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....

[POI]

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

Let's use your logic here:

Assumption #1: God does exist

Assumption #2: God answers prayers of the righteous, EVEN though the Bible states, in many places, that no one is righteous

Assumption #3: God still does not answer all prayer requests of the righteous, even though a righteous person would only ask God to intervene in a righteous request

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

[1213]

...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.

[1213]

...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.

[1213]

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?

[1213]

.... Do you suppose they didn't pray to God to not be killed and yet they died? ...

Why would my suppositions matter? I thought we need hard evidence for every claim, not just wishful thinking.

Righteous person prays in difficult situation like this:

"My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me; nevertheless, not what I desire, but what you desire."
Matt. 26:39

[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 again ignored virtually everything I have written. Ignoring what I say, and then merely saying 'nuh uh', is not a proper defense in a debate.

Again, this thread is to challenge the believer. And to ask the believer if the "divine hiddenness" argument merits a solid case against belief? I think it does. Your assumption is God exists. My assumption is that the Christian God does not exist. Especially if one is to assert that this God intervenes.

Which assumption carries the much higher burden? It is clearly the one whom assumes He is real. This means you. You made absolutely no attempt in refuting my prior response, as to why you disagree with (post #51). Are you planning on doing so?

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

And now to address what you actually decided to address. The Bible devotes an entire section to the notion that no one is righteous:

Romans 3:9-20 tells the reader that no one is righteous.

Romans 3:21-32 then goes on to tell the reader you need 'faith' in the only deemed 'righteous' being, which is Christ/God. He then offers grace, by way of faith.

So, for argument's sake, let's assume that the Bible means that all believers get a <free-righteousness pass>, via grace. Even though ALL these people will still continue to sin the rest of their earthly lives. Okay...? Many of these folks will pray for the abducted to return home safely. And many/most of these abducted do not return home safely. They are instead later found dead. It's safe to say the 'righteous' person was not praying for them to go to Heaven after they are murdered by their rapist abductor. This means their righteous prayer request went unfulfilled. Is it because:

A) There exists no such God to entertain righteous requests?
B) There does exist such a God to entertain righteous requests, BUT.....?

[TRANSPONDER]

.... Do you suppose they didn't pray to God to not be killed and yet they died? ...

Why would my suppositions matter? I thought we need hard evidence for every claim, not just wishful thinking.

Righteous person prays in difficult situation like this:

"My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me; nevertheless, not what I desire, but what you desire."
Matt. 26:39

Because you were appealing to what I could prove. I had to show an individual Believer in trouble, praying to God to be saved (in this life, not the next) and it not being done. I find it hard to present individual cases and have to suppose that millions of believers who believe that God answers prayers will ask to be saved, and we hear of people who get killed or die in accidents or go doiwn with illness. I have to suppose they prayed to be saved (if they had time for it) and I must ask whether you suppose that, too, and reasonably so as otherwise, you'd have to maintain that Believers in trouble don't pray to be saved, in which case there need be no atheists in foxholes either.

In the Biblequote, you seem to show that you DO suppose people prayed to be saved. The supposition really being that only the one saved when the ship went down was the only one that prayed to be saved. All the rest being totally stubborn atheists in foxholes. Yes? Is that your argument?

[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, every one, because of Adam's disobedience, But we can be saved though Godfaith (righteiusness) which does not make us sinless, but Righteous 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 bad actions (2) .

I hope that is straightened out and the water not muddied by confusing innate sinfulness with unworthiness to be saved which (if that obtained) would render prayer as pointless, because none were worthy of being saved. Evidently (so the Gospels assure us) the sinful man can, through Right 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 best '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 nine years more, plus 5 more years, the way things are going.

(2) not so bad that they can't be got over by some exhibition repentance, where Jesusfaith gets the repentant believer excused. A can of worms best kept closed, like Paul conflating Godfaith with Jesusfaith. Because Godfaith isn't enough.

[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

[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).