Sorry again, Mitchell, I don´t know why this keeps happening!
Depends. This requires the so-called “existential inertia”. Once you exist, nothing keeps you in existence. Problem is from the view of a neo-aristotelian, that this requires the rejection of “essentialism”, basically the claim that the whole is different than the parts, holism instead of reductionism. But even if we meet in the middle, God holds our existence up, while he doesn´t intervene in human affairs, deism would be impossible.
Depends also. Judaism clearly states that God is responsible for both good and evil. I´d also say that the one necessarily requires the other. The statement “A is good” is meaningless if it can´t be contrasted by something evil. Third, I´d say that Gods goodness is analogous. God is good on that view is the same as “God exists”. That´s the view of St.Thomas Aquinas and although it might sound strange at first, this is actually the best way I ever found for grounding something like objective morality, when goodness is equivalent to “being”. An act becomes evil if I prevent you from following what is natural to you. For example: In your natural state you have the actual ability to walk. My action of hurting your legs is thereby objectively evil, since I prevent you from actualizing natural abilities.
Directly in the next passage:
What makes you think that this is analogous to the question if God exists? Were you a Mormon? Because the material deity on another planet is the only equivalent conception I could find. In which way is that comparable from the monotheistic God, who is immaterial, theground of existence and necessary?
Well, that’s an interesting response. Let me turn this argument around, and lets say that I am claiming to have divine powers. What would be a reasonable approach to testing my claim, in your opinion?
Since you can’t know what every single person who has ever lived or currently lives experiences, perhaps I can claim to be able to answer prayers and grant people their wishes. After all, this claim cannot be tested based on the premise that you (or I) can’t possibly know what every single person experiences.
I believe Bible claims are false for the same reason you would claim my claim is false.
Lets take a specific promise of Jesus.
John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
Here Jesus is making several promises that can easily be tested. If you ask Jesus to heal amputees or Down’s syndrome, you will find that no healing will take place. Which is the same thing that would happen if you ask ME to heal amputees or Down’s syndrome. If this test is not sufficient to test a claim, then I’d be curious about your methodology to test this.
Of course, we can’t really test Deism claims, because Deism pretty much agrees that God is not detectable today. But we can certainly test prayer answering claims of personal Gods.
Maybe there’s something I’m not getting but even if the universe could be said to have only a minute chance of existing we still can’t explore those cases because we live in the case where the Universe DOES exist.
As an atheist I can say that my reason for not being a believer is simply lack of evidence in support. I can think of arguments like the problem of evil, but if I apply simple skepticism where any claim has a burden of proof then I simply don’t see sufficient evidence to warrant such a belief. So the argument I see as the strongest is divine hiddenness; If there is a god that wants us to know he exists why is the evidence lacking?
2 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
112
Physicalism is not atheist as it does not logically start from theism. Theism cannot touch it. Claim equality with it. Let alone superiority to it. It can only come begging alongside in its shadow. Its appeal, if any, is from there. In humility. In yearning. In Jesus.
Atheism from theism is far more fraught. It is an inevitable consequence of deconstruction and almost impossible to reconstruct theism from without cognitive bias like Thomism and related fallacies. If at all. Its only honest reconstruction is in yearning, submission, choice; the leap of faith. In the last thing let out of Pandora’s box.
The best atheist objection to theism is that there is no evidence for it. No requirement. It explains nothing at all, nothing that rationalism beyond empiricism doesn’t, at infinitely greater cost. The only theist claim worth the candle is Jesus. And He can only be believed in by faith.
Maybe we have to want to know him, and have to humble ourselves to his terms.
But then he DOESN’T want me to know he exists. What you are saying is that you are supposed to believe FIRST and then let confirmation bias do the rest. I think we can all agree that that is a terrible idea for every other proposed claim in the world. I wouldn’t need some undeniable proof to believe. Just the same amount reasonable evidence that anyone would ask for any claim lest they be called gullible. So the problem remains, if there is a god and I can’t find sufficient evidence then I’m not SUPPOSED to believe. That is the point.
There is a difference between having enough evidence and accepting that evidence and coming to know him.
Sure. I don’t have enough evidence. If what you can find is good enough for you that is fine. It is not enough for me (and I would argue it should not be for you either but that is not the point). A god should be able to provide better evidence but has chosen not to.
The only point is that you have a few options in an exhaustive list of possibilities.
A - a god exists or B - a god does not exist
A1 - the god that exists is limited and cannot provide better evidence than what we have
or
A2 - the god that exists CAN provide better evidence
A2x - the potent god that exists will provide better evidence at some point
A2y - the potent god that exists will NOT provide better evidence.
I cannot distinguish between A1, A2x, A2y or B. And since I don’t have evidence that any god is even possible I will tentatively stick to B or at least not yet accept any A… proposition. What I know is that option A2z is not possible - the potent god that exists HAS provided evidence that is good enough for anyone. That is evidenced by the mere fact that I do not believe. This is why some apologists will jump straight into claiming mind reading skills and say that we are simply in denial. I’m new here but I hope you are better than that in these forums.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
124
Done that. No self deception detected. In this regard. I wish I could deceive myself, in to permanent unquestioning faith. But that’s not real faith is it? Not the substance of things hoped for? The behaviour.
If you can detect my self deception, please report.
A2y, otherwise, He would not have created a world of free agents, but a world of slaves or automatons. Not unlike the various “life” computer simulations people entertained themselves with in the 80s. (I remember coding my own as a pre-teen. Have half a feeling Dawkins inspired that? I do remember reading the Selfish Gene around then.)
A2y? Ok. Now you are just left with the tasks of demonstrating that we have some agency that resides somewhere separate from the brain AND demonstrating that better evidence would somehow change that. And your opinion about what is real does nothing to the main point. The A2y god does not WANT me to know (and really doesn’t want anyone to know since the belief could not possibly rise to the level of being a fact that can be claimed to be known).
Just for the fun of it, I do not provide evidence to prove or demonstrate the existence of a god, and I am fine with that. My question is, are you fine with that? I gather you are an atheist - so I am amused by the display of enthusiasm regarding … what?
We all have confirmation bias in accord with our worldviews.