Do Atheists Have a Solid Case Here?

[POI]

For many atheists, the go-to topic for debate, is "divine hiddenness". I do not see it spoke about much here? I figured it would be worthy of discussion. Below is a theist's response/rebuttal to the argument:



For Debate:

1. In claim #1, the theist states Abraham, Joseph, and Jesus have their requests ultimately fulfilled at a later date. Why do countless victims of rape, torture, AND murder go unfulfilled in their requests to be saved?

2. In claim #2, the theist states hiddenness does seem to promote a relationship in the long run. This is clearly not the case, as many will die as atheists -- (likely me, unless He is going to reveal Himself to me later in a way for which I will not doubt His mere existence).

3. In claim #3, God remains hidden from the ones who would rebel. I guess this means if I never feel I received His presence, then that means I would have rebelled anyways? Well then, should I ignore the Bible, where He presented Himself to many who reject Him then?

I'll stop here... The theist mentions other stuff, but nothing seemingly worthy of intellectual discussion.

I hope you theists can come up with BETTER reasons than the ones given in the video?

Or, in conclusion, apply Occam's Razor for the following question: Why doesn't God intervene, when prayed upon, where ultimate finite tragedy strikes?

A): Because God does not exist... One assumption

OR

B): God does exist, but.... Commence additional assumptions

******************************

A) needs only one assumption, B) needs more....

[brunumb]

If you want someone to do good or refrain from evil because it is in their character to do so, you don't show them absolute evidence that there is a judgment, otherwise, of course they are going to try to do good and refrain from evil, but it will not be honest. They will be doing it out of fear rather than out of faith and love.

What's wrong with that? If it is not in one's nature to refrain from evil then any method that achieves it must be better than nothing.

Sure, some upon having absolute evidence for God would truly turn to him and love him, but not most.

Why most? And how is it better to have people not knowing and then failing to see any good reason to believe in God? Faith is not a virtue. It goes against human logic and intelligence to simply believe in something on faith. One can easily believe in things that are false based on faith.

But Like i said before, if we assume God does exist, then if God wanted there to be undeniable evidence of his existence, then that how the world would be. It is not that way, so it must be the case that God knows that is not the best way to bring about maximal goodness in all beings.

That seems like a circular kind of argument. We should really assume that God does not exist and start from there. That said, it seems that God spent an awful lot of time and effort in the distant past actually demonstrating his undeniable existence. Did the omniscient one only come to a later realisation that it was not the best course of action? As we became more and more enlightened, God became less and less up front. Now we have to rely on hearsay and anecdote. When many believers act in a way that avoids doing evil are you seriously going to suggest that it is out of love and respect rather fear of what God might do to them?

You have not really demonstrated that relying on faith is in any way better than having undeniable evidence of God. Once again, ask the potential victim of rape if it matters to them exactly why the perpetrator desisted from carrying out the action.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to brunumb in post #141]

I feel like we are going to go in circles now.

You are not really overcoming evil if you resist evil or don't do evil for the wrong reasons. It means you not yet good inside. Those not good inside are not worthy of the kingdom.

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #141]

I feel like we are going to go in circles now.

You are not really overcoming evil if you resist evil or don't do evil for the wrong reasons. It means you not yet good inside. Those not good inside are not worthy of the kingdom.

How does knowing for sure that God is there, or believing God is there based on faith, make any difference to whether someone is good inside or not? As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't. I'm sure that God revealing himself would make it much easier for people to accept him, become good and resist evil. If not, I feel sorry for all those believers who claim that God revealed himself to them. They won't be doing good and avoiding evil for the right reasons.

[POI]

There are several definitions of "atheism" which one are you using here?

I don't see how this question is relevant. My assumption, is that it takes many more 'assumptions' to invoke a god.

If you are a Christian, and I don't even care what your version of Christianity may be, do you agree with the said arguments in the OP? Or, maybe you have a better one(s)?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to brunumb in post #141]

I feel like we are going to go in circles now.

You are not really overcoming evil if you resist evil or don't do evil for the wrong reasons. It means you not yet good inside. Those not good inside are not worthy of the kingdom.

The only 'circle' here is your circular argument: 'Morality is not valid unless perfect, human morals are not perfect, therefore God (name your own) is the only way to have good morals'.

cue 'if God - morality isn't so good, blame man'.

The Anselm - based fallacy is to claim that any perfection that can be imagined, or even spoken of, must exist in reality and only as something goddish (again, name you own, as these ontological arguments never address Which god). This concept of ideals (wasn't that pinched from Aristotle, anyway?) is a philosophical conceit and a nice little idea, but it has no evidential force, and really only looks like it does to those who begin with godfaith in the first place.

Bottom line, biologigical instinct as the origins of morals is better than goddunnit, as far as evidence or at least hypothesis goes; it is not perfect, but really, what is? Is a mountain or tree 'perfect'? No, and no - one expects it should be, and none th worse for that ... I recall that you or someone argued that an imperfect creation doesn't prove the creator to be imperfect. Bu what it does prove is that we can imagine a perfect mountain or tree or anything else, but that is not at all any kind of evidence that the perfect thing exists, not even as a philosophical ideal.

Bottom line of the bottom line; human morals is what it is; like everything that is the product of evolution; far from perfect but something we must work at and we can, thanks to a reasoning and logical mind that we have turned our evolved problem solving facility into, and no thanks to religious philosophy, I have to say.

[POI]

I explained that earlier, about how it must be a free choice to choose God and do the good and refrain from evil.

Your argument is quite fascinating. Looks like you did not directly choose any of the (3) arguments in the OP? Let's investigate yours...

1. In this case, I don't think you can choose what you believe. Such a belief would instead be inferred or apprehended. Just like I cannot 'choose' to believe in "garden gnomes".
2. According to Genesis, Satan is fully aware of God's existence, and still chooses evil.

Thus, why not just reveal to ALL, like He did to Satan? You still have all the freedom to CHOOSE to (follow or deny).

[POI]

(Third request)

Dear Christians.

I do not want to deprive any of you in providing your wisdom regarding this topic. Thus far, the vast majority of responses have overlapped with the 'problem of evil' argument. Option 1) seems to veer into that 'problem' as well.

Allow me to reiterate/recap/summarize/shorten the OP request. The Christian apologist, in the provided video, states the 'problem of divine hiddessness' in actually NOT a problem --> for (3) reasons:

!) God answers true requests on His time, not yours.
2) Remaining hidden, for a while, strengthens your future relationship.
3) God may not reveal Himself to one who He knows will rebel.

Feel free to choose any of the three above. Or, pick your own and explain. Let's solve this apparent "problem", which apparently is NOT a problem, together. Shall we?

Thank you in advance!

[AquinasForGod]

I explained that earlier, about how it must be a free choice to choose God and do the good and refrain from evil.

Your argument is quite fascinating. Looks like you did not directly choose any of the (3) arguments in the OP? Let's investigate yours...

1. In this case, I don't think you can choose what you believe. Such a belief would instead be inferred or apprehended. Just like I cannot 'choose' to believe in "garden gnomes".
2. According to Genesis, Satan is fully aware of God's existence, and still chooses evil.

Thus, why not just reveal to ALL, like He did to Satan? You still have all the freedom to CHOOSE to (follow or deny).

This requires going deeper into theology. Aquinas goes into how angels can only have the sin of Pride, and then as a consequence the sin of envy - https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1063.htm#article1

As to your first point, you could choose to believe in something like ghosts if you had some evidence of their existence, but not enough that you know. You can still be doubtful of their existence, but choose to believe in them.

Angels could only be guilty of pride. So their nature limits their will. They exist for other reasons. Humans exist for the reason of expressing greater will, and our nature limits us to what we could experience of God, which is why it says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, which means we need a glorified body, which could still have flesh and bones but not corruptible flesh and bones.

[POI]

This requires going deeper into theology. Aquinas goes into how angels can only have the sin of Pride, and then as a consequence the sin of envy

Sure, I guess it could... But then you would FIRST need to PROVE that your specific scenario is even real. Can you do that? Remember, the argument of "the problem of divine hiddenness" is to demonstrate the likelihood that God is not hiding, but instead does not even exist. You are instead asking me to accept that 'angels' exist; which I do not. Can you first prove the existence of angels? If you cannot, then your starting point here is unfounded. Let's stick with what we know -- Provided we share the same reality

As to your first point, you could choose to believe in something like ghosts if you had some evidence of their existence, but not enough that you know. You can still be doubtful of their existence, but choose to believe in them.

You have demonstrated my point for me. It's not a choice. Your level of belief hinges upon the preponderance of the given available examined evidence. The more evidence you apprehend/infer, the more you believe. Right now, my belief in the Christian God is <1%. Why? According to you, you must answer (yes) to the following. And since you do, you must make (ad hoc / post hoc) excuses; or apply additional assumptions:

- Do you believe in the Christian God? (yes or no)
- Can your God manifest in our reality, if He wants to? (yes or no)
- Does your God want a relationship with His creation? (yes or no)
- Does your God want you to know He even exists? (yes or no)
- Does your God know what would convince anyone/everyone that He exists? (yes or no)
- Is your God capable of doing such convincing? (yes or no)
- Is your God reported to intervene with His creation? (yes or no)

1. Why isn't everyone certain that the Christian God exists? Or, are we all certain and some are just suppressing or lying - (Romans 1)?
2. Knowing that the Christian God exists still allows for one's "free will", to follow or reject Him, right?

Humans exist for the reason of expressing greater will, and our nature limits us to what we could experience of God, which is why it says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, which means we need a glorified body, which could still have flesh and bones but not corruptible flesh and bones.

Jesus can reveal Himself to everyone. In fact, He was said to do so often in the Bible. Each individual can then decide to follow or ignore, just like the Bible states. And yet, He is not doing so for me. Is this because of one of the (3) reasons given in the OP video, or are you going to continue sticking with your story, which also presents as being illogical?

I say He has never revealed Himself to me. Is this because 'evil' is blocking the request, or am I too stupid, or maybe He isn't there? This is the primary reason I am an atheist. Meaning, lacking belief in this god. If He revealed Himself to me, I still have all the choices available. Revealing Himself to some, and not others, makes no logical sense.

[Clownboat]

Because in order for us to really choose God, then God cannot be so evident.

What difference does it make?

Are these real questions? That is a real question, btw. I really want to know if you are asking serious questions.

I would not be choosing to believe in my mom, for example, because her existence is overtly evident.

This doesn't make sense.
Lucifer knew your god, and yet was still able to choose to rebel.