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....

[Clownboat]

Yahweh is far from the wicked, But he hears the prayer of the righteous.
Pro. 15:29

Romans 3:10 NIV
As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one
...

Why do you think that means, there never was and never will be?

Since you asked, I think it has zero meaning in the real world as it is a nonsensical claim.
Either way:
It is not logical that a God would produce a message for everyone, yet then require pastors, preachers, shamans, Imams, theologians etc to then interpret said message.

[POI]

...no one is righteous...

...God still does not answer all prayer requests of the righteous...

Do you see how this line of reasoning, for '1213', falls apart...?

Yes, I think it is wrong to say that there has never been, nor will never be anyone righteous. I think you have misunderstood the Bible. And I have no good reason to believe your claims.

You have a point here - 'Righteous' is relative - we are (according to Biblical doctrine) all sinners even if we have done nothing (1) but (paul argues) we can be Righteous through God-Faith like Abraham. So we are all sinful, everfy one, because of Adam's disobedience, But we can be saved though Godfaith (righteiusness) which does not make us sinless, but Rightous enough to be saved. This is further confused by nobody being Righteous, which does not (clearly) refer to original sin, but faithfulness (in the right god) and also actions which can see even the believers (supposedly)not saved because of their actions.

Hope that is straightened out and the water not muddied by confusing innate sinfulness with unworthiness to be saved which (if that obtained) would prayer was pointless, because none were worthy of being saved. Even the sinless can through Faith, be saved from masonry falling on them, if they spot it in time.

(1) babies being sinners from birth is a problem that is bets 'got over' by deferring original (innate) sin to age 7 when they become responsible for their actions. Though age of responsibility is deferred for some years more.

Whatever the case, '1213' seems to want to severely <cherry pick> responses, by wanting to quibble over the term 'righteousness' or suggest that some don't pray for this or that? So I have laid down the gauntlet in my last response to '1213'. LET'S ASSUME 'righteousness' means (having belief/faith in the Christian God), as it seems to suggest in Romans 3. Okay?

It's SAFE to say the 'deemed righteous' have prayed for abducted children be safely returned home. I would assume it is "righteous", for a righteous individual to pray for such an action? I would also assume that some of the faithful have been abducted themselves. Which means, some of the righteous have been abducted themselves. What assumption is more preposterous?

A) The abducted individuals, who are found murdered, never prayed to be saved from murder
B) The Christian God does not exist, to intervene in such requests

I'm not disagreeing with that. Let us see whether our apologetic pal can come up with a good response...something, say, better than a Biblequote with the word Righteous in it (see the surface -skip apolgetics method).

But even when we grant '1213' every 'out' possible, '1213' is still in quite the little pickle. I think '1213' knows this. Thus, why '1213' is likely not really engaging....

[TRANSPONDER]

...no one is righteous...

...God still does not answer all prayer requests of the righteous...

Do you see how this line of reasoning, for '1213', falls apart...?

Yes, I think it is wrong to say that there has never been, nor will never be anyone righteous. I think you have misunderstood the Bible. And I have no good reason to believe your claims.

You have a point here - 'Righteous' is relative - we are (according to Biblical doctrine) all sinners even if we have done nothing (1) but (paul argues) we can be Righteous through God-Faith like Abraham. So we are all sinful, everfy one, because of Adam's disobedience, But we can be saved though Godfaith (righteiusness) which does not make us sinless, but Rightous enough to be saved. This is further confused by nobody being Righteous, which does not (clearly) refer to original sin, but faithfulness (in the right god) and also actions which can see even the believers (supposedly)not saved because of their actions.

Hope that is straightened out and the water not muddied by confusing innate sinfulness with unworthiness to be saved which (if that obtained) would prayer was pointless, because none were worthy of being saved. Even the sinless can through Faith, be saved from masonry falling on them, if they spot it in time.

(1) babies being sinners from birth is a problem that is bets 'got over' by deferring original (innate) sin to age 7 when they become responsible for their actions. Though age of responsibility is deferred for some years more.

Whatever the case, '1213' seems to want to severely <cherry pick> responses, by wanting to quibble over the term 'righteousness' or suggest that some don't pray for this or that? So I have laid down the gauntlet in my last response to '1213'. LET'S ASSUME 'righteousness' means (having belief/faith in the Christian God), as it seems to suggest in Romans 3. Okay?

It's SAFE to say the 'deemed righteous' have prayed for abducted children be safely returned home. I would assume it is "righteous", for a righteous individual to pray for such an action? I would also assume that some of the faithful have been abducted themselves. Which means, some of the righteous have been abducted themselves. What assumption is more preposterous?

A) The abducted individuals, who are found murdered, never prayed to be saved from murder
B) The Christian God does not exist, to intervene in such requests

I'm not disagreeing with that. Let us see whether our apologetic pal can come up with a good response...something, say, better than a Biblequote with the word Righteous in it (see the surface -skip apolgetics method).

But even when we grant '1213' every 'out' possible, '1213' is still in quite the little pickle. I think '1213' knows this. Thus, why '1213' is likely not really engaging....

We shall have to see...but, while I don't I don't want to do well -poisoning, back stabbing, and sniping, though I consider blocking possible tactics in advance is legitimate, we do seem to have denunciation (you atheists don't know your Bible) together with what looks like irrelevance and evasion Of course, I expect that on the theory that the evidence will let them down, but of course I would say that as I'm a non believer. So I son't in fact expect much more than that, but I leave the door wide open for a really sound and thought - provoking rebuttal.

[POI]

I don't in fact expect much more than that, but I leave the door wide open for a really sound and thought - provoking rebuttal.

Well, I've been leaving the door wide open, since the OP. Christians can apply rebuttal to any of the first (3) claims from the video. But these have gone virtually unchallenged, thus far. I have also asked that Christians wage forth any other meaningful or insightful rebuttals, for the 'divine hiddenness' argument, for which I have heard nothing but 'crickets'....

My optimism is dwindling....

This steers us in the direction that Christians may not have a good argument against it; other than appealing to a form of mental gymnastics?

[brunumb]

...no one is righteous...

...God still does not answer all prayer requests of the righteous...

Do you see how this line of reasoning, for '1213', falls apart...?

Yes, I think it is wrong to say that there has never been, nor will never be anyone righteous. I think you have misunderstood the Bible. And I have no good reason to believe your claims.

I think you have misrepresented the Bible and I have no good reason to believe your claims.

[brunumb]

...I trust we would agree that many small children are raped/murdered. ...

If I would know someone is raped/murdered at this moment, I would do something about it. If you know that is happening, why are you not doing anything to prevent it? Instead of doing anything good you are using your time to foolishly prove that praying doesn't work.

But I am doing good. I am praying to God to intervene in any rape/murder that is happening. He will know if it is happening, even if I don't and am unable to personally assist in any way.

[1213]

...So we are all sinful, every one, because of Adam's disobedience, But we can be saved though Godfaith (righteiusness) which does not make us sinless,...

Bible says, if one is righteous, he doesn't sin.

...He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

Why do you think we are all sinful because of Adam's disobedience? What does sinful mean in your opinion?

[POI]

...So we are all sinful, every one, because of Adam's disobedience, But we can be saved though Godfaith (righteiusness) which does not make us sinless,...

Bible says, if one is righteous, he doesn't sin.

...He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

Why do you think we are all sinful because of Adam's disobedience? What does sinful mean in your opinion?

It's becoming quite clear you have no argument, in this thread. You instead want to harp on the side issue of what 'god' deems as righteous. So please allow me to navigate us back, or circle you back to the meat and potatoes of this thread. --> The "divine hiddenness" argument....

Let's play 'devil's advocate'. "God" deems some righteous. Okay?

I ask you again.... And I'll also answer for you, since you have a hard time engaging:

Would the 'righteous' pray for the safe return of an abducted child? yes
Do many of these abducted children wind up dead? yes

Okay, moving forward....

Which assumption REQUIRES more rationalization, A) or B)?

A) God does not exist to answer requests (PERIOD). --> End of pondering why 'god' does this or doesn't do that...
B) God does exist to answer (some) righteous requests, but He doesn't always answer righteous requests because......

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

Going all the way back to the first post, the Christian presents (3) claims in the video:

1. In claim #1, the theist states Abraham, Joseph, and Jesus have their requests ultimately fulfilled at a later date.

2. In claim #2, the theist states hiddenness does seem to promote a relationship in the long run.

3. In claim #3, God remains hidden from the ones who would rebel.

Are the above claims 'valid' excuses for your believed upon God? Please explain?

[TRANSPONDER]

...So we are all sinful, every one, because of Adam's disobedience, But we can be saved though Godfaith (righteiusness) which does not make us sinless,...

Bible says, if one is righteous, he doesn't sin.

...He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

Why do you think we are all sinful because of Adam's disobedience? What does sinful mean in your opinion?

It isn't my opinion I don't believe in 'sin' as a religious concept (though I do as a human convention) but the Bible is clear whether or not YOU agree with it. Adam disobeyed, so every descendant of his (i.e, everyone) is a sinner from birth, and worthy of sin death (however that is interpreted (1). Paul's thesis is apparently that Abraham was righteous becaue he believed in God and that meant willing to do Sion if god orders it; Sin is not about morality but about unquestioning obedience. The Law (commandments and Rules) were given to regulate the Jews, not deliver them from sin. Paul says the Law doers not save, but adds an additional list of sins that can be committed, and i have to agree that a 'sinful life' (in religion) just seems to add a lot of extra rules that have to be followed.
,like wearing a headscars and denying women an education,. and if that seems invalid, the Christian restrictions seem just as invalid to me.

So (Paul has it) Jesus came to make an escape route through Sin -death and by obedience unto death, enabled the faithful to escape Sin simply by believing that he was the risen messiah. It's all explained in Romans. That for me sums up what the Bible means by sin, never mind what the Church thinks about it or what your personal Take is. It is what the Bible says.


(1) there seem to be two different ideas, held at the same time, too - eternal life restored on a devastated earth swept clear by a final Armageddon, or eternal existence either grovelling to God or being tortured in hell forever, and I don't know which of the two is worse.

[POI]

...I trust we would agree that many small children are raped/murdered. ...

If I would know someone is raped/murdered at this moment, I would do something about it.

I would too silly. So Why doesn't God do the same as you and I? Maybe because he is not real, and humans have to merely take care of themselves and each other?

If you know that is happening, why are you not doing anything to prevent it?

I find this question curious? I'm not God. I cannot single-handedly stop all rape/murder, and neither can you. Please ask a real and honest question. You are deflecting now....

Instead of doing anything good you are using your time to foolishly prove that praying doesn't work.

Let's test and see who the 'fool' might be, shall we....?

Which assumption requires more "spin"? A) or B)?

A) God is not present to address human requests
B) He is there, but.........