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....

[TRANSPONDER]

I have one assumption. Because it defeats the reason why we are here on earth.

If we did not need to exist in such a way that God is not evident, then we could just exist in heaven like angels or God would just be here for everyone to know.

Why would this need to be the case?

Because in order for us to really choose God, then God cannot be so evident. Even the disciples who saw Jesus resurrect had reasons to be skeptical. They could have thought, what if this is just a mighty being from some other planet or something?

Even Moses had reasons to wonder if the being he encountered was actually the eternal God.

Ah. That's the one that was waiting in the wings:

"The parameter for getting into heaven is not Works, but Faith. And Faith is not Faith if there is good evidence for the object of it, so God cannot allow himself to be proven but people have to believe without evidence." Close? Cigar?

[AquinasForGod]

I have one assumption. Because it defeats the reason why we are here on earth.

If we did not need to exist in such a way that God is not evident, then we could just exist in heaven like angels or God would just be here for everyone to know.

Why would this need to be the case?

Because in order for us to really choose God, then God cannot be so evident. Even the disciples who saw Jesus resurrect had reasons to be skeptical. They could have thought, what if this is just a mighty being from some other planet or something?

Even Moses had reasons to wonder if the being he encountered was actually the eternal God.

Ah. That's the one that was waiting in the wings:

"The parameter for getting into heaven is not Works, but Faith. And Faith is not Faith if there is good evidence for the object of it, so God cannot allow himself to be proven but people have to believe without evidence." Close? Cigar?

In order to really choose God, yes, however, I would say works are important. Although, Augustine said we cannot earn God's grace, we must walk the best life we can or else there are consequences.

[TRANSPONDER]

I have one assumption. Because it defeats the reason why we are here on earth.

If we did not need to exist in such a way that God is not evident, then we could just exist in heaven like angels or God would just be here for everyone to know.

Why would this need to be the case?

Because in order for us to really choose God, then God cannot be so evident. Even the disciples who saw Jesus resurrect had reasons to be skeptical. They could have thought, what if this is just a mighty being from some other planet or something?

Even Moses had reasons to wonder if the being he encountered was actually the eternal God.

Ah. That's the one that was waiting in the wings:

"The parameter for getting into heaven is not Works, but Faith. And Faith is not Faith if there is good evidence for the object of it, so God cannot allow himself to be proven but people have to believe without evidence." Close? Cigar?

In order to really choose God, yes, however, I would say works are important. Although, Augustine said we cannot earn God's grace, we must walk the best life we can or else there are consequences.

I know; Paul says as much, after (in Romans) fondly imagining that anyone who accepts Jesusfaith will become as plaster saints, incapable of sinning. By Corinthians he was appalled to find out that he was rather mistaken, but instead of realising he was wrong he tried to paper over the cracks in the walls of his collapsed theological edifice. Works could not save, no, but works - bad works - could lose salvation. So much for once saved, always saved. But then the Faithful have always been good at inventing their own dogma to suit themselves. Such as the one that somehow pleasing God by being good (variously interpreted) is presented as the papameter for getting ito heaven, even though they and we know that it is right belief and only right belief, tht makes one fit for heaven. If that were not so, then a Hindu philanthropist would get to heaven and a Churchgoing moneygrubber would be raking coals in the afterlife.

But no, mr Evangelist with his mansion and Learjet will be ok as he is By his Jesusfaith, Forgiven. Does it smell as bad to you as it does to me?

[AquinasForGod]

I have one assumption. Because it defeats the reason why we are here on earth.

If we did not need to exist in such a way that God is not evident, then we could just exist in heaven like angels or God would just be here for everyone to know.

Why would this need to be the case?

Because in order for us to really choose God, then God cannot be so evident. Even the disciples who saw Jesus resurrect had reasons to be skeptical. They could have thought, what if this is just a mighty being from some other planet or something?

Even Moses had reasons to wonder if the being he encountered was actually the eternal God.

Ah. That's the one that was waiting in the wings:

"The parameter for getting into heaven is not Works, but Faith. And Faith is not Faith if there is good evidence for the object of it, so God cannot allow himself to be proven but people have to believe without evidence." Close? Cigar?

In order to really choose God, yes, however, I would say works are important. Although, Augustine said we cannot earn God's grace, we must walk the best life we can or else there are consequences.

I know; Paul says as much, after (in Romans) fondly imagining that anyone who accepts Jesusfaith will become as plaster saints, incapable of sinning. By Corinthians he was appalled to find out that he was rather mistaken, but instead of realising he was wrong he tried to paper over the cracks in the walls of his collapsed theological edifice. Works could not save, no, but works - bad works - could lose salvation. So much for once saved, always saved. But then the Faithful have always been good at inventing their own dogma to suit themselves. Such as the one that somehow pleasing God by being good (variously interpreted) is presented as the papameter for getting ito heaven, even though they and we know that it is right belief and only right belief, tht makes one fit for heaven. If that were not so, then a Hindu philanthropist would get to heaven and a Churchgoing moneygrubber would be raking coals in the afterlife.

But no, mr Evangelist with his mansion and Learjet will be ok as he is By his Jesusfaith, Forgiven. Does it smell as bad to you as it does to me?

To be fair Catholics have never claimed once saved always saved and neither do the scriptures. This was a protestant idea, which comes from abandoning the church understanding that has been handed down from the early church fathers.

[brunumb]

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.

You don't need to choose to believe in your mom because her existence is evident. Does that change how you regard your mom in any way? I really cannot understand why it is so important that we have to choose to believe in something that is unseen for it to be meaningful. As I asked, what difference does it make?

[AquinasForGod]

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.

You don't need to choose to believe in your mom because her existence is evident. Does that change how you regard your mom in any way? I really cannot understand why it is so important that we have to choose to believe in something that is unseen for it to be meaningful. As I asked, what difference does it make?

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

[TRANSPONDER]

I have one assumption. Because it defeats the reason why we are here on earth.

If we did not need to exist in such a way that God is not evident, then we could just exist in heaven like angels or God would just be here for everyone to know.

Why would this need to be the case?

Because in order for us to really choose God, then God cannot be so evident. Even the disciples who saw Jesus resurrect had reasons to be skeptical. They could have thought, what if this is just a mighty being from some other planet or something?

Even Moses had reasons to wonder if the being he encountered was actually the eternal God.

Ah. That's the one that was waiting in the wings:

"The parameter for getting into heaven is not Works, but Faith. And Faith is not Faith if there is good evidence for the object of it, so God cannot allow himself to be proven but people have to believe without evidence." Close? Cigar?

In order to really choose God, yes, however, I would say works are important. Although, Augustine said we cannot earn God's grace, we must walk the best life we can or else there are consequences.

I know; Paul says as much, after (in Romans) fondly imagining that anyone who accepts Jesusfaith will become as plaster saints, incapable of sinning. By Corinthians he was appalled to find out that he was rather mistaken, but instead of realising he was wrong he tried to paper over the cracks in the walls of his collapsed theological edifice. Works could not save, no, but works - bad works - could lose salvation. So much for once saved, always saved. But then the Faithful have always been good at inventing their own dogma to suit themselves. Such as the one that somehow pleasing God by being good (variously interpreted) is presented as the papameter for getting ito heaven, even though they and we know that it is right belief and only right belief, tht makes one fit for heaven. If that were not so, then a Hindu philanthropist would get to heaven and a Churchgoing moneygrubber would be raking coals in the afterlife.

But no, mr Evangelist with his mansion and Learjet will be ok as he is By his Jesusfaith, Forgiven. Does it smell as bad to you as it does to me?

To be fair Catholics have never claimed once saved always saved and neither do the scriptures. This was a protestant idea, which comes from abandoning the church understanding that has been handed down from the early church fathers.

Understood. I just thought I'd blow 'once saved, always saved' out of the water as i zoomed past (1); Paul absolutely scuppers that. Of course, there are those who will dismiss Paul rather than their own dogmatic beliefs.

(1) you can tell I've been watching Grim reapers with a midnight snack.

[brunumb]

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.

You don't need to choose to believe in your mom because her existence is evident. Does that change how you regard your mom in any way? I really cannot understand why it is so important that we have to choose to believe in something that is unseen for it to be meaningful. As I asked, what difference does it make?

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

WHY? You can choose to do good and refrain from evil whether God has revealed himself or not. I must be really thick because I cannot for the life of me see why it makes any difference given that the outcome is good. If a man is going to rape a woman but refrains from going ahead, does the potential victim care why the man refrained? Who cares if he stopped based on what appears to be his own volition or because he chose not to go ahead because God was watching?

[AquinasForGod]

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.

You don't need to choose to believe in your mom because her existence is evident. Does that change how you regard your mom in any way? I really cannot understand why it is so important that we have to choose to believe in something that is unseen for it to be meaningful. As I asked, what difference does it make?

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

WHY? You can choose to do good and refrain from evil whether God has revealed himself or not. I must be really thick because I cannot for the life of me see why it makes any difference given that the outcome is good. If a man is going to rape a woman but refrains from going ahead, does the potential victim care why the man refrained? Who cares if he stopped based on what appears to be his own volition or because he chose not to go ahead because God was watching?

No problem. I can attempt to explain it again.

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

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.

[Inquirer]

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....

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