Divine Hiddenness

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

Mattman
Student
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2022 2:07 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Divine Hiddenness

Post #1

Post by Mattman »

I love discussing/debating arguments related to God's existence and Christianity, and I have a voice chat group I'm putting together to do that. Send me a PM if you're interested in participating or listening in.

Below is a brief summarized version of an argument. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
____
Thesis: The Argument from Divine Hiddenness is not sound.

Dr. Shellenberg says that any perfectly loving being would make sure that every creature *willing* to be in a life-giving reciprocal relationship with him would be *able* to be. Nonetheless, there appear to be people who, though they would be happy to be in a relationship with God, find themselves unable to believe that God exists. Dr. Shellenberg refers to this experience as reasonable nonbelief, and we can express his argument this way:

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. Therefore, no perfectly loving God exists.

5. Therefore, there is no God.

_____
From here on out, I'll refer to the argument above as "DH." I'll present what I take to be the strongest objection.

First, consider that the nontheist supports premise three by appealing to testimony. People report having experiences of reasonable nonbelief, and the nontheist maintains that this testimony has evidentiary value.

Next, notice that if God does not exist, then people cannot have authentic experiences of God. The nontheist isn't committed to any particular account for why people report such incidents, but he does seem committed to the view that such people aren't authentically experiencing God. If DH is sound, then the nontheist must reject the testimony of Christians who report firsthand experiences of God. By logical equivalence, if the nontheist accepts Christians' testimony, he must deny DH.

In short, DH shows that the testimony of firsthand experiences of God conflicts with the testimony of reasonable nonbelief. How are we to decide which testimony to accept? There are vastly more believers than nonbelievers. If, as the nontheist must insist, the testimony of this sort has evidentiary value, then the believers' testimony has more evidentiary value than the nonbelievers' in virtue of the larger number of witnesses.

To illustrate, imagine that you are a journalist in New York and you've just seen a parade go past. Suppose you interview six people: five report having seen a float pass with Santa Clause on top and the sixth reports having seen no float at all despite being in front where he'd have been able to see it. What would you conclude had happened? You can't accept all of their testimony since their testimony conflicts. It seems you would be within your rights to take the testimony of the five who saw the float and disregard the testimony of the one who didn't. At a minimum, it would be reasonable to withhold judgment and remain agnostic about whether or not the float passed.

In the same way, it seems you would be within your rights to accept the testimony of Christians and reject the testimony of nonbelievers. At a minimum, it would be reasonable to withhold judgment about whether people experience either God or reasonable nonbelief. If, however, we remain agnostic about the occurrence of reasonable nonbelief, then DH fails.

There is a way out of this problem such that the nonbeliever need not disregard anyone's testimony. Namely, he can accept premise three and reject premise 2. Even so, DH remains unsound.

_____

Sources:

Jones, Michael. “Divine Hiddenness: A Christian Response.” YouTube, uploaded by Inspiring Philosophy, 8 Feb. 2019, https://youtu.be/3YvXeLtdVBE, accessed 22 Feb. 2022.

Meister, Chad. Evil and the Hiddenness of God. God and Evil: The Case for God in a World Filled with Pain. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2013.

Speak, Daniel. The Problem of Evil. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2015.
Last edited by Mattman on Wed Feb 23, 2022 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Veridican
Banned
Banned
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2022 2:36 pm
Location: Mississippi
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 26 times
Contact:

Re: Divine Hiddenness

Post #2

Post by Veridican »

Mattman wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 7:41 am I love discussing/debating arguments related to God's existence and Christianity, and I have a voice chat group I'm putting together to do that. Send me a PM if you're interested.

Below is a brief summarized version of an argument. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
____


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. Therefore, no perfectly loving God exists.

5. Therefore, there is no God.
The only thing this argument proves is that the kind of God the author wants does not exist. It is, after all, quite possible that a "perfectly loving" God by our understanding of "perfectly loving" is a contradiction.
All for Christ and only for Christ! :wave:

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: Divine Hiddenness

Post #3

Post by alexxcJRO »

Mattman wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 7:41 am I love discussing/debating arguments related to God's existence and Christianity, and I have a voice chat group I'm putting together to do that. Send me a PM if you're interested.

Below is a brief summarized version of an argument. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
____
Thesis: The Argument from Divine Hiddenness is not sound.

Dr. Shellenberg says that any perfectly loving being would make sure that every creature *willing* to be in a life-giving reciprocal relationship with him would be *able* to be. Nonetheless, there appear to be people who, though they would be happy to be in a relationship with God, find themselves unable to believe that God exists. Dr. Shellenberg refers to this experience as reasonable nonbelief, and we can express his argument this way:

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. Therefore, no perfectly loving God exists.

5. Therefore, there is no God.

_____
From here on out, I'll refer to the argument above as "DH." I'll present what I take to be the strongest objection.

First, consider that the nontheist supports premise three by appealing to testimony. People report having experiences of reasonable nonbelief, and the nontheist maintains that this testimony has evidentiary value.

Next, notice that if God does not exist, then people cannot have authentic experiences of God. The nontheist isn't committed to any particular account for why people report such incidents, but he does seem committed to the view that such people aren't authentically experiencing God. If DH is sound, then the nontheist must reject the testimony of Christians who report firsthand experiences of God. By logical equivalence, if the nontheist accepts Christians' testimony, he must deny DH.

In short, DH shows that the testimony of firsthand experiences of God conflicts with the testimony of reasonable nonbelief. How are we to decide which testimony to accept? There are vastly more believers than nonbelievers. If, as the nontheist must insist, the testimony of this sort has evidentiary value, then the believers' testimony has more evidentiary value than the nonbelievers' in virtue of the larger number of witnesses.

To illustrate, imagine that you are a journalist in New York and you've just seen a parade go past. Suppose you interview six people: five report having seen a float pass with Santa Clause on top and the sixth reports having seen no float at all despite being in front where he'd have been able to see it. What would you conclude had happened? You can't accept all of their testimony since their testimony conflicts. It seems you would be within your rights to take the testimony of the five who saw the float and disregard the testimony of the one who didn't. At a minimum, it would be reasonable to withhold judgment and remain agnostic about whether or not the float passed.

In the same way, it seems you would be within your rights to accept the testimony of Christians and reject the testimony of nonbelievers. At a minimum, it would be reasonable to withhold judgment about whether people experience either God or reasonable nonbelief. If, however, we remain agnostic about the occurrence of reasonable nonbelief, then DH fails.

There is a way out of this problem such that the nonbeliever need not disregard anyone's testimony. Namely, he can accept premise three and reject premise 2. Even so, DH remains unsound.

_____

Sources:

Jones, Michael. “Divine Hiddenness: A Christian Response.” YouTube, uploaded by Inspiring Philosophy, 8 Feb. 2019, accessed 22 Feb. 2022.

Meister, Chad. Evil and the Hiddenness of God. God and Evil: The Case for God in a World Filled with Pain. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2013.

Speak, Daniel. The Problem of Evil. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2015.
Notation:
G = God: Yahweh-Jesus on omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being-perfectly good being who wants humans to believe in him and a personal relationship with them based on trust, love.
B = Sincere, genuine belief that G does not exist(billions of such occurrences-> atheists, Islamists, Hindus, Buddhists and so on).

Definitions:
Omnipotent being = a being that can do anything
(Matthew 19:26, Job 42:1-2, Luke 1:37, Jeremiah 32:27)

Omniscient being = a being that knows everything, has perfect knowledge
(Psalm 147:5, Psalm 139:4, Hebrews 4:13, 1 John 3:20, Job 37:16)

Omnibenevolent-perfectly good being = a being that will do only good as oppose to evil all the time, a being that is morally perfect, perfectly just, benevolent towards all, cares and loves all equally.
(Deuteronomy 32:4, 2 Samuel 22:31, Matthew 5:48, Psalm 100:5, Psalm 145:17, 1 John 4:16, 1 John 1:5, Heb. 6:18, Romans 5:8, 1 John 4:8)
(1 John 4:15, John 3:16-17, Matthew 22:36-38, Exodus 20)


Argument from genuine disbelief/non-belief

Logical deduction by reduction ad absurdum:

P1. G exists.
P2. An omniscient being knows of a way to stop B.
P3. An omnipotent being who knows a way to stop B has the power to do so.
P4. A being who knows of a way to stop B, has the power to do so, and who wants to do so, would do it.
P5. If there exists G then B would not exist.
P6. Because G exists then B does not exist.
P7. B exists.(Logical contradiction)
C: Therefore G does not exist.

Enjoy! 8-)
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Mattman
Student
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2022 2:07 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Divine Hiddenness

Post #4

Post by Mattman »

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #3]

The OP raises an objection to P7 that you do not resolve.

We could also raise objections at P5, but I'll leave it there since my previous objection isn't resolved.

User avatar
Veridican
Banned
Banned
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2022 2:36 pm
Location: Mississippi
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 26 times
Contact:

Re: Divine Hiddenness

Post #5

Post by Veridican »

alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:52 am
Argument from genuine disbelief/non-belief

Logical deduction by reduction ad absurdum:

P1. G exists.
P2. An omniscient being knows of a way to stop B.
P3. An omnipotent being who knows a way to stop B has the power to do so.
P4. A being who knows of a way to stop B, has the power to do so, and who wants to do so, would do it.
P5. If there exists G then B would not exist.
P6. Because G exists then B does not exist.
P7. B exists.(Logical contradiction)
C: Therefore G does not exist.

Enjoy! 8-)
The problems is in the definition of G. This has always been the problem in atheist v. theist debates. No one takes the time to logically think about the nature and attributes of God (if he exists). The atheists argue against the "omni-" God, and the theists take a Biblical definition and try to ram it's square into a circular hole--so to speak.

In this argument, which is really the same one in the OP, you create a version of God that must conform to your notions of benevolence. But you've actually created the notion of a being that, you are correct, does not exist. Cannot exist.

The problem is in your idea of "good."

God is not good by any standards of morality. If God exists, then God is the author of morality. What that means is that we are good when we conform to that morality, but God is good no matter what he does. It is absurd to think the creation can set limits on the creator.

Yes, this means one has to change their notion of God. Frankly, in my opinion, just read Jesus Christ. His "Father" is a pretty scary dude. Rather than loving everyone he creates, he seems to create favorites (the Elect) and literally creates the others to either perish or burn in hell for his pleasure. Like, there may be ten people in the world right now God cares about, and the rest are just there to fill in space.

One could say, "I will never worship a God like that." Which simply means they will not worship a God they have not personally created. But that, my friends, is the simple definition of idolatry. And idolatry seems to really piss God off.

To quote the great Marcus Chong (aka Tank from "The Matrix"): "Believe it or not, you piece of xxxx, you're still gonna burn."

Just some happy thoughts for Wednesday. :dance:
All for Christ and only for Christ! :wave:

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20496
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: Divine Hiddenness

Post #6

Post by otseng »

Moderator Action

Moved to General Chat. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20496
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: Divine Hiddenness

Post #7

Post by otseng »

Veridican wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:26 am To quote the great Marcus Chong (aka Tank from "The Matrix"): "Believe it or not, you piece of xxxx, you're still gonna burn."
Moderator Comment

Please do not post uncivil comments, even if it's a coded quote from another.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Divine Hiddenness

Post #8

Post by Purple Knight »

Veridican wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:26 amThe problem is in your idea of "good."

God is not good by any standards of morality. If God exists, then God is the author of morality. What that means is that we are good when we conform to that morality, but God is good no matter what he does. It is absurd to think the creation can set limits on the creator.

Yes, this means one has to change their notion of God. Frankly, in my opinion, just read Jesus Christ. His "Father" is a pretty scary dude. Rather than loving everyone he creates, he seems to create favorites (the Elect) and literally creates the others to either perish or burn in hell for his pleasure. Like, there may be ten people in the world right now God cares about, and the rest are just there to fill in space.

One could say, "I will never worship a God like that." Which simply means they will not worship a God they have not personally created. But that, my friends, is the simple definition of idolatry. And idolatry seems to really piss God off.
I think we agree pretty well on what God is and what he can do, and what he did do (within the lore of course), and what that means about morality.

God has the power to do any action and have it count as good because he has every power.

God has the power to declare actions of others good or evil and have that be truth regardless of what those actions are... because he has every power.

This isn't just the Christian God. Any being that is theoretically omnipotent has these powers because they have every power.

God is a lot like a Libertarian. Libertarians don't care about how much you suffer as long as the rights they define for you haven't been violated. Upset that you're toiling for a penny an hour you didn't even get? Well, too bad, no evil has been done - no rights have been violated. Minimum wage would violate the rights we define that your employer has, but that doesn't violate yours. You're just pissy for no reason too bad so sad.

Like it or not, it is good to hurt the bad guy. It's why the good people like their fantasies of killing Nazis; never before or since have there been such obvious pure bad guys, so it's open season on anything you want to do to them and it's still good. Good is disconnected from helping people, and evil is disconnected from hurting people. Good is really about pleasing God, and probably has been since the word was invented. It doesn't have a lot of meaning outside of religion, though people with enough moral clout so as to be morally head and shoulders above most can give it meaning by making it about pleasing themselves. And if there is no God they have more of a right to the word than people who think good is about helping people when it isn't and never has been.

So if this thing God happens to be real... Well... We can't object to anything it says. It's the biggest good guy. Whatever it says is right. Whoever it wants to hurt, that's justified.

We humans really made our bed with this one because we want to talk about good and evil, rather than helping versus hurting or kindness versus cruelty. We have no grounds to object anymore. We chose this existence.

Well, everyone but me did. And I admit, I'm trying to play catchup and become good rather than caring about kindness. I don't enjoy being castigated and talked down to for being evil, so I don't have the luxury of caring. I go with the crowd and attack whatever is evil until it dies, and I don't have the luxury of caring if it suffers. But if I could, I would erase the words good and evil from existence and replace them with words that focus on whether the sum of someone's actions has been cruel or kind.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: Divine Hiddenness

Post #9

Post by alexxcJRO »

Mattman wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 9:18 am [Replying to alexxcJRO in post #3]

The OP raises an objection to P7 that you do not resolve.

We could also raise objections at P5, but I'll leave it there since my previous objection isn't resolved.
Sincere, genuine belief that Yahweh-Jesus does not exist, exists.
Billions of people(atheists, Islamists, Hindus, Buddhists and so on) genuinely do not believe Yahweh-Jesus exists. Some believe in Allah, Brahma, reincarnation, some are pantheists and so one.

I genuinely disbelief Yahweh-Jesus exists. I am an hard atheist in respect to Yahweh-Jesus.
It is a logical impossibility, it is absurdity. The whole Bible is a collection of non-sensical, contradictory ignorant ramblings of ancient goat herders that are in conflict with everything we know about our world. It goes against so many fields of study(geology, biology, botany, zoology, genetic, neurobiology, medicine, psychiatry, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, physics, cosmology, chemistry, climatology, history) its mind boggling.

So are you saying that I and billions of people believe in fact in Yahweh-Jesus but are faking non-belief and belief in other gods, religions.

Q: Who can believe such an absurdity? :chuckel:
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: Divine Hiddenness

Post #10

Post by alexxcJRO »

Veridican wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:26 am God is not good by any standards of morality. If God exists, then God is the author of morality. What that means is that we are good when we conform to that morality, but God is good no matter what he does. It is absurd to think the creation can set limits on the creator.

Yes, this means one has to change their notion of God. Frankly, in my opinion, just read Jesus Christ. His "Father" is a pretty scary dude. Rather than loving everyone he creates, he seems to create favorites (the Elect) and literally creates the others to either perish or burn in hell for his pleasure. Like, there may be ten people in the world right now God cares about, and the rest are just there to fill in space.

One could say, "I will never worship a God like that." Which simply means they will not worship a God they have not personally created. But that, my friends, is the simple definition of idolatry. And idolatry seems to really piss God off.
Q: What morality and goodness sir? :blink: :writers_block: :confused2:
You believe God is a malevolent-sadistic being: literally creates the others to either perish or burn in hell for his pleasure.

Q: Why trust in such a being? Why worship a being more cruel and malevolent-sadistic then Hitler?
Q: How do you know you are among the elect?

Veridican wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:26 am To quote the great Marcus Chong (aka Tank from "The Matrix"): "Believe it or not, you piece of xxxx, you're still gonna burn."

Just some happy thoughts for Wednesday.
I will burn. Thanks.
That is so cringy. LOL.
This is how it starts folks.
To get to genocides and malevolence of incredible proportions one just needs to start believe such preposterous garbage. :shock:
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Post Reply