Nonbelief Atheistic Argument [Archive]

Ishmael

February 27th 2003, 11:46 AM

02-27-2003 @ 09:17 AM
Pate:
I don't think that this premiss is true. There may very well be reasonable nonbelief even if a perfectly loving God exists.

True, but God is further defined as one who:

1) perfectly loves all of mankind
John 3
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

(This being the definitive Christian Theist proof of God's perfect love.)

AND

2) desires (commands actually implying desire) that all men love him and should not perish.

Matthew 22
37Jesus said to him, ""You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'[1] 38This is the first and great commandment.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,[3:9 NU-Text reads [you.] ] not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Perhaps it could be argued that in every person's life, there must be a point at which the reasonable course of action is to become a believer and leave the nonbelief. But having reasonable nonbelief at some point of one's life is not something that God absolutely could not allow.

If reasonable nonbelief is possible then man cannot be culpable for nonbelief. And yet the Bible threatens the "unbeliever" with eternal consequences. Therefore, God is not perfectly loving; therefore, God( at least as you have defined him) does not exist.

There also is the problem that we have very little basis to claim to know, whether or not nonbelief is reasonable in certain circumstances.

I don't believe in God based on what I observe. I make a decision for nonbelief based on reasonable evidence. Therefore, my nonbelief is reasonable given the circumstances of God's obvious silence and hidden ness.

How would the fallenness of man relate to this?

Good question. But its a rabbit I don't care to chase.

What about God's foreknowledge? If God knows that some person would not become a believer even if He would make it clear to this person that nonbelief is not reasonable, is there anything wrong in God's not making this clear to him?

A "perfectly loving" God would. But there is no such God since it is possible to die in nonbelief.

Ishmael

February 27th 2003, 11:51 AM

02-27-2003 @ 09:45 AM
Pilgrim:

There is also a problem with our concept of "perfectly loving." What does that mean exactly. It would be fair to say that we may be replacing the divine concept of what perfectly loving is with our own, fallen one.

Would it be fair to assume that God is perfectly loving "more" than human persons can reasonably define "perfectly loving"?

God = perfectly loving + ??

Ishmael

February 27th 2003, 11:52 AM

02-27-2003 @ 09:45 AM
J. J. Ramsey:

How is this a fault in your estimation?

The basic problem is it assumes that God would not have some humanly unknowable reasons for allowing reasonable nonbelief.

Why would a perfectly loving God who...

...is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance...

...allow some people to die in nonbelief and go to Hell?

It's a contradcition.

Ryokan

February 27th 2003, 12:02 PM

If men are rational creatures, and it is reasonable for men to believe in God, and unreasonable not to, then why don't people? Like me, for instance.

Pilgrim

February 27th 2003, 12:09 PM

02-27-2003 @ 10:52 AM
Calvinist:

Why would a perfectly loving God who...

...is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance...

...allow some people to die in nonbelief and go to Hell?

It's a contradcition.

Only if you are a strickt inerrantist.

Pilgrim

February 27th 2003, 12:11 PM

02-27-2003 @ 10:51 AM
Calvinist:

Would it be fair to assume that God is perfectly loving "more" than human persons can reasonably define "perfectly loving"?

God = perfectly loving + ??

I don't think so because your are still using our definition as the starting point and simply extending a line outward from there to God. The divine understanding should be the starging point and the true definition.

So maybe: human = perfectly loving - ?

Ishmael

February 27th 2003, 12:12 PM

02-27-2003 @ 10:09 AM
Pilgrim:

Only if you are a strickt inerrantist.

I am simply trying to deal with the ordinary language of the text.

Do you mean that not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance does not mean not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance ?

What does it mean then?

Ishmael

February 27th 2003, 12:15 PM

02-27-2003 @ 10:11 AM
Pilgrim:

I don't think so because your are still using our definition as the starting point and simply extending a line outward from there to God. The divine understanding should be the starging point and the true definition.

So maybe: human = perfectly loving - ?

So then, how am I to understand Divine "perfect love" as opposed to human "perfect love"?

How does this justify culpabity in nonbelief when God obviously keeps himself hidden and silent?

I fail to see the connection.

Pilgrim

February 27th 2003, 12:40 PM

The idea is that you are evaluatin God from a purley human sentiment with out considering that there might be more to it than our understading.

I guess my point is that the issues is to ambigous for such a cut and try proof or therum.

I would also take exception with the idea that God "obviously keeps himself silent and hidden." I'm not sure that it is so obvious especially with close to 6000 years of history that records Gods "alleged" interaction with human kind.

Ishmael

February 27th 2003, 12:49 PM

02-27-2003 @ 10:40 AM
Pilgrim:
The idea is that you are evaluatin God from a purley human sentiment with out considering that there might be more to it than our understading.

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that I perfectly understand God's "perfect love" for humanity. Given that, would you say that this sentence is true:

If God were to exist, then he would have great love for humanity and a strong desire that humanity love him in return.

I guess my point is that the issues is to ambigous for such a cut and try proof or therum.

I don't think it's ambiguous at all.

I would also take exception with the idea that God "obviously keeps himself silent and hidden." I'm not sure that it is so obvious especially with close to 6000 years of history that records Gods "alleged" interaction with human kind.

What evidence has God given to reveal himself?

That there are people who do not believe proved IMO that God has not revealed himself enough.

How much is enough and how much is too much?

Theists claim that on the one hand God has revealed himself in nature and history and yet make the counter claim that for God to reveal himself overtly would somehow violate "free will"; therefore, negating the value of our belief in this same God.

Pilgrim

February 27th 2003, 12:59 PM

I wonder if we are talking about god or the "Christian" god specifically?

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that I perfectly understand God's "perfect love" for humanity. Given that, would you say that this sentence is true:

If God were to exist, then he would have great love for humanity and a strong desire that humanity love him in return.

Hmm, I couldn't say because I don't know if you can be trusted to report correctly on what you understand. However, if you did have perfect understanding of God (though how would you prove it?) and you stated that sentance to be correct and you were infact being truthful, then yes, it would be correct.

I say it is ambiguous because the proof does not allow for the possability that our perception may be flawed.

As far as eveidence, Plato argued that God must exist if for no other reason than that he is so talked about.

But I also wonder if you are talking about god in general or the Christian God specifically?

Ishmael

February 27th 2003, 01:10 PM

02-27-2003 @ 10:59 AM
Pilgrim:
I wonder if we are talking about god or the "Christian" god specifically?

I am mostly thinking about the Christian concept of God.

Hmm, I couldn't say because I don't know if you can be trusted to report correctly on what you understand. However, if you did have perfect understanding of God (though how would you prove it?) and you stated that sentance to be correct and you were infact being truthful, then yes, it would be correct.

Well then...
If such a deity as described were to exist, then probably all, or almost all, present-day humans would believe that God exists.

This does not mean acceptance or salvation but it means that it is therefore reasonable that every person would believe that God exists in some way. To say , "If God were to exist, then he would have great love for humanity and a strong desire that humanity love him in return" and then to affirm what is obvious; namely, "not all people believe in God," is a flat out contradiction.

For how can a human love God if he is not aware of God?
Why would God be perfectly silent and hidden if his desire was "that humanity love him in return"?

I say it is ambiguous because the proof does not allow for the possability that our perception may be flawed.

Yes but we can acknowledge that our perception is flawed and still use reason and assume fuller knowledge philosophically. You are trying to dodge by becoming a mystic.

As far as eveidence, Plato argued that God must exist if for no other reason than that he is so talked about.

Lots of people talk about Santa Clause too...

But I also wonder if you are talking about god in general or the Christian God specifically?

Answered already.

Pilgrim

February 27th 2003, 03:02 PM

Is there possibly a problem with the idea that if God revealed himself and had all those characteristics people would necessarliy believe in him?

There are a lot of unreasonable people out there and the mere fact that God reveals himself clearly might mean nothing to them.

Ishmael

February 27th 2003, 03:16 PM

02-27-2003 @ 01:02 PM
Pilgrim:
Is there possibly a problem with the idea that if God revealed himself and had all those characteristics people would necessarliy believe in him?

Back to myself for a moment:

Certainly there is and I think there is a very faulty assumption made by both the Atheist and the Arminianist (type). That is assumption is that God desires that ALL people when the plain teaching of the Bible is election of a people.

From Romans 1

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

God's existence is obvious but

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

The "world" does not retain the knowledge of God and so...

God gave them over to a debased mind

There are a lot of unreasonable people out there and the mere fact that God reveals himself clearly might mean nothing to them.

Of course, God's existence is meaningful only to the Elect.

The Doctrine of Election firmly defeats this argument to Nonbelief. BUT the major flaw in General Atonement can be assaulted quite easily with this argument.

The Doctrine of Election in the Bible:
http://members.tripod.com/acharlie/election.html

~Resume normal debate in progress.

Snowball

February 27th 2003, 04:34 PM

Can I throw in another (scripture backed, I feel) opinion?

So, we have a God of love, who "is not willing that any should perish, but all would come to eternal life." Y’all have already established that.

But...

we also have these problems:

John 3:19
"This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil."

and

Romans 1:18
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness”

The fact of the matter is that God's revelation is apparent and obvious to everyone, but men suppress the truth and "love the darkness." Depending on how a person reacts to the light that they are exposed to, they will either receive more or not. If they respond in a way that draws them to that light, God will provide more -- but if they repel the light they are given, they will not get anymore. God is not about forcing Himself on anyone:

Revelation 3:20:
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.”

God stands at the door as a gentleman would, he doesn't break it down.

We also have the problem of a God that wants us to have FAITH in Him.

Hebrews 11:6
"And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him."

If he revealed Himself to us in such a way that no faith is required, well, that would defeat the whole purpose of what He wants from us, which is a true reciprocal love. I have a feeling (based upon my study of the Bible) that if any of us (believer and non-believer alike) were actually allowed to see God and stand in his presence -- well, obviously rejecting Him would no longer be an option (and true love can only stem from a situation where we can freely choose to love, not where we are coerced), but His power and might would probably cause us to shake in our boots and long for instant annihilation.

Tell me, Calvinist: if you were an almighty, powerful being that would strike fear in the heart of any man in your presence to the extent that freely given love (on their part) is an impossibility -- yet you desired that they love you, trust you, and have a relationship with you -- what would you do?

Of course, God also has the problem that men are sinful creatures, and, due to His nature He can’t be in a relationship with an imperfect being. Oh wait...He already solved that problem... phew!! :smile:

Anyway, with all due respect, I think arguments like this stem from a complete misunderstanding and underestimation of the glory of God, as well as an overestimation of human nature.

Ishmael

February 27th 2003, 05:14 PM

Restatement:

Nonbelief Atheistic Argument
Post# 24739

Here I will argue that God does not exist based on this proof:

(1) If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
(2) If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
(3) [But] reasonable nonbelief occurs.
(4) [Thus, from (2) & (3)] no perfectly loving God exists.
(5) [Hence, from (1) & (4)] there is no God.

OR

1. If God were to exist, then he would have great love for humanity and a strong desire that humanity love him in return.
2. If such a deity as described were to exist, then probably all, or almost all, present-day humans would believe that God exists.
3. But many present-day humans do not believe that God exists.
4. Hence [from (2) & (3)], probably there does not exist a deity as described in
5. Therefore [from (1) & (4)], probably God does not exist.

TheFiveSolas

February 27th 2003, 10:58 PM

Calvinist wrote:

Are you claiming that reasonable nonbelief does not exist?

Exactly!

God has provided sufficient evidence of His existence through the light of nature and conscience (Romans 1 uses the terms "gnontes ton theon", knowing THE God, when discussing what type of knowledge the light of nature and conscience brings us). This evidence is sufficient enough to merit God's declaration that people are "without excuse" (Greek: anapologetous, literally "without an apologetic") when they attempt to deny His existence and the glory that is due to Him.

God is also the foundation for rationality and reason. Therefore it is by HIS standard that something is judged to be reasonable or unreasonable. Since God has provided sufficient evidence of His existence and power (and also what He requires of us), it is unreasonable and irrational to deny it.

Calvinist continues:

3. But many present-day humans do not believe that God exists.

The problem with this KEY assertion is that it doesn't even take into account the very real phenomena of self-deception. People often deceive themselves into thinking that they believe one thing, when in fact they don't.

As an example, take the situation of a mother who has a son that is often accused of stealing things. She always comes to his defense, claiming that people "have it in for my son", "just don't like him", etc. YET, she ALSO does things that evidence the fact that she KNOWS he is a thief (things like not leaving him in a room alone with her purse). In this example the mother, for probably a variety of reasons (it is emotionally painful to admit that one's son is a thief, she taught him the difference between right and wrong, etc.), convinces herself that she really believes her son is NOT a thief all the while evidencing behavior that shows she knows he is (hiding her purse, etc.).

Again, Romans 1 teaches that all men know God. However all men are sinners in rebellion against the One True God. Therefore they constantly attempt to "suppress the truth that is known about God".

So, in reality, there are no atheists (neither are there agnostics). Rather, there are only those that have deceived themselves into thinking that they don't believe in God (note: for the epistemologically literate this assertion differentiates between first and second order beliefs).

Atheists evidence, ALL the time, the fact that they KNOW God exists whenever they appeal to right and wrong behavior (objective norms), laws of logic (immaterial entities), the belief that love is MORE than a physiological response to certain stimuli (biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate according to the atheist's own presuppositions), etc.

In conclusion, the argument fails since it completely overlooks the crucial concept of self-deception and the ramifications of sinful suppression of truth (go into a prison and you'll see a tremendous amount of empirical evidence of people rationalizing away what they KNOW to be true, i.e., their guilt). Atheists do the same thing with God, they are, as all sinners, adept at rationalizing away those things that they don't want to face.

Ishmael

February 27th 2003, 11:14 PM

Dear TheFiveSolas:

This is very good. I will come back tomorrow and try refute you on your statement, "there are no atheists." I have been doing some reading in this area from a Atheistic persepective.

I am also going to reject the first part of your post based on the degree of God's revelation to humanity. As I mentioned before, "How much revelation is needed and how much is too much to therefore violate free will?"

But all this in the morning or mid afternoon...

Pate

March 2nd 2003, 08:03 AM

PATE:
Perhaps it could be argued that in every person's life, there must be a point at which the reasonable course of action is to become a believer and leave the nonbelief. But having reasonable nonbelief at some point of one's life is not something that God absolutely could not allow.

CALVINIST:
If reasonable nonbelief is possible then man cannot be culpable for nonbelief. And yet the Bible threatens the "unbeliever" with eternal consequences. Therefore, God is not perfectly loving; therefore, God( at least as you have defined him) does not exist.

Those eternal consequences will not follow before the end of nonbeliever's life. Therefore, I fail to see how reasonable nonbelief at some point of his life would take away the culpability, if it's the case that at some point of his life, he'll find himself in a situation which calls for a conversion to Christianity as the most reasonable course of action.

PATE:
There also is the problem that we have very little basis to claim to know, whether or not nonbelief is reasonable in certain circumstances.

CALVINIST:
I don't believe in God based on what I observe. I make a decision for nonbelief based on reasonable evidence. Therefore, my nonbelief is reasonable given the circumstances of God's obvious silence and hidden ness.

This presupposes that your interpretation of the evidence is the correct and most reasonable one. There are, however, many rational Christians, and I dare to include myself to that category, who would claim that atheism is not the most reasonable position.

PATE:
How would the fallenness of man relate to this?

CALVINIST:
Good question. But its a rabbit I don't care to chase.

I'll be happy to chase it for you. If I can catch it, will you be willing to evaluate its implications?

It is a common Christian belief that men are fallen. (I'll leave aside the issue of how literally the story of the fall needs to be taken.) This has epistemic and moral consequences. Our ability to hear God's voice in our hearts has been damaged and therefore, because of this cognitive malfunction, our ability to respond properly to God is not in proper condition either. This is, to a large part, a problem of the will. We have desires to behave in ways that are not morally acceptable, and don't want to resist those desires, but to fulfill them. Sin has control over our wills. This will lead us to move ourselves further from God, instead of responding to His call to draw nearer to Him. The inclination to nonbelief is part of this process. Because of this situation, our interpretation of reality is not the most rational one. This does not only mean that we are inclined to respond to the evidence for God negatively, because we don't want to believe in him. It means also that part of the rational warrant for the belief in God, which comes in a properly functioning human mind through the cognitive processes whereby God speaks to our hearts and draws us nearer to him, is not available to us because our minds are not functioning properly for this part. Therefore, for that part, our belief-forming is not rational.

PATE:
What about God's foreknowledge? If God knows that some person would not become a believer even if He would make it clear to this person that nonbelief is not reasonable, is there anything wrong in God's not making this clear to him?

CALVINIST:
A "perfectly loving" God would.

Are you sure? Why would He need to do that, if He knows that it would not lead them to belief?

CALVINIST:
But there is no such God since it is possible to die in nonbelief.

I agree that it's possible to die in nonbelief, but I may not agree that it's possible to die in fully rational nonbelief.

Ryokan

March 3rd 2003, 11:04 AM

As an agnostic, I am interested in your arguement Calvinist.

Pate

March 3rd 2003, 11:33 AM

I suspect that the argument from evil, the argument from divine hiddenness and the argument from unbelief, which can perhaps be called three strongest philosophical atheistic arguments, can all be defeated with just about the same theodicy, which includes free will defense with certain additions. This is something that I haven't really tested in practice, though. I consider myself to be quite familiar with the most important arguments and counterarguments with regard to the problem of evil, but those other two I haven't really discussed in detail with any atheist so far.

Pate

March 4th 2003, 01:28 PM

02-27-2003 @ 03:30 PM
Calvinist:

Sure. But let me deal with this argument from nonbelief for a little bit here and then we will give it a shot.

OK. My debate with Steven Carr is just about to begin, so it will take a while before I'm able to debate this subject. I haven't really worked out in detail the complete defense against the nonbelief-argument, and this would be a good test case for the possible counterarguments that I've occasionally come up with. Especially so because it's not as annoying to lose a debate against a theist, as it would be against an atheist. (Oh, I forgot... it's your atheist alter-ego who's in control of your posts on this subject, I guess I'll be debating an atheist nevertheless. :brow: )

Ishmael

March 5th 2003, 02:30 PM

02-27-2003 @ 08:58 PM
TheFiveSolas:
Calvinist wrote:
Exactly!
God has provided sufficient evidence of His existence through the light of nature and conscience (Romans 1 uses the terms "gnontes ton theon", knowing THE God, when discussing what type of knowledge the light of nature and conscience brings us). This evidence is sufficient enough to merit God's declaration that people are "without excuse" (Greek: anapologetous, literally "without an apologetic") when they attempt to deny His existence and the glory that is due to Him.

Okay. You claim that the Scriptures prove that there are no Atheists; yet, the Scripture seem to contradict your Romans passage in the Psalms where it is written:

"The fool says in his heart, there is no God." (Psalm 14:53)

Now this passage assume that there is such a person as an Atheist, though the Scripture condemns this person as a fool.

Your "proof" is thus self-contradictory.

God is also the foundation for rationality and reason. Therefore it is by HIS standard that something is judged to be reasonable or unreasonable. Since God has provided sufficient evidence of His existence and power (and also what He requires of us), it is unreasonable and irrational to deny it.

So your argument is not that there are no atheists (NA), but that it is "foolish" to be an atheist and therefore not reasonable?

<snip> This is really the only counter I had for this for a start. The rest of your post can be addressed later if you want.

Blake Reas

March 5th 2003, 04:49 PM

Being a Calvinist :brow:! I would have to say in God's sovereign plan he has a perfectly good reason for this, but then again that is me appealing to the Mystery of God!

In Christ,
Blake

Blake Reas

March 5th 2003, 05:02 PM

03-05-2003 @ 06:30 PM
Calvinist:

[quote]Okay. You claim that the Scriptures prove that there are no Atheists; yet, the Scripture seem to contradict your Romans passage in the Psalms where it is written:

"The fool says in his heart, there is no God." (Psalm 14:53)

Now this passage assume that there is such a person as an Atheist, though the Scripture condemns this person as a fool.

Your "proof" is thus self-contradictory.

I have something that may clear up the thing with Psalms:

The emphatic There recalls the occasion which gave rise to this psalm- some situation where atheism came face to face with the reality of the presence of GOd among his people. What this occasion was we have no means of knowing. Was the Psalmist referring to Ex. 14: 10-28? The atheism in question is more practical then theoretical, not so much denying God's existence as his relevance.

Also remember that atheism in the ancient world could have been like that of Rome. The Jews and the Christians where both declared "Atheist" because they denied the gods of the Romans. Just my thoughts. The quote from above came from the New Bible Commentary, I am sorry it did not have more about the passsage, I am working on getting a set of commentaries though!

Also it is not as if God owes us evidence for His existence, but as TheFiveSolas has pointed out he has in his creation and we just suppress it.

By His Grace, For His Glory,
Blake

ctwmn

March 5th 2003, 08:01 PM

I am new here. I was referred by someone from another message board.

I believe in God, but not the way most American christians do. I believe that God is a loving God and doesn't "expect" us to love Him back. We're His children, so He is going to love us unconditionally. [Actually, I believe in a God that has two parts, the feminine and masculine, so it's hard for me to keep saying "He" and "Him" without gritting my teeth...but that's off the topic.]

So, Calvin, I guess I'm saying that your original 5-point argument was one way of looking at it from one particular point of view, but the way I look at it, God IS loving, but christians are taught to fear God. I say that because I used to go to church (don't anymore because I just felt like it was a bunch of hypocrisy and lack of common sense), and in one sentence I was told that "God is a loving god", then the next I was told, "You must fear the wrath of God because he will cast you down into the fires of hell if you sin." It was all so frustrating and confusing, what with all the mixed signals I'd get about God's love/hate relationship with "His children". I visited numerous churches, but every one of them said the same thing, just in different ways. After several years, I finally decided that church wasn't for me because there were too many things that just didn't make sense, including this thing about having a loving God who would still allow me to burn in the fires of hell if I made one minor indiscretion.

Some would say that's why we ask for forgiveness. Huh? I could be the biggest sinner in the world, but as long as I asked for forgiveness, I could still go to heaven? In other words, I can be the most moral, honest, ethical, and nicest person, but because I don't go to church and believe in the bible, I'm going to go to hell...but my neighbor, who's having an affair, stole a CD from the record store last week, lies regularly, knowingly writes bad checks, and uses God's name in vain will go to heaven because he goes to church every Sunday, participates in bible study, and asks forgiveness every time he does something "sinful". My point is: Reading the bible and going to church do not make a person "christian". Besides, God wouldn't play favorites, would He? He wouldn't look at His children and say, "You made me happy, so I'll let you in heaven, but little Timmy, you made me upset, so you're going to hell." What kind of "Father" does that? A human father, that's who. For God to play favorites would give Him human qualities, and as we all know, God is NOT human.

I'm sorry, though, I think I've gotten slightly off the topic again.

So, Calvin, just think about what you think a perfect God would be, and don't listen to what everybody else tells you THEY think He is. What they think doesn't matter...it's what you think. God loves you, whether you believe in Him or not. I'm sure He's enjoying your search for Him immensely. I think He likes it when some of his kids branch off from the mainstream and go on an adventure because it gives Him diversity. :thumb:

TheFiveSolas

March 6th 2003, 02:12 AM

Calvinist wrote:

Okay. You claim that the Scriptures prove that there are no Atheists; yet, the Scripture seem to contradict your Romans passage in the Psalms where it is written:

"The fool says in his heart, there is no God." (Psalm 14:53)

Now this passage assume that there is such a person as an Atheist, though the Scripture condemns this person as a fool.

Your "proof" is thus self-contradictory.

(Note: The text in question is found in Psalm 14:1, there is no verse 53)

I have a couple of responses your attempted rebuttal:

1) A fool is someone that KNOWS better. In other words, it is not someone that is merely ignorant, but is someone that knows better and yet still decides to take the "foolish" route. Therefore, this person is called a "fool" specifically because, as Romans 1 teaches, he knows God exists yet "says in his heart" that He doesn't exist.

2) Apparently the term for fool "nabal" in Hebrew is a moral condemnation, not an intellectual one.

The use of the word fool (nabal) indicates not a theoretical atheist but a practical atheist, who lives as if there were no god.
Pfeiffer, C. F. 1962. The Wycliffe Bible commentary : Old Testament . Moody Press: Chicago

So, rather than being contrary Psalm 14:1 turns out to be right in line with Paul's comments in Romans 1 that all people are without excuse for denying the truth they know about God. In fact, Paul uses the same term in Romans 1:21-22:

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (electronic ed.) . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

So, my argument is that there are those that PROFESS to be atheists, but that in their heart of hearts they know He exists (because He has given sufficient evidence of this). However, due to their sinful lifestyles they foolishly try to live as though He doesn't exist, rationalizing away any and all evidence that they come into contact with.

Or to put it another way, God doesn't believe in atheists.

Ishmael

March 6th 2003, 11:09 AM

Hmmm... nothing but Calvinists here debating this.... :huh:

Blake Reas

March 6th 2003, 02:57 PM

03-06-2003 @ 03:09 PM
Calvinist:

Hmmm... nothing but Calvinists here debating this.... :huh:

:yipee: :yipee: :yipee: :yipee: :yipee: :yipee: :yipee:

The more the better!!!:rofl:

Lizard

March 6th 2003, 04:14 PM

03-06-2003 @ 10:09 AM
Calvinist:

Hmmm... nothing but Calvinists here debating this.... :huh:

Is it just me, or does Calvinists do much better job of debating the atheist position than most ateist?

Kyle

March 8th 2003, 07:52 PM

Actually, the problem with the argument from nonbelief is that it is no better than a personal experience argument.

I am not claiming that personal experiences are invalid, but I AM claiming that they are only evidence for the person that holds the belief. Since the atheist cannot know what my personal experience is like, it cannot be evidence for him. In a similar vein, then, since I am not an atheist, I cannot know whether or not their doubt is "reasonable" or not. Therefore, one is forced to admit that the argument from nonbelief has no more and no less credibility than personal experiences arguments. Thus, since I am not an atheist, I am not affected whatsoever by the argument from Nonbelief OR Divine Hiddenness (Divine Hiddenness is also a personal thing, since I have a personal experience, I do not see any apparent Hiddenness, although I don't think this is the only flaw with the Divine Hiddenness Argument).

ItalianGold

March 8th 2003, 08:04 PM

Non-Calvinist here (also not an athesist though)

I submit that your very first statement is flawed.

"If there is a God, he is perfectly loving."

No self respecting atheist would accept that supposition. If you are going to argue based on deductive reasoning then your initial statements have to have broad support.

Most atheists would point out that the Judeo-Christian concept of God as portrayed in the OT is NOT "perfectly loving."

Ishmael

March 9th 2003, 07:56 PM

03-08-2003 @ 06:04 PM
ItalianGold:

Non-Calvinist here (also not an athesist though)

I submit that your very first statement is flawed.

"If there is a God, he is perfectly loving."

No self respecting atheist would accept that supposition. If you are going to argue based on deductive reasoning then your initial statements have to have broad support.

Most atheists would point out that the Judeo-Christian concept of God as portrayed in the OT is NOT "perfectly loving."

Oh really oh wise one?

BULL.

No self respecting atheist would accept that supposition. If you are going to argue based on deductive reasoning then your initial statements have to have broad support.

How about J.L. Schellenberg ? Or were you just unaware that you were saying something that could easily be refuted in about ten seconds on the web? :rofl:

1.
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Reli/ReliDran.htm
JL Schellenberg

2.
Theodore Drange's Argument
http://examinedlifejournal.com/archives/vol3ed10/drange.shtml

3.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nicholas_tattersall/evil.htm

You want more Atheist philosophers who define God this way?

Arguments from Evil (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/evil.html)

:bawl: Don't cry. Just try again.

Ishmael

March 9th 2003, 08:00 PM

03-06-2003 @ 02:14 PM
Faramir:

Is it just me, or does Calvinists do much better job of debating the atheist position than most ateist?

I think that Reformed theology is more reasonable than the modern contructs of Christianity and therefore is able to deal with the hard questions of contemporary criticism.

Blake Reas

March 9th 2003, 08:13 PM

03-10-2003 @ 12:00 AM
Calvinist:

I think that Reformed theology is more reasonable than the modern contructs of Christianity and therefore is able to deal with the hard questions of contemporary criticism.

I read the debate between Frame and Martin about TAG and from what I read Michael Martin Argued past what Frame was saying because he has no understanding of Reformed Theology. I find the same thing when Bahnsen Debated Gordon Stein and Eddy Tabash. None of these guys seemed to have taken the time to sit down and think about the argument that the Reformed thinkers where making. Just my opinion!

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

flipper

March 9th 2003, 11:28 PM

Faramir:

Is it just me, or does Calvinists do much better job of debating the atheist position than most ateist?

In my view, this is not one of the better arguments for atheism. Although I don't have any formal evidence except anecdotal, I will observe that Christians tend to indulge in metaphysical logic more than atheists, online at least.

Frankly, I don't see the point in it because (it seems to me) far too much is assumed in the premises.

Morimotus

March 13th 2003, 04:02 AM

02-26-2003 @ 10:02 PM
Calvinist:

Here I will argue that God does not exist based on this proof:

(1) If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
(2) If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
(3) [But] reasonable nonbelief occurs.
(4) [Thus, from (2) & (3)] no perfectly loving God exists.
(5) [Hence, from (1) & (4)] there is no God.

One can have all the facts necessary, yet still deny something is true. If you've ever listened in on grade school classes (and I dare say a college lecture hall :tongue: ) you'd know how hard it would be to convince someone division by zero is undefined (meaning, can't be done) even if you go from everything logical, mathematical, even with physical examples (A vertical slope (x/0) of an acceleration line is impossible because it would mean an object is both at rest and moving every speed infinitely possible.). Yet some would deny it on bases like:

1) they have no idea what the subject matter is about, so arguing is pointless (this applies both to grade school and college :wink: )
2) they are stubborn. This is b/c God gave them free-will, and this includes the ability to be stubborn. If we didn't have free will, we'd be robots (at most helpless souls that can only recieve input) and all our actions ultimately either pre-determined (predestination) or random (all dependent on whatever the first quantum event could have been), so we wouldn't be at fault for anything, and it'd actually be God's fault we "act this way" or "sin". So punishing robots would make this hypothetical God firstly silly, but more importantly not a good one b/c he punished robots (at most helpless souls that can only recieve input) for soemthing that is ultimately his fault, b/c he either pre-determined it or he caused the first event that triggered the rest of the randomness. To clarify the latter: if life was totally random, and ppl were these helpless robot/souls, then it would be God's fault b/c he knew the end result would be determined by what he himself chose to "do" first.

If we have free will that can be non-contingent on reality (being stubborn even if all facts are in our face), the problem disappears.
Then our bad choices are truly our own, and can be punished. The first sin (according to Christians, was Satan's sin of trying to be God) or any sin and any resulting punishments are not God's fault, even if he had foreknowledge, b/c each person was not a robot/soul incapable of making a decision.

Also the problem arises from your proof... what are all the necessary facts needed? Communication from God? (Possible answer: The Bible, prayers, etc.) Actual appearance of God? (Possible answer: Christ's incarnation) Direct infusion of knowledge of the Supreme Being by said being into us? (possible answer: Even the most atheistic will scream out for a higher power when s/he's in mortal danger, or culture has from the beginning acknowledged a higher being or have had an idea of this being). Clarification in this area could help the argument.

These are my thoughts. Did I make any sense? I am arguin on the spot here. There may be some problems w/ my free-will argument... feel free to point them out!

Vorkosigan

March 13th 2003, 10:44 AM

If we didn't have free will, we'd be robots

Are animals robots? Chimps? Dogs? Whales? Spiders? Ostriches?

Vorkosigan

March 13th 2003, 10:55 AM

So, in reality, there are no atheists (neither are there agnostics). Rather, there are only those that have deceived themselves into thinking that they don't believe in God (note: for the epistemologically literate this assertion differentiates between first and second order beliefs).

Hmmm...so all those non-believers in gods who lived in other cultures were decieving themselves too? Or is it only those of us who have heard of the Canaanite deity YHWH and still deny that it is the universal god?

Atheists evidence, ALL the time, the fact that they KNOW God exists whenever they appeal to right and wrong behavior (objective norms), laws of logic (immaterial entities), the belief that love is MORE than a physiological response to certain stimuli (biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate according to the atheist's own presuppositions), etc.

It appears that you have confused metaphysical naturalism with atheism. Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods, a trait characteristic of numerous systems of thinking. Metaphysical naturalism is something else entirely, but is basically the methodological naturalism of science raised to the status of a belief system. However, it is not necessarily atheist either; I know the famous skeptic Martin Gardner was a theist.

"Right" and "wrong" behavior are not "objective" except in the sense that all cultures recognize certain behaviors as "right" and "wrong," although they differ on the definitions.

In conclusion, the argument fails since it completely overlooks the crucial concept of self-deception and the ramifications of sinful suppression of truth (go into a prison and you'll see a tremendous amount of empirical evidence of people rationalizing away what they KNOW to be true, i.e., their guilt).

Yes, and almost all of them are theists, too. Prison cells are remarkably free of atheists....

Atheists do the same thing with God, they are, as all sinners, adept at rationalizing away those things that they don't want to face.

More like, unable to develop the doublethink skills necessary to cope with the cognitive dissonance required of theistic belief.

Vorkosigan

Ishmael

November 30th 2003, 02:52 PM

I want to start this thread up again because I like it.
Here I will argue that God does not exist based on this proof:

(1) If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
(2) If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
(3) [But] reasonable nonbelief occurs.
(4) [Thus, from (2) & (3)] no perfectly loving God exists.
(5) [Hence, from (1) & (4)] there is no God.

EvoUK

January 5th 2004, 07:13 PM

TheFiveSolas:

God has provided sufficient evidence of His existence through the light of nature and conscience (Romans 1 uses the terms "gnontes ton theon", knowing THE God, when discussing what type of knowledge the light of nature and conscience brings us). This evidence is sufficient enough to merit God's declaration that people are "without excuse" (Greek: anapologetous, literally "without an apologetic") when they attempt to deny His existence and the glory that is due to Him.

actually, there isn't really enough evidence to point towards any god, so that's a problem you have to overcome before you start claiming that god is your god as described in the bible.

it's an irrational (and unreasonable) "argument". a muslim or hindu, or for that matter any theist has just as much claim to their god existing if all you're going to put forward is nature and human conscience.

God is also the foundation for rationality and reason.

unsupported assertion.

Therefore it is by HIS standard that something is judged to be reasonable or unreasonable.

due to previous unsupported assertion, conclusion doesn't stand.

Since God has provided sufficient evidence of His existence and power (and also what He requires of us), it is unreasonable and irrational to deny it.

it could be agued that enough evidence has been put forward to prove a god(s) exist. although i strongly disagree, it is still a stronger argument than this argument from assertion you are putting forward now.

a) no proof any god exists.
b) no proof that said god is god of bible.
c) no proof (other than its say-so) that the bible contains the exact wishes of said deity.

3 major points you've at best asserted, at worst presupposed to be true.

now, if you started of by saying "i believe..." then it would be a different case. however, i do so dislike it when someone talks as though something is a fact when it hasn't been proven to be other than a belief. poor english.

As an example, take the situation of a mother who has a son that is often accused of stealing things

so you're comparing a child with a deity that a minorety group of the worlds population assert exists...

i know every analogy can only go so far, but surely you can come up with a closer one than that...

Again, Romans 1 teaches that all men know God.

and that is still only an assertion- and one that dosn't hold up to reality, concidering christians are outnumbered world wide.

However all men are sinners in rebellion against the One True God

what a depressing outlook... :frown:

Therefore they constantly attempt to "suppress the truth that is known about God".

really? and here was me sure that i thought the whole idea was merely laughable...

ok, so a god exists, that it's your god, and that the bible contains his exact wishes etc- aren't merely beliefs, but suppressed facts...

another assertion or are you going to back this one up?

So, in reality, there are no atheists (neither are there agnostics).

oh, you might find there are actually a hell of a lot of us.

*wonders why the concept that someone just doesn't believe in their god is so difficult to grasp*

Rather, there are only those that have deceived themselves into thinking that they don't believe in God (note: for the epistemologically literate this assertion differentiates between first and second order beliefs).

ok, so even though there is absolutely no valid reason to convince me a god exists- let alone your one- is just a put up- i believe in "Him" really...

:rofl:

ALL the time, the fact that they KNOW God exists whenever they appeal to right and wrong behavior (objective norms),

i've yet to find any objective standard of morality or ethics. what we feel as "wrong" is based on our society and our empathy. both survival traits when you think about it...

of logic (immaterial entities)

so logic is an immaterial entity...

well, logic is more of a thought process really- it's immaterial like an idea is immaterial- even though it has a material origin.

[qoute]the belief that love is MORE than a physiological response to certain stimuli (biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate according to the atheist's own presuppositions), [/quote]

this smacks of an emotional argument. yes, love is caused by the release of a hormone in the brain, and yes it does have obvious survival advantages.

however, i see no reason for this knowledge to somehow "cheapen" the emotion itself. you taste a fine wine- does it taste any worse because you know it's merely firmented grape juice?

In conclusion, the argument fails since it completely overlooks the crucial concept of self-deception and the ramifications of sinful suppression of truth (go into a prison and you'll see a tremendous amount of empirical evidence of people rationalizing away what they KNOW to be true, i.e., their guilt).

in other words, it misses out on some christian dogma...

Atheists do the same thing with God, they are, as all sinners, adept at rationalizing away those things that they don't want to face.

even though it'll be in our favour to believe in god- so we won't get the absurd punishment of hell when we die (oh, don't even get me started on that little nugget), we still disbelief on purpose...

uh, why?

EvoUK

January 5th 2004, 07:18 PM

with regards to the OP, however, i don't concider there to be any atheist arguments. i know some exist, but they are ultimately pointless- we have absolutely nohing to prove. we simply don't believe the claim made by theists.

that's all an atheist is- someone who doesn't assert that a god exists. if a theist wants to convince us that a god exists, then the ball is obviously in thier court to prove the assertion. the atheistic arguments really only consist of retributtals to theistic ones, as that's all thats required.

if they can't prove their position (i have no problems with them believing it, i respect that. but to convince us you're going to have to prove it) then that isn't my problem, and i'll remain atheist.

Chuck Lee

January 5th 2004, 11:11 PM

11-30-2003 @ 11:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=321082#post321082)
Ishmael:

Here I will argue that God does not exist based on this proof:

(1) If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
(2) If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
(3) [But] reasonable nonbelief occurs.
(4) [Thus, from (2) & (3)] no perfectly loving God exists.
(5) [Hence, from (1) & (4)] there is no God.

I have to assume you're presupposing a specific (likely some sort of Christian) version of God here, and that you're attempting to disprove this specific version. I see no other reason to conclude that God must be "perfectly loving", however you happen to be defining that.

Moreover, you're making some hefty assumptions on what being "perfectly loving" is all about. For one thing, you're limiting it to this existence. If we're assuming a God, we're probably allowing for some kind of afterlife too, which could allow for further opportunities to get to know God... unless, again, we're assuming a specific Christian variation on said afterlife.

I can imagine a wide variety of possibilities of a supreme being that wouldn't be subject to your imposed limitations. Consequently your "proof" is useless to me.