By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Argument from nonbelief

 

Do you agree with it?

Yes 17 34.00%
 
No 33 66.00%
 
Total:50
dsgrue3 on 07 August 2013

ninetailschris said:

I did a report on this in college for a paper it was really fun. If you want

some peer-review work or other experiments I will gladly help.

But as you can see the argument falls flat from here.

But I like to add the God of the bible  says it is possible that everyone can come into a personal relationship with him not that everyone will sadly.

If someone rejects God's it's part of there free-will to do that if they wish.

4.No one is born resistant to God. But they can turn resistant by influence of whatever comes there way.

5. Nothing factual supports this therefor is an assumption.

6. 4 and 5 as stated have not proved there case and by the evidence it would suggest the opposite.

7. Deductive reasoning needs to be fully investigated before arguing anything like this. This why you rarely see anyone

who are professional philosophers use an argument like this in a peer-reviewed paper.

I had fun having this conversation I hope we can converse some more.

 

(Disclaimer Dr. Barrette isn't claiming that evolution isn't true. He is claiming a person raised neutrally is more likely to believe

in creationist arguments than evolutionist. Manly believe it's less complex than the other.For personal note I'm a theist-evolutionist.)

 

Thank you!

Ignorance is not a good argument for a belief in God.

Dr. Barrette's argument is rather elementary and riddled with sophistry. 

Essentially: If we leave children to educate themselves, they will seek for an explanation for things rather than simply say well I don't know. And this type of logic will lead them to manifesting some sort of supernatural force or being. 

This type of argument would lead to all types of examples of absurdities such as god controls the wind and the tides and the weather, all of which we know is simply untrue due to our education.

It is no coincidence that arguments from ignorance are commonplay with the religious.

By the way, apparently you missed Jay's clarification on "non-resistently unaware." (even though it's just a few posts above yours)

According to Wikipedia, its "non-belief that exists through no fault of the non-believer."

Supplant that definition and I suspect you'll struggle to argue against the posted logic.




Around the Network
Jay520 on 07 August 2013
ninetailschris said:

3. Non-resistantly isn't a word from any dictionary I read. So, I will use non-resistant instead. Nonresistant: Not resistant . So, I assume the argument is that there shouldn't be anyone that unaware that weren't influenced? Correct me if I am wrong because the double negative is making the sentence confusing a bit(referring to "non-resistantly unaware".)

From Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind.

""The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."

More from the Dr. Barrett,

"Dr Barrett claimed anthropologists have found that in some cultures children believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them.

"Children's normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is

unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe."

 

Article for full read. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html

But as you can see the argument falls flat from here.
But I like to add the God of the bible  says it is possible that everyone can come into a personal relationship with him not that everyone will sadly.
If someone rejects God's it's part of there free-will to do that if they wish.

Thank you!

Let's stay on point 3 since that's the first point you disagree with.

Non-resistant nonbelief is nonbelief through no fault of the nonbeliever.

Not sure how your post proves anything. You've just proven that some people have a natural tendency to believe in God (even if illogical). Are you making the argument that because some people are predisposed to believe in God, that means all people are? What about the people born into cultures where most people don't believe in God? Or we could take it a step further and talk about the children born into families that strongly believe that no God exists? Are you willing to argue that these children's natural curiousity is stronger than their natural urge to accept societal norms? 

Clearly some people don't believe in God through no fault of their own.

And if we're talking about the Christian God, then you really have no grounds here. Since even if we assume that every person does have these predispositions, many people would follow the wrong religion due to their culture's belief, through no fault of their own.



Jay520 on 07 August 2013
timmah said:

From a young age, humans tend to have the idea that there's something 'bigger' out there. This 'perfectly loving' God also wants to be loved by his creation, so he expects those who are willing to seek Him out based on this innate sense that there must be something more. Those who are 'non-resistantly unaware' are not proof that God does not exist, they are simply apathetic, or not searching Him out, this is the key flaw of your argument. It assumes only two possible states, actively resisting and being aware, while ignoring apathy.


So what you're saying is: if someone seeks the truth of something "bigger" and they don't find God, then it's their own fault? Plenty of people attempt to seek out the bigger truths of the world (astronomers, physicists, etc.), yet find no God. 

Moreover, some religions such as Budhism assert that there is something "bigger", but that thing is inside every individual person, not some external being such as God. Are you arguing that these people have not found God becasue they have not sought after something "bigger"? Because that would be false.



Jay520 on 07 August 2013
NolSinkler said:

The argument falls apart at point three.  God is open to relationship with each human person.  "Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you." (Matthew 7:7) Accordingly, any human person seeking the Truth shall find God; this implies more than 'non-resistance'.

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)  We see here the necessity that we should come to repentance. 

"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." (John 3:16)  God has already revealed Himself to mankind.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them." (Romans 1:18-19)  Indeed, God shows all men the Truth.

Conclusion: If we seek the Truth, we shall find God, a God who has revealed Himself to mankind and so shall reveal Himself to you.  In fact, God shows all men the Truth.  In understanding who God is, then, we are tasked with Repentance.  Being 'non-resistant' is no excuse, because even to you "what may be known of God is manifest".


Everyone does not have an opportunity to know the truth of God since many people are never told of him. It's impossible for them to seek something they never heard of.

What do you mean by "Because that which may be know of God is manifest in them", and how do we know it's true?



ninetailschris on 07 August 2013
dsgrue3 said:

ninetailschris said:

I did a report on this in college for a paper it was really fun. If you want

some peer-review work or other experiments I will gladly help.

But as you can see the argument falls flat from here.

But I like to add the God of the bible  says it is possible that everyone can come into a personal relationship with him not that everyone will sadly.

If someone rejects God's it's part of there free-will to do that if they wish.

4.No one is born resistant to God. But they can turn resistant by influence of whatever comes there way.

5. Nothing factual supports this therefor is an assumption.

6. 4 and 5 as stated have not proved there case and by the evidence it would suggest the opposite.

7. Deductive reasoning needs to be fully investigated before arguing anything like this. This why you rarely see anyone

who are professional philosophers use an argument like this in a peer-reviewed paper.

I had fun having this conversation I hope we can converse some more.

 

(Disclaimer Dr. Barrette isn't claiming that evolution isn't true. He is claiming a person raised neutrally is more likely to believe

in creationist arguments than evolutionist. Manly believe it's less complex than the other.For personal note I'm a theist-evolutionist.)

 

Thank you!

Ignorance is not a good argument for a belief in God.

Dr. Barrette's argument is rather elementary and riddled with sophistry. 

Essentially: If we leave children to educate themselves, they will seek for an explanation for things rather than simply say well I don't know. And this type of logic will lead them to manifesting some sort of supernatural force or being. 

This type of argument would lead to all types of examples of absurdities such as god controls the wind and the tides and the weather, all of which we know is simply untrue due to our education.

It is no coincidence that arguments from ignorance are commonplay with the religious.

By the way, apparently you missed Jay's clarification on "non-resistently unaware." (even though it's just a few posts above yours)

According to Wikipedia, its "non-belief that exists through no fault of the non-believer."

Supplant that definition and I suspect you'll struggle to argue against the posted logic.


Let me do a real quick run down and move on to Jay.

1."Igorance not an argument for God"

No one argued that. Read what I say and what the guy said. He is just saying children are more prond to believe in a God than to believe in a natural event. You seem to be reading between the lines. He isn't arguing just like me that because children are more prone than God exist. He doesn't say that nor I. The point he was making based on experiments children are likely to believe in supernatural reasonings. "elementary and riddled with sophistry. " Really it was just you misunderstanding what he was saying. Your next sentence basically says what we saying. Don't jump the gun without first reading the whole article I posted and taking your time to analyzing what he trying to say. 

2."This type of argument would lead to all types of examples of absurdities such as god controls the wind and the tides and the weather, all of which we know is simply untrue due to our education"

Misses the point I was making. Which was babies are more prone to believe in a God than not. I don't why your over-analyzing things to such degrees. Where did I or him argue anything else? Again reading between the lines something that isn't there. Are you trying to create a straw man that I'm arguing that this proves God exist because babies are more to believe in a God? My point was people are not born resistanting God. That was it.

"It is no coincidence that arguments from ignorance are commonplay with the religious."

You use a generalization of a group (with an ad horienem/hoc at that) a form of ignorance to than say religious people use ignorance as commonplay? You do realize your contradicting yourself? That would be like saying because many uneducated atheist don't do scholarly research on the bible and say that Jesus didn't exist that atheist use ignorance as commonplay. Stop with the kindergarten arguments.  There are highly intelligent Christian who wrote books and peer-review papers on such topics. Why don't try making these guys look ignorant: (francis collins, John Lennox, William L. Craig,Richard Swineburne,etc.)  I'm a hundred percent sure you couldn't even hold a candle for them when comes to knowledge. Stop trying to act aggressively superior when your not at all. Just so you know,just because people are born more to believe God than natural event doesn't mean all religious just believe because of a factor like that. Many become because of arguments and experiences. 

"By the way, apparently you missed Jay's clarification on "non-resistently unaware." (even though it's just a few posts above yours)

According to Wikipedia, its "non-belief that exists through no fault of the non-believer."

Supplant that definition and I suspect you'll struggle to argue against the posted logic."

I responded to the first post and left. I don't bother with Wikipedia because how horrible it is and is considered junk by every college I went to. I avoid it like most should.

(Haven't read Jay response yet. Will do soon and if he corrected my misunderstanding than I will respond to it.)


 

 




"Excuse me sir, I see you have a weapon. Why don't you put it down and let's settle this like gentlemen"  ~ max

Around the Network
ninetailschris on 07 August 2013
Jay520 said:
ninetailschris said:

3. Non-resistantly isn't a word from any dictionary I read. So, I will use non-resistant instead. Nonresistant: Not resistant . So, I assume the argument is that there shouldn't be anyone that unaware that weren't influenced? Correct me if I am wrong because the double negative is making the sentence confusing a bit(referring to "non-resistantly unaware".)

From Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind.

""The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."

More from the Dr. Barrett,

"Dr Barrett claimed anthropologists have found that in some cultures children believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them.

"Children's normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is

unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe."

 

Article for full read. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html

But as you can see the argument falls flat from here.
But I like to add the God of the bible  says it is possible that everyone can come into a personal relationship with him not that everyone will sadly.
If someone rejects God's it's part of there free-will to do that if they wish.

Thank you!

Let's stay on point 3 since that's the first point you disagree with.

Non-resistant nonbelief is nonbelief through no fault of the nonbeliever.

Not sure how your post proves anything. You've just proven that some people have a natural tendency to believe in God (even if illogical). Are you making the argument that because some people are predisposed to believe in God, that means all people are? What about the people born into cultures where most people don't believe in God? Or we could take it a step further and talk about the children born into families that strongly believe that no God exists? Are you willing to argue that these children's natural curiousity is stronger than their natural urge to accept societal norms? 

Clearly some people don't believe in God through no fault of their own.

And if we're talking about the Christian God, then you really have no grounds here. Since even if we assume that every person does have these predispositions, many people would follow the wrong religion due to their culture's belief, through no fault of their own.


Hello, how are Jay?

"Non-resistant nonbelief is nonbelief through no fault of the nonbeliever."

Ok, I understand the argument.

"Not sure how your post proves anything. You've just proven that some people have a natural tendency to believe in God (even if illogical). Are you making the argument that because some people are predisposed to believe in God, that means all people are? What about the people born into cultures where most people don't believe in God? Or we could take it a step further and talk about the children born into families that strongly believe that no God exists? Are you willing to argue that these children's natural curiousity is stronger than their natural urge to accept societal norms? "

What I was proving was that people are not born resistanting God. That was all. I thought that was the argument I needed to prove but I understand the official argument now. If the argument is non-belief through no fault of the nonbeliever. In the bible it says that not all of us will be able to come into personal relationship on earth,that those of us that are not given the chance will be judge differently(Romans 1-2). We will judge by morals/merits that were naturally put on us by God. Therefor everyone has a chance to have a relationship with God. To explain further, if you come to know God you will have a direct personal relationship with God at the moment till forever. But the person who never knew God  or  never given a fair chance,will be judge on merits of basic morality/merits(based on God's scale). When he or she dies than they can than come to have personal relationship with God if deemed so.The difference is one being on earth the other when they are dead. There is more to this with Jesus but I don't want to write a essay on this. Justvto add people who sick are said to be excused like diseases that make you go mad because it is no fault on the party at hand. I believe this answers your question. Not everyone will have a personal relationship just like not everyone will be with Jesus. They will judged by the merits God deems righteous.

"Clearly some people don't believe in God through no fault of their own.

And if we're talking about the Christian God, then you really have no grounds here. Since even if we assume that every person does have these predispositions, many people would follow the wrong religion due to their culture's belief, through no fault of their own."

My last paragraph handled this. See nothing left to add.

Have a good day and thank you!

 







"Excuse me sir, I see you have a weapon. Why don't you put it down and let's settle this like gentlemen"  ~ max

DeadNotSleeping on 07 August 2013
Jay520 said:

I'll keep it short and post a short version of the argument from Wikipedia:

1. If no perfectly loving God exists, then God does not exist.
2. If a perfectly loving God exists, then there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person.
3. If there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person, then there no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
4. If a perfectly loving God exists, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists (from 2 and 3).
5. Some human persons are non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
6. No perfectly loving God exists (from 4 and 5).
7. God does not exist (from 1 and 6).

What do you think of this argument? Good or bad? 

I guess you could say that God doesn't have to be perfectly loving if he does exist, but I think the majority of theists believe otherwise. Everything else seems valid to me.


1. For the purposes of evaluating this train of thought, this assumption can be left as is.

2. This introduces a second assumption that is left untested. 

3. There lacks an explanation why this must be so.  A third assumption is introduced and it is left untested.  Moreover, there can is substantial room to argue against this claim.

4. This is not necessarily true.  If it is true, it must always be true, and the reasoning for that must be proven.  This hasn't happened because right now there are three assumptions in this sequence and none of them are being adequately justified.  Using 2 and 3 to form this conclusion is subscribing to logical fallacies.

5. This is accurate.

6. This conclusion is not sound; to be sound, all premises have to be true and premises 2-4 have not been proven true.

7. This conclusion is illogical based on the unsound conclusion of 6.  It also fails to explain why a god cannot exist if it is not perfectly loving.

 

This is a bad, illogical argument.



timmah on 08 August 2013
Jay520 said:
timmah said:

From a young age, humans tend to have the idea that there's something 'bigger' out there. This 'perfectly loving' God also wants to be loved by his creation, so he expects those who are willing to seek Him out based on this innate sense that there must be something more. Those who are 'non-resistantly unaware' are not proof that God does not exist, they are simply apathetic, or not searching Him out, this is the key flaw of your argument. It assumes only two possible states, actively resisting and being aware, while ignoring apathy.


So what you're saying is: if someone seeks the truth of something "bigger" and they don't find God, then it's their own fault? Plenty of people attempt to seek out the bigger truths of the world (astronomers, physicists, etc.), yet find no God. 

Moreover, some religions such as Budhism assert that there is something "bigger", but that thing is inside every individual person, not some external being such as God. Are you arguing that these people have not found God becasue they have not sought after something "bigger"? Because that would be false.

I'm asserting that these people did not find God because they sought after the wrong thing. Seeking only after natural knowledge (your first example) and seeking after enlightenment of 'self' are not the same as seeking after God. If I was single and had a sense that my future wife was out there somewhere, and instead dedicated my life to getting companionship from puppies, it wouldn't be my potential wife's fault that I never found her. :P



VXIII on 08 August 2013

Perfect God does not necessarily mean perfect world / law / creation.
imperfect world / law / creation could mean perfect God with a plan / scenario.



dsgrue3 on 08 August 2013
ninetailschris said:

Let me do a real quick run down and move on to Jay.

1."Igorance not an argument for God"

No one argued that. Read what I say and what the guy said. He is just saying children are more prond to believe in a God than to believe in a natural event. You seem to be reading between the lines. He isn't arguing just like me that because children are more prone than God exist. He doesn't say that nor I. The point he was making based on experiments children are likely to believe in supernatural reasonings. "elementary and riddled with sophistry. " Really it was just you misunderstanding what he was saying. Your next sentence basically says what we saying. Don't jump the gun without first reading the whole article I posted and taking your time to analyzing what he trying to say. 

2."This type of argument would lead to all types of examples of absurdities such as god controls the wind and the tides and the weather, all of which we know is simply untrue due to our education"

Misses the point I was making. Which was babies are more prone to believe in a God than not. I don't why your over-analyzing things to such degrees. Where did I or him argue anything else? Again reading between the lines something that isn't there. Are you trying to create a straw man that I'm arguing that this proves God exist because babies are more to believe in a God? My point was people are not born resistanting God. That was it.

"It is no coincidence that arguments from ignorance are commonplay with the religious."

You use a generalization of a group (with an ad horienem/hoc at that) a form of ignorance to than say religious people use ignorance as commonplay? You do realize your contradicting yourself? That would be like saying because many uneducated atheist don't do scholarly research on the bible and say that Jesus didn't exist that atheist use ignorance as commonplay. Stop with the kindergarten arguments.  There are highly intelligent Christian who wrote books and peer-review papers on such topics. Why don't try making these guys look ignorant: (francis collins, John Lennox, William L. Craig,Richard Swineburne,etc.)  I'm a hundred percent sure you couldn't even hold a candle for them when comes to knowledge. Stop trying to act aggressively superior when your not at all. Just so you know,just because people are born more to believe God than natural event doesn't mean all religious just believe because of a factor like that. Many become because of arguments and experiences. 

"By the way, apparently you missed Jay's clarification on "non-resistently unaware." (even though it's just a few posts above yours)

According to Wikipedia, its "non-belief that exists through no fault of the non-believer."

Supplant that definition and I suspect you'll struggle to argue against the posted logic."

I responded to the first post and left. I don't bother with Wikipedia because how horrible it is and is considered junk by every college I went to. I avoid it like most should.

(Haven't read Jay response yet. Will do soon and if he corrected my misunderstanding than I will respond to it.)

Well if that's the case, then you have no dispute with the posted logic.

It doesn't matter the source of the definition. Could be your own back pocket, so long as it is acceptable. I simply relayed the definition Jay wished to convey...

I can debunk WLC's claim to fame in about 3 seconds. He parroted the Kalam argument.

Namely:

1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The Universe began to exist.

3. The Universe had a cause.

False by premise 1. Causality is a Universal law and is not necessarily applicable to the non-existence of the Universe as laws came into existence at t = 0 or shortly thereafter according to modern cosmology. 

Futhermore, "begins" implies temporally and time didn't exist until the inception of the Universe, not prior. So saying "begins" is totally unintelligible. 

WLC is very skilled at glazing over these things, and it works to those who wish to believe he's using logic. Bear in mind, it's exceedingly difficult to speak about the spaceless, timeless, entity that was the emptiness before everything. Our language seems completely incapable of conveying intelligently what exactly nothing is. Our minds are built to view things spatially. 

Anyway, it seems I was eager to argue and I apologize for "jumping the gun."