or name him as some sort of demon or result of illness. After all, Adam and Eve walked with God himself in the garden, with no veil at all between them, and still chose with their free will to reject God.

I concede to your first paragraph, but your second paragraph is the point I'm trying to get across. It seems that the "undeniable" proofs of God showing Himself do not override one's freewill, so, therefore, the argument is moot.

 

[MKJ]

MKJ: Am I to understand you do not interpret the bible to be literal in its meaning?

I do not understand it like a post-englightenment fundamentalist, if that is what you mean.

 

[MKJ]

I concede to your first paragraph, but your second paragraph is the point I'm trying to get across. It seems that the "undeniable" proofs of God showing Himself do not override one's freewill, so, therefore, the argument is moot.

Yes, I think the common argument that God showing us proof of his existence overrides our free will is not a very strong one.

 

[truefiction1]

My thoughts:

I am not sure that the things you describe in 1 are undeniable proof, even in the sense of being undeniable without activly trying to deny them. My observations ha been that is possible for people to doubt almost anything, often even when they want to believe.

It does seem that paul had a pretty compelling spiritual encounter, but I would be disinclined to say that was over-riding his free-will. He already believed in God, and he could still have chosen to reject Christ, or name him as some sort of demon or result of illness. After all, Adam and Eve walked with God himself in the garden, with no veil at all between them, and still chose with their free will to reject God.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Fantine]

I am reading a book called "War of the Worldviews" by physicist Leonard Mlodinow and new-age guru Deepak Chopra (who is also a physicist) debate the spiritual and scientific foundations of the universe.

Mlodinow is interesting--not that he could ever win me over to his point of view.

Another book I really loved was "The Sky is Not a Ceiling," by astronomer Aileen O'Donoghue, who rediscovered her Catholic faith despite years of scientific training, surrounded by atheistic professors and colleagues. Her faith is not as orthodox as most of you would like, but her book is fascinating.

She also spent a year's sabbatical working in the Vatican Observatory (which is now located in southeastern Arizona and directed by a Argentinian Jesuit, Fr. Jose Gabriel Funes.)

 

[chilehed]

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

No one has any comment on this?

 

[Crandaddy]

Crandady I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that something may only be good if compared to perfection? If so that means that you can only describe something if you compare it to its absolute maximum. That is like saying I know this ice cream tastes delicious only because the most delicious ice cream in the world exists. Would that be rocky road? If rocky road didn't exist could other ice cream flavors not taste good? There is nothing to prove that true. Absolutes are not needed to distinguish.

I'm saying that something can be actually, objectively good in itself only if there is an ultimate final cause from which its goodness derives and to which it is ordered. This ultimate final cause is what we rightly call “God.”

I'm not talking about distinguishing one thing from another, nor am I talking about subjective preferences. I'm talking about objective goodness. If objective goodness exists, then God has to exist, because something can't be good unless it's ordered in its goodness to something at least analogous to a rational will. This will must of necessity be possessed of a being who is absolutely perfect (i.e. simply Good by himself), for if he weren't absolutely perfect, then there could be no final causality, and thus, no objective goodness (for no end could be called "good," which is requisite for final causality).

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

I am reading a book called "War of the Worldviews" by physicist Leonard Mlodinow and new-age guru Deepak Chopra (who is also a physicist) debate the spiritual and scientific foundations of the universe.

Mlodinow is interesting--not that he could ever win me over to his point of view.

Another book I really loved was "The Sky is Not a Ceiling," by astronomer Aileen O'Donoghue, who rediscovered her Catholic faith despite years of scientific training, surrounded by atheistic professors and colleagues. Her faith is not as orthodox as most of you would like, but her book is fascinating.

She also spent a year's sabbatical working in the Vatican Observatory (which is now located in southeastern Arizona and directed by a Argentinian Jesuit, Fr. Jose Gabriel Funes.)

I'm going to look for these titles.
Thanks!

 

[Chany]

No one has any comment on this?

Are you denying that reasonable nonbelief exists?

 

[MKJ]

Are you denying that reasonable nonbelief does not exist?

Wow, that is a doozy of a phrase!

 

[Chany]

Wow, that is a doozy of a phrase!

Double negative, I know. I'll fix it up.

 

[football5680]

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.

#2 is based on a false assumption of what perfect love is. God loves us so much that if we choose to reject him he will allow us to do that. If you really cared about somebody would you just keep chasing after them after they have turned you down and don't want anything to do with you? No, you would respect their decision and allow them to do what they want. God operates in the same way and he will accept anybody who gives him love. That is what I would call perfect love.

So based on the fact that #2 is a false assumption, the argument is destroyed right there.

 

[Chany]

The problem occurs when those who, through no true fault of their own, do not believe in God do to a reasonable argument.