Joined: May 04, 2006
Posts: 936
Location: The Bible Belt
Posted:
Wed Dec 06, 2006 3:00 am
No, not a shameless plug. I found this website and liked what it had to offer...quite alot of reading actually. I mean, alot.
Anyhow, after reading enough I realized that he was indeed a Christian (wasn't all clear at first) because he doesn't push the typical arguments that you may encounter when addressing theism/atheism. Sure he does address the same issues, but I liked it more...
If it's been posted a billion times - don't reply with "we've all seen this" because i've been linked to skepticsannotatedbible.com a billion times over...
Joined: Jun 28, 2005
Posts: 442
Location: Atlanta GA
Posted:
Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:04 am
I went to the site. Once being a Christian myself I tried to have an open mind. But the very first link shows the problems with his attempts to rebut even the most basic arguments.
Quote:
The Argument from Nonbelief
The Argument from Nonbelef (or, the Argument from Divine Hiddenness) is commonly considered by non-theists to be a persuasive argument against the existence of God. More particularly, the Argument from Nonbelief targets the Christian God, who possesses the characteristics of omnibenevolence and omnipotence. As such, it is critical for Christians to respond to this argument in order to remain justified in belief in God.
How is the Argument Formulated?
It is important to distinguish between two fundamentally different forms of the Argument from Nonbelief. The first type argues from the existence of reasonable nonbelief to the nonexistence of God. This form I will refer to as the Argument from Reasonable Nonbelief (or ARNB). There is a second form of the Argument from Nonbelief which is quite different, as it does not depend on the existence of “reasonable nonbelief.” Please see the second part of this article for Theodore M. Drange’s formulation of the argument (along with my response). However, the ARNB will be considered first, and I will therefore present a version of this argument here.
1. If God exists, He is all-loving, all-powerful, perfectly just, and He wishes for all to know Him personally.
2. If a person has reasonable nonbelief, then they are not given a fair opportunity to know God.
3. If God exists, He has both the power and motive to abolish reasonable nonbelief.
4. Reasonable nonbelief occurs.
5. Therefore, God does not exist.
As preliminary commentary, it should be mentioned that the Argument from Nonbelief only applies to a God that is all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing, perfectly just, and has a wish that others know Him. These qualities happen to be attributes that I believe the Christian God possesses, but any God that does not possess all of the aforementioned qualities is not affected by the Argument from Nonbelief.
In any case, I think two separate refutations of this argument can be formulated.
Reasonable Nonbelief?
The simplest way to avoid the force of this argument is to question premise (4) and claim that reasonable nonbelief does not occur. This is quite offensive towards the atheist (as it basically claims that he/she is unreasonable with regards to the evidence for God’s existence), but it is nevertheless possible that it is true.
Now, it is apparent to me that God’s existence is obvious. I do not feel that God has provided me with too little evidence. If I were to deny that God existed, I would be irrational with regards to what I know.
What should I do when another individual claims that the evidence isn’t obvious to them? Is there any way I can know whether or not the individual is truly reasonable in his nonbelief? Of course not, because I would need to be them in order to understand their thought processes.
So he picks the atheists making the argument as the person who couldn't have reasonable non-belief. But he absolutely ignores the fact that there are people who are born, live and die with no access to the larger world-wide community, who do not just inherently "know" about Jesus Christ and the Christian God.
These people are never exposed to the teachings of Christ and according to the doctrines of most Christians then go straight to hell, simply for never being exposed J.C. and the Soulshine band.
He can't just wave the fact away that these people are not exposed to God. That God of the Christian variety does not seem to be universal at all. If it was such a universal truth as claimed by his followers then people should just spontaneously know. God would not choose to allow the imperfect religious works of man to endanger the souls of the uninformed. He'd create a mechanism whereby each person could reach a state where they would come to know god while still having free will to choose him or not.
That is demonstratively not the case* , and thus the argument for reasonable non-belief is not refuted. Refuting one person's non-belief(the atheist's) does not refute all person's non-belief.
The problem with apologists is their inability, even using tortured logic, to try and refute the very obvious problems with the Christian god concepts Omnibenevolence, Omnipotency, Omnipresence and square them with freewill and the concepts of hell and eternal punishment for finite sins.
*Meaning even in our world culture, individuals can be found who have never even heard the name Jesus Christ.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file