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....

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #167]

It is not an additional assumption because God must exist in order for God to mostly hide himself. The question itself already grants God's existence.

Why does God remain mostly hidden?

The question is about if God exist, thus assumes his existence.

The answer is one assumption because he wills it.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #167]

It is not an additional assumption because God must exist in order for God to mostly hide himself. The question itself already grants God's existence.

Why does God remain mostly hidden?

The question is about if God exist, thus assumes his existence.

The answer is one assumption because he wills it.

Very neat, but that is actually a sophistry, because the unbeliever apologetic is no more saying that God must exist because he is hidden than God must exist because he is evil; the apologetic is actually that the better explanation (that is more logical because it multiplies less logical entities) is that God does not exist, that is, a god that interacts with us here and a god that is perfect and Good, respectively. There may be a deistgod somewhere, but that is a different debate. This one is 'is there any good evidence- based and logical reason to believe in any god - claim, name which one you have in mind' (1). So all the apologetics from Anselm's ontological arguments to Bible reliability have failed, and not just because atheists reject all the arguments but because they are not good, evidentially or logically.

(1) is is not valid nor intellectually honest to demand, as some Theist apologists do, that the atheist tell the theist what they mean by 'God'.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #172]

So all the apologetics from Anselm's ontological arguments to Bible reliability have failed, and not just because atheists reject all the arguments but because they are not good, evidentially or logically.

This is not agreed upon. Are you saying all atheists and agnostic philosophers say that all arguments for God are illogical?

Because I can point you to the agnostic philosopher Joe Schmid who says it is a wash, which is why he is agnostic and not an atheist. By wash, I mean he says arguments on either side do not persuade him one way or the other. Of course, he is very familiar with all the arguments, like divine hiddenness problem of evil, etc.

When you say arguments for God have failed, what do you mean exactly? Do you mean they are not logically valid? Do you mean they are not logically sound and can you prove the contrary that that cannot be sound? Or do you simply mean they do not convince you?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to POI in post #167]

It is not an additional assumption because God must exist in order for God to mostly hide himself. The question itself already grants God's existence.

Why does God remain mostly hidden?

The question is about if God exist, thus assumes his existence.

The answer is one assumption because he wills it.

Mostly hidden?

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

There ain't been no better hiding since that time I stole pretty thing's apple pie she'd made for her that thing there she went to.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #172]

So all the apologetics from Anselm's ontological arguments to Bible reliability have failed, and not just because atheists reject all the arguments but because they are not good, evidentially or logically.

This is not agreed upon. Are you saying all atheists and agnostic philosophers say that all arguments for God are illogical?

Because I can point you to the agnostic philosopher Joe Schmid who says it is a wash, which is why he is agnostic and not an atheist. By wash, I mean he says arguments on either side do not persuade him one way or the other. Of course, he is very familiar with all the arguments, like divine hiddenness problem of evil, etc.

When you say arguments for God have failed, what do you mean exactly? Do you mean they are not logically valid? Do you mean they are not logically sound and can you prove the contrary that that cannot be sound? Or do you simply mean they do not convince you?

Haven't you have enough of misrepresenting arguments? No? I don't say what this or that person says, just that the theistic arguments are unsound, because they don't have the evidence nor the logic, because they are based on Godfaith. Even there of course they can make incidental valid points, but broadly and at bottom, they do not have an overall valid argument.

I'm anticipating a claim that a theistic argument can have a valid logical structure. But a valid logical structure can fail if the premise is unsound - as is a priori godfaith.

Now Kalam, despite argument by skeptics has some merit. It seems to me that at least it is a credible default that the universe /Cosmos had a cause. But that's as far as it goes; Kalam despite the term 'God' or even Intelligent creator' not appearing, that is what it is intended to validate. But it doesn't; it at best makes a credible case for a necessary start to it all, but nobody knows what that was.

That's the best I can think of and all the others are less valid than that and more dependent on Godfaith, including anything by Anselm.

Incidentally, if you wanted to post some god -support by Joe Schmidt or anyone else rather than declare that he is supporting the god -claim somehow, I'm sure we'd all be willing to consider it. One thing I've learned to not do is take any theist claim at face value.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #175]

Even there of course they can make incidental valid points, but broadly and at bottom, they do not have an overall valid argument.

We can easily test this right now. Valid arguments are not necessarily sound arguments. A valid argument means that IF the premises are true the conclusion must be true. A sound argument is that the premises are true and the conclusion is true. Maybe you just used the wrong word here, maybe you meant that they have no sound arguments.

There are valid arguments for God, though, such as William Craigs Kalam argument.

Now Kalam, despite argument by skeptics has some merit. It seems to me that at least it is a credible default that the universe /Cosmos had a cause. But that's as far as it goes; Kalam despite the term 'God' or even Intelligent creator' not appearing, that is what it is intended to validate. But it doesn't; it at best makes a credible case for a necessary start to it all, but nobody knows what that was.

It is a valid argument. If the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. The only way to get out of this argument is to claim one of the premises is not true. This is rather easy to do. Why should you accept the universe has a beginning? You could appeal to an eternal multiverse like Sean Carrol often does.

You cannot get out of the Aristotelean argument in that same way, though, as it works regardless if the universe has a beginning or not because it argues from the nature of change itself.

That's the best I can think of and all the others are less valid than that and more dependent on Godfaith, including anything by Anselm.

Most every single argument proposed by professional philosophers are valid. They would be laughed at if they couldn't in the very least present a valid argument. Atheist and agnostic philosophers do not think the arguments for God are sound, otherwise they would probably be thests.

This is a very good video to watch starring Joe Schmid, who is an agnostic philosopher. He is not a theist. I just want to make that clear. -

The 3 biggest mistakes that atheists make.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou6hi-r6GlM

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #176]

And just to be clear, in that video Joe (agnostic not a theist) goes into mistakes atheists make about theism.

For example at https://youtu.be/Ou6hi-r6GlM?t=537 that time-stamped link, Joe says that

The claim there is no evidence for theism or for God's existence is quite implausible... very implausible. ... There do seem to be things that are much more expected on theism than on the relative alternatives, let's say naturalism.

The example he goes on to give is free-conscious moral agents.

BTW he argues for naturalism. He argues against the soundness of different theists' arguments. He just likes to take positions and argue for them as well.

He is a very intelligent dude that theists, atheists and agnostics can learn from.

[POI]

I'm still not seeing a response for post 167?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #167]

It is not an additional assumption because God must exist in order for God to mostly hide himself. The question itself already grants God's existence.

Why does God remain mostly hidden?

The question is about if God exist, thus assumes his existence.

The answer is one assumption because he wills it.

Yes, it is additional assumptions. Many additional assumptions... Allow me to demonstrate. My one and only response is that (he does not exist). But yours, well.....

Below is a list of statements, which would require the theist to answer (YES). If YES is the answer, then 'he wills it' alone does not follow. You need 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)

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

Now let's explore:

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

AquinasForGod

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

Notice that this response alone required follow-up, or, more assumption(s)/explanation/rationalization/other.

So, can we go back to the OP arguments here? Or, do you have a better one to add to the list?(i.e.):

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?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #175]

Even there of course they can make incidental valid points, but broadly and at bottom, they do not have an overall valid argument.

We can easily test this right now. Valid arguments are not necessarily sound arguments. A valid argument means that IF the premises are true the conclusion must be true. A sound argument is that the premises are true and the conclusion is true. Maybe you just used the wrong word here, maybe you meant that they have no sound arguments.

There are valid arguments for God, though, such as William Craigs Kalam argument.

Now Kalam, despite argument by skeptics has some merit. It seems to me that at least it is a credible default that the universe /Cosmos had a cause. But that's as far as it goes; Kalam despite the term 'God' or even Intelligent creator' not appearing, that is what it is intended to validate. But it doesn't; it at best makes a credible case for a necessary start to it all, but nobody knows what that was.

It is a valid argument. If the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. The only way to get out of this argument is to claim one of the premises is not true. This is rather easy to do. Why should you accept the universe has a beginning? You could appeal to an eternal multiverse like Sean Carrol often does.

You cannot get out of the Aristotelean argument in that same way, though, as it works regardless if the universe has a beginning or not because it argues from the nature of change itself.

That's the best I can think of and all the others are less valid than that and more dependent on Godfaith, including anything by Anselm.

Most every single argument proposed by professional philosophers are valid. They would be laughed at if they couldn't in the very least present a valid argument. Atheist and agnostic philosophers do not think the arguments for God are sound, otherwise they would probably be thests.

This is a very good video to watch starring Joe Schmid, who is an agnostic philosopher. He is not a theist. I just want to make that clear. -

The 3 biggest mistakes that atheists make.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou6hi-r6GlM

Just in case you never read or at least remembered. anything I have posted, I have never denied that that Cosmic Origins (or 'Kalam' for some reason nobody has explained) is the best case Theism has. But even if the premises are true, such as experience tells us that everything has a cause, we can't be sure that cause was deliberate, which is to say, intelligently designed. So 'God' is a false premise, based on a fathbased assumption. Experience or what we are used to seeing isn't always what we find, as science has shown us many times. I agree that an act of will (intelligence) is less counter -intuitive than a natural start, but we just don't know, so what we don't know cannot be a valid parameter for your case. It's the old fallacy of the Theists having to claim that anything other than their hypothesis is 'impossible'. And even if you could validate an intelligent designer to start off the stuff from which the BB was made, you still have some validating work to do to get to 'God' which both you and I know is not just a deist -deity to you (though I could be wrong ). Kalam (and Aristotle) does your case no more good than Lane Craig and Anselm...


Look..... ...I found that video tiresome, but just a dip into his misunderstood and back to front argument against naturalism shows that he understands nothing logically and I would be doing him a favor by saying it was Godfaith doing it rather than foolishness. It's just Three mistakes and if you would care to take the time to just post what they are, I'll deal with them.