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]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #160]

I would consider it irrational to automatically attribute a feeling of great peace and comfort and understanding to a god. A bit more convincing would be if he appeared magically and proclaimed "Hey, it's me, God". Why the ridiculous subtleness of 'feelings' that can be the consequence of any number of more mundane causes?

[TRANSPONDER]

quote=AquinasForGod post_id=1095836 time=1666067442 user_id=16526]

And what is wrong with wanting something to be true? And a theist could easily claim that an atheist disbelieves because they desire God not be true because if God be true they are responsible for all their actions in the the afterlife. Maybe the idea of living forever scared the hell out of them.

It becomes problematic when one believes something is true because they want it to be true. Wishful thinking. That path leads to anything and everything being on the table for belief as true. An utter waste of time. The same applies to the absurd notion that someone disbelieving in God would somehow render God non-existent so that everything will be hunky-dory. As an atheist I would prefer there to be a benevolent God granting an afterlife of bliss and happiness. I can't believe in God because there is nothing compelling, as far as I am concerned, to indicate that to be the case. I take full responsibility for my actions here and now.

So if you would prefer God to be true, then you are an example it not being bad to want something to be true. Just because we want something to be true doesn't mean we will necessarily believe it is true. Now, I do not want it to be true God exists because I am convinced God is real. I can not want God to be real any more than I want my mom to be real.

At least, it seems to me, if you are convinced of something then you don't think about wanting it to be the case because you feel it is the case.

I agree that you being atheist probably follows from your experiences with the world. Suppose, though, that God came to you, not in some visible way, but you experience this great peace and comfort, understanding, and something you just cannot put into words. You just understand this is God. The experience is beyond comprehension and words. If you still rejected God completely, I would no longer think you were being rational.
[/quote]

.You are taking a heck of a lot for granted. Arguably, believing something to be true for some reason other than convincing evidence (feeling Good about it OR Believing it is not good evidence) does rather amount to wishful thinking when you proffer the God -claim, no?

And the problem with the peace and great comfort is that it can come in various ways, like Allah, Shiva or Buddha. I am sure you won't take it for granted that their god -feelings are invalid while yours are true. Unless you concede that this is generic or sorta -god -feelings or experience (aside that it might just be human emotions) and insist that it is a particular god, you are the one 'rejecting God (whichever it might be) completely. Atheists don't make that mistake.

[TRANSPONDER]

sorry, while correcting a typo it came up as a duplicate post.[

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #162]

And the problem with the peace and great comfort is that it can come in various ways, like Allah, Shiva or Buddha. I am sure you won't take it for granted that their god -feelings are invalid while yours are true. Unless you concede that this is generic or sorta -god -feelings or experience (aside that it might just be human emotions) and insist that it is a particular god, you are the one 'rejecting God (whichever it might be) completely. Atheists don't make that mistake.

I only believe there can possibly be one God, for which I explained earlier from metaphysics.

The one God can grace whoever he wishes. We cannot earn grace by being part of a particular religion. You can be an atheist and experience God, or Buddhist or Hindu, etc. A Hindy might feel inclined to attributing this to Shiva or Krishna. Unless the experience is specific, such as he shows you he died and resurrected, then you are probably going to attribute it to your understanding of God.

To mistake it for emotions, no. Only someone who never had such an experience would make that mistake.

[POI]

This sounds like you believe you have something new to offer me that I have not heard many times before, or that it gives me pause for thought, and I go, hmm, maybe God is not real. I can assure you, none of that is true. I just want to be sure we are on the same page here.

No. What my response "sounds like," was a response to your prior response, where you stated "I do not agree with your interpretation of the bible, so it should not be used as some counter. I would have to accept your understanding before it would be important.".

'Bible interpretation' has little to do with much of it...

And to answer your statement here... Two interlocutors, exchanging in a debate, will hardly ever change their position. This is for the ones reading along.

I do not agree. It is not just like Russel's Teapot because Russel said the teapot was tiny and not that it was metaphysical, thus in principle we could scientifically discover said teapot. However, with God, who is metaphysical, we can never discover God via any scientific methodology any more than we could discover plastic hidden in the sand if our method was to use a metal detector.

Even better. Thank you. So you admit you have even more carte blanch than I gave you credit for -- to say whatever you want; because the 'metaphysical' is not falsifiable?

We would need to see what is the best method to try to determine if metaphysical things like God exist. For this, I would turn to philosophy.

LOL! Do tell? Philosophy is almost as old as religion itself, and I see that virtually nothing has been solved using philosophy alone.

We must not agree on what it means to choose. If I am riding my bike down a trail, and before me I see two paths I can take. One path looks scary and dangerous. The other path doesn't look so scary and dangerous. I must make a choice to either do nothing, take the left or right path, take neither path and instead go back from where I came, etc. It doesn't matter if I have evidence that one path seems safer than the other. I am still making a choice.

So choices deal with actions. We do not choose beliefs when we are convinced of something. If I am convinced the earth is round, then I did not choose to believe it is round. I was convinced it is round. If I have no beliefs about ghosts, and some evidence comes my way but it is not enough to convince me ghosts exist, then I can choose to believe in ghosts or not because I am not convinced either way. I can use my ability to reason and go, hmm, I think this evidence leans more toward the idea of ghosts existing, so I choose to believe in ghosts until more evidence comes to me.

In my ghost example, it is not the case that I would be choosing to protect a belief because before the experience I did not believe in ghosts. If I were to protect any belief, it would be in my lack of belief in ghosts.

We do not agree because it would appear you are speaking about apples, while I speak about oranges. Belief itself is not a choice. If I ask you to believe in Odin, can you simply choose to believe it? NO. If a terrorist holds a gun to your head, and tells you to believe in his god, can you will that belief? NO. So my stance remains. If belief is not a choice, then your position is wrong. You cannot choose your belief.

Define what you mean by faith. And what is wrong with wanting something to be true? And a theist could easily claim that an atheist disbelieves because they desire God not be true because if God be true they are responsible for all their actions in the the afterlife. Maybe the idea of living forever scared the hell out of them.

Sure, 'faith' can be used differently in multiple contexts. In this case, you hope it's true. (Faith) can be interchanged with (hope). The amount of hope you have can vary from case to case, and can be applied to just about anything. Thus, faith is not very useful in a discussion.

I am not sure, but I am also not sure I said they have some doubt, but rather that they have reasons to doubt.

Well, this is what you said:

"It is about us overcoming all manners of evil, which can only be done if we doubt God's existence."

So you can only overcome 'evil' if you possess doubt? Does God save doubters? Couldn't an atheist be a doubter?

Maybe because the claim that it has the least baggage is incorrect. I did say it is possible God doesn't exist, but divine hiddenness doesn't convince me he doesn't.

Please allow me to elaborate:

- God does not manifest in our reality, because he does not exist.
- God wants a relationship with His creation, but does not because he does not exist.
- God wants you to know He even exists, but doesn't, because he does not exist.
- God knows what would convince anyone/everyone that He exists, but doesn't, because he does not exist.
- God is capable of doing such convincing, but doesn't, because he does not exist.
- God is reported to intervene with His creation, but does not intervene for me, because he does not exist.

"God does not exist' is the one and only assumption for all statements above.

But, if you answer (yes) to all the prior questions below, then the additional assumptions begin (i.e.):

- 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)

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

Your counter argument, about his will, does not logically follow the above answered (yes) questions Hence, the additional assumptions necessary to make your argument fit. Yours requires mental gymnastics, as demonstrated in the bottom of post 152 alone.

It was not a threatening claim. Did you take it that way?

Nope. Empty threats are not very scary. But I noticed you ignored what I said. Your claim is baseless, right?

It can be preferred, but not a necessity.

No need to pick the convoluted path, when the one with the least amount of assumption answers all the questions more consistently.

Maybe you can demonstrate how that is the case?

I already did that. The bottom of post 152...

You: Goes does not reveal himself because he does not exist.
Me: God does not reveal himself (to all) because it is not in his will.

Your response requires more "buts"... See the bottom of post 152.

You seem to want to better understand his will, thus the explanations, but those explanations are not additional assumptions. They are to explain the one assumption I just stated.

Concerning just the existence of God, if we wish to call it an assumption, then I assume God is and you assume God isn't.

"God does not exist" is the one and only assumption. Yours requires more.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #165]

I am not going to respond to all this because at some point we will agree to disagree. But there are some things worth addressing.

Even better. Thank you. So you admit you have even more carte blanch than I gave you credit for -- to say whatever you want; because the 'metaphysical' is not falsifiable?

No, there must still be some reasons why we say what we say, such as metaphysical arguments, which I find most atheists lack for their world views.

LOL! Do tell? Philosophy is almost as old as religion itself, and I see that virtually nothing has been solved using philosophy alone.

If you have a better method, I am open to it.

We do not agree because it would appear you are speaking about apples, while I speak about oranges. Belief itself is not a choice. If I ask you to believe in Odin, can you simply choose to believe it? NO. If a terrorist holds a gun to your head, and tells you to believe in his god, can you will that belief? NO. So my stance remains. If belief is not a choice, then your position is wrong. You cannot choose your belief.

I have already granted that we do not choose beliefs in this sense, but we can choose to believe something in the sense I gave of the ghosts. If I have no beliefs in ghosts, then an experience makes me wonder if ghosts are real, but it is not enough to convince me of their existence, then I could choose to belive they exist on the grounds of the evidence seems to be more in favor of. I think this comes down to our epistemologies, though. I have a feeling we probably do not agree on exactly what belief is and how it comes to be.

Well, this is what you said:

"It is about us overcoming all manners of evil, which can only be done if we doubt God's existence."

I misspoke then.

So you can only overcome 'evil' if you possess doubt? Does God save doubters? Couldn't an atheist be a doubter?

Yes, God saves doubters. He saved Paul an unbeliever. Someone calling themselves an atheist could be a doubter, but to be saved he must put faith in the grace of God, which he doesn't.

- God does not manifest in our reality, because he does not exist.
- God wants a relationship with His creation, but does not because he does not exist.
- God wants you to know He even exists, but doesn't, because he does not exist.
- God knows what would convince anyone/everyone that He exists, but doesn't, because he does not exist.
- God is capable of doing such convincing, but doesn't, because he does not exist.
- God is reported to intervene with His creation, but does not intervene for me, because he does not exist.

- God does not manifest in our reality, because he does not will to.
- God wants a relationship with His creation, and does so because he wills to. (You are who rejects his relationship)
- God wants you to know He even exists, but doesn't show everyone because he doesn't will to.
- God knows what would convince anyone/everyone that He exists, but doesn't, because he doesn't will to.
- God is capable of doing such convincing, but doesn't, because he does not will to.
- God is reported to intervene with His creation, but does not intervene for me, because he does not will to.

It seems we are both making one assumption.

[POI]

(YOU) No, there must still be some reasons why we say what we say, such as metaphysical arguments, which I find most atheists lack for their world views.

(ME) Well, so far, you believe "ancient book". Meaning, (paraphrased), where the book tells the reader that "some day everyone will know he exists". So far, this is the only "reason" I see for you to say what you said here. And like I stated prior, if the 'metaphysical' cannot be falsified, then you get to make all sorts of theistic claims, like you continue to do; and all I can do is roll my eyes. Just like you would do, if someone on the street corner was making opposing claims, about a differing 'metaphysical agency' to you.

But yea, go ahead and tell us 'atheists' how we "lack metaphysical arguments" If you admit they cannot be falsified, why even BOTHER with them?

(YOU) If you have a better method, I am open to it.

(ME) So, you too, admit philosophy solves none of these issues, on it's own?

(YOU) I have already granted that we do not choose beliefs

(ME) Great, then we agree that if you cannot choose your belief, then your argument is wrong.

(YOU) I misspoke then.

(ME) Is doubt necessary? Yes or no? If yes, we've got problem(s), as it relates to how the Bible states you are saved. If no, we've got problem(s), as they relate to the topic of divine hiddenness.

(YOU) Yes, God saves doubters. He saved Paul an unbeliever.

(ME) Hmm... Your response does not follow. Saul was an unbeliever. But Paul was a believer. In keeping in line with the topic, God revealed himself to Saul/Paul. Which, in turn, made him a believer. Saul would not have been saved, but Paul was. And as you already alluded to prior, your works will not earn you grace.

Thus far, all your arguments represents, is that God must reveal himself to some, so they believe. And then he saves them.

FYI: I was raised Catholic, then later became a protestant. I tried my best for 30+ years, but never felt God's presence. My conclusion is that God must not be there listening. Simply logic.

So, I ask again, does God save doubters? How do you know?

(YOU) Someone calling themselves an atheist could be a doubter, but to be saved he must put faith in the grace of God, which he doesn't.

(ME) So a doubter cannot be saved? If so, why reveal himself to some, and sometimes never to others? If your works cannot earn you grace, then all you have is the belief that he is even real. And then, you still have a choice to follow or rebel. So I ask again, WHY NOT REVEAL HIMSELF TO ALL? Especially when they ask for revelation?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?

(YOU) It seems we are both making one assumption.

(ME) False: "god does not exist" and 'he exists' is one assumption. But to answer the questions, you need more assumptions. Case/point:

AquinasForGod

- God does not manifest in our reality, because (he exists, but).....
- God wants a relationship with His creation, but does not because (he exists. but).....
- God wants you to know He even exists, but doesn't, because (he exists, but...).
- God knows what would convince anyone/everyone that He exists, but doesn't, because (he exists, but...).
- God is capable of doing such convincing, but doesn't, because (he exists, but...).
- God is reported to intervene with His creation, but does not intervene for me, because (he exists, but...).

POI

- God does not manifest in our reality, because (he does not exist). PERIOD
- God wants a relationship with His creation, but does not because (he does not exist). PERIOD
- God wants you to know He even exists, but doesn't, because (he does not exist). PERIOD
- God knows what would convince anyone/everyone that He exists, but doesn't, because (he does not exist). PERIOD
- God is capable of doing such convincing, but doesn't, because (he does not exist). PERIOD
- God is reported to intervene with His creation, but does not intervene for me, because (he does not exist). PERIOD

[JoeyKnothead]

This sounds like you believe you have something new to offer me that I have not heard many times before, or that it gives me pause for thought, and I go, hmm, maybe God is not real. I can assure you, none of that is true. I just want to be sure we are on the same page here.

No. What my response "sounds like," was a response to your prior response, where you stated "I do not agree with your interpretation of the bible, so it should not be used as some counter. I would have to accept your understanding before it would be important.".

'Bible interpretation' has little to do with much of it...

And to answer your statement here... Two interlocutors, exchanging in a debate, will hardly ever change their position. This is for the ones reading along.

And when I read along, I was reminded of a dude who once said, with his mouth, outloud, "I've learned all I need to know."

When you declare you won't be taught, well how 'bout that.

[POI]

Attention"Aquinasforgod"... Are you planning on responding to post 167?

[TRANSPONDER]

This sounds like you believe you have something new to offer me that I have not heard many times before, or that it gives me pause for thought, and I go, hmm, maybe God is not real. I can assure you, none of that is true. I just want to be sure we are on the same page here.

No. What my response "sounds like," was a response to your prior response, where you stated "I do not agree with your interpretation of the bible, so it should not be used as some counter. I would have to accept your understanding before it would be important.".

'Bible interpretation' has little to do with much of it...

And to answer your statement here... Two interlocutors, exchanging in a debate, will hardly ever change their position. This is for the ones reading along.

And when I read along, I was reminded of a dude who once said, with his mouth, outloud, "I've learned all I need to know."

When you declare you won't be taught, well how 'bout that.

I agree with the point "Two interlocutors, exchanging in a debate, will hardly ever change their position. This is for the ones reading along." A for G Could have claimed a draw (which is a win for Theistic credibility) but he observed, correctly, that the two sides will not usually shift their position, which does not (of course) mean that they made equally good cases. I'm reminded of the Hamm Nye debate and the memorable end where both maintained their position, even though Nye had destroyed Hamm's case before Ken Hamm even made it. It was of course down to the watchers to decide who made the best case, or of course to go into denial. All we can do is our best case and leave it to the popcorn gallery.