Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I dont know. Many people seem to fare better by positing certainty rather that admitting mystery. They seem to live more peacefully that way....Either way, it's a big epistemic mystery, an inconclusive mystery that we all need to admit to, don't you think?
Whoever said that I think ANY syllogistic application is appropriate here, in any capacity? Geez! One would think we actually had enough data to align nothing but valid and sound propositions to lead us to a true conclusion. But, we don't have that kind of data.Kool, Schelling is 'wrong'. Does that mean God exists?
What be the 'correct' syllogism for divine hiddenness, if there 'is' one, that is...?
Here's my take...
One could postulate a syllogism, deemed 'correct' by all sides, for a God. However, in regards to the Abrahamic God specifically - 'divine author of the Holy Bible', the above needn't necessary...
Instead, we can simply flip the paged of repeated assertion (i.e.) the Bible. Devise a standard or mechanism to interpret those asserted pages, and then possibly test such asserted claims deemed falsifiable. If it all checks out, now we have something. But as it stands, here's what we appear to instead be dealing with...
There exists no standard for translation of it's pages, directly opposed to the 'fact' God chose the Word to convey truth. Such proof causing multiple denominations of direct disputing factions... Bazaar...
God provides humans with 'reason', and the ability to study and test claims. Seems odd that God might assert events us humans later conclude as 'false.' Begs a possible question... Is this God's test, or is God allowing Satan's 'free will' to tamper with the evidence?
The Bible states God answers all prayer. Seems suspicious that if God answers all prayer, at least one of those prayers would have been for God to reveal Himself to all. But ironically, either no one prays for such, God may not be adhering to His word, God knows what's best for us (which then begs yet another question about the need for prayer), or, just maybe, it IS just a collection of assertions tied to an imaginary deity...?
I dont know. Many people seem to fare better by positing certainty rather that admitting mystery. They seem to live more peacefully that way.
OH? And which caveats and qualifiers are you speaking of? Are these expressed within the article I posted for you?Yes, hence the caveats and qualifiers applied.
Good post.Then the next philosophical question, in this case is, "Is Ignorance and naivety bliss"?
All I can say is that it wouldn't be for me. If there is a God, particularly the one with whom Jesus of Nazareth, the assumed Christ, is a part, then I'd like to have Him reveal Himself to be in an empirical manner just as much as the next guy or gal. But, realistically, and understanding the epistemological propositions that sit within the pages of the New Testament, I hold out little hope that that will be the case in my lifetime. No, the best I can do right now is "keep on keeping on" with ongoing expansive investigative interest and inquiry, in the hope that I can maintain a 'belief' and a motivation to follow Christ in faith.
Good post.
And if empirical revelation doesnt appear to be forthcoming, then many people will go for the "next best thing": logical proofs or reasoning toward probability. So far, my encounters with those (and they are admittedly limited) have been laughable, with grandiose assumptions typically baked into the premises.
I'm not religious at all. But the only way I could see going forward on a Christian path is in response to: does it intuitively feel correct?, and, does it make my life better?.
No, I'm just wildly speculating on how I might expect this creature that I've defined should act according my my little mortal notions of correctness that I've cobbled together from my little time as a human animal on earth.
....basically, what the hidden-God argument people are doing.
(And no, my perfect God would not look like the dystopian ruler because She would know how to get it right. She'd be the utopian ruler!)
For sure. Lots of Christian and Sufi mystics express their search for God in terms of love poetry.Could it perhaps be, speaking by way of more sublime intuitions, that what we personally apply to God in our relational expectations................in some way parallels and reflects our hopes and expectations for what we could find in an "Ideal Lover"? (I just have to ask......................)
For sure. Lots of Christian and Sufi mystics express their search for God in terms of love poetry.
Why so all or nothing? Why not just answering the phone once in a while?
False dichotomy. You're saying that the reason God doesn't show up at all, ever, is that it's better to do that than to overwhelm us with his constant...love? Presence?
Evidence for something isn't real unless it can stand the test of skepticism. Skepticism (to pre-empt another objection) isn't a dirty word; it just means viewing all the facts and not jumping to conclusions.
Yeah, I know. What we're doing here is working through the "if God was like me/us he would behave like this..." discussion. Which is where premise 1 of the argument comes from.
Well... I don't know that it is all or nothing. According to the mystics, he still is present, and you can get some pretty interesting treatments of divine absence from figures like Saint John of the Cross.
No, I'm saying that a certain degree of distance is necessary for freedom and personal development to be possible at all. I think direct knowledge of the existence of God would actually be extremely harmful for many people, myself included. That's not a false dichotomy.
I don't think many people on either side really wrap their heads around the "God-fearing" aspect of theism these days. Psalm 139 is a really scary mental place to be in all of the time, and that is what certainty would look like.
Genuine Pyrrhonian skepticism actually is a dirty word to many atheists. People don't like having to field questions from postmodernists doubting the objectivity of science, or from idealists arguing that matter might not actually exist.
I'm pretty cool with genuine skepticism, actually. I am one, to a certain extent. Congrats on not jumping to conclusions and assuming with no evidence that I was threatened by it, though. Well done.
Yeah, but the way you're working through it is odd in the extreme. If God were like us, it would be good for him to be a fullblown tyrant? Unless you think that tyranny represents the best part of what it means to be human, I don't know where this conclusion is coming from at all. Not human psychology.
I think Schellenberg is specifically arguing against the Christian God here, which is a conception strongly based in revelation. Whether Christianity in specific presents a coherent picture of God is a pretty legitimate question. (Same goes for other religions.)
Oh I dont think so. Its considered tyrannical when humans do it to each other.... but not when you do it to your dog.....Yeah, but the way you're working through it is odd in the extreme. If God were like us, it would be good for him to be a fullblown tyrant? Unless you think that tyranny represents the best part of what it means to be human, I don't know where this conclusion is coming from at all. Not human psychology.....
Wait, where is the actual argument for this conclusion? I see only one premise stated.J.L. Schellenberg is has lovingly made this argument, that has been around for decades, more accessible to the layperson and gives a good reason to reject theism.
- If a perfectly loving God exists, then there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person.
Not sure why you are cracking up.
"If perfectly loving God exists, then there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person."
God being open to a personal relationship is not univocal with,
"Perfect love from God's position (stipulated) of perfect knowledge (which we cannot access) may not look like the "personal relationship" we want or expect.... or may not look like a personal relationship at all, to us."
The first premise just says if God is loving then implication is he must be personal and open to a relationship with finite beings. It would be a strange feature to have a "personal relationship," with any person including God and be unaware of it as you suggest above. Please give us an example of a personal relationship you have had or someone else has had in history where they were unaware that they were in a personal relationship sans mental illness of course.
Oh I dont think so. Its considered tyrannical when humans do it to each other.... but not when you do it to your dog.
Training your dog, or "breaking" a horse to accept a rider, is not considered abuse in most circles.I don't think animal abuse is considered okay in most circles.
Training your dog, or "breaking" a horse to accept a rider, is not considered abuse in most circles.
Whoever said that I think ANY syllogistic application is appropriate here, in any capacity? Geez!
I actually asked more of a hypothetical:
"What be the 'correct' syllogism for divine hiddenness, if there 'is' one, that is...?"
Pardon me if you took it personal
What do you say about someone whom evaluates the Bible's direct claims against perceived reality, and such? Basically, everything in I mentioned there-after?
Well I'm not justifying every aspect of human animal relations.That's not really the equivalent of tyranny, though, any more than disciplining a child is. There's a difference between training a dog and torturing a dog. (Though to what extent domestication is moral is an interesting question.)
I agree that there are things that we largely consider acceptable behavior towards animals that would not be towards other humans--like breeding them for slaughter. I don't know how many people actually think that's admirable behavior, representing the best of humanity and the sort of thing that would be expected of an omnibenevolent God. Just because we're exploitative, it doesn't mean that exploitation is good.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?