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

Forums - General - Argument from nonbelief

 

Do you agree with it?

Yes 17 34.00%
 
No 33 66.00%
 
Total:50
mysticwolf on 25 July 2013

3 and 4 (and the rest of it) is where is starts to become nonsense.
It's saying that since there are people unaware of God, therefore God does not exist. That simply doesn't make sense. In most cases, someone tells you about God, or you inform yourself, and then you believe in him. At least that's the short version.
However, if you don't know about the Bible, that makes it pretty hard to believe in God. There are a few secluded countries on Earth where the Bible has not been shared.
It says since there are people that don't know about God that must mean God is not perfectly loving. Then they somehow conclude that since God is not perfectly loving, he does not exist. That logic just plain isn't logical reasoning. Here's why:

Just because there are people that don't know about God doesn't mean that God isn't perfectly loving. It's not God's fault that some people don't know about him. That's our fault. We were told to spread the World, it's our responsibility not God's. God loves us all equally, whether we love him, hate him, or don't know about him. That's why it's a perfect love.
I just disproved argument #1, and now the whole list falls apart



 Been away for a bit, but sneaking back in.

Gaming on: PS4, PC, 3DS. Got a Switch! Mainly to play Smash

Around the Network
Jay520 on 25 July 2013
DyranLK said:

In the Wikipedia article's "Would a perfectly loving God prevent nonresistant nonbelief?" section, the main criticism is the preconceived notion that God would want to "prevent inculpable nonbelief" in the first place; and personally that pretty much sums it up for me as well.

God (at least, the God as perceived in fundamentally Lutheran terms) may be "perfectly loving" but that doesn't mean he isn't going to let those he loves not reciprocate those feelings. A major motif within Christian circles is the idea of free will (which, granted, varies depending on the branch); if anything, God exercises his longing for a relationship with us miserably Hell-borne earthlings through the provision of choices which we have the freedom to choose from. One of those choices can also be not to love or not to want to have a relationship with him. Biblically, that choice is supposed to condemn your soul to Hell, regardless of your qualities as a person. Technically, however, God is still perfectly loving, and still perfectly loves those who don't love him.

The reason we're given that choice, though, I believe, is because that in order to start and develop a relationship you must be capable of making the choice to willingly be a part of it. If you don't, then it's not a genuine relationship. It's just a forced partnership with a complete lack of heart, and a high chance of falling apart. And if there is no genuine relationship with God, then man can fall again -- because even if God is supposedly "perfect", we technically aren't. His demands are strict, but in no rendition of him in any branch of Chrisitanity does he not provide us the choice to abide to them. In the New Testament, Jesus emphasizes the act of serving; however, it's also clear that it's out of his own will, out of his own desire to serve others, that he chooses to be a servant. If God instantaneously made all men, women, and children wholly serve him with a snap of his non-corporeal fingers then it's him who would be making the choice, not us -- and that, in turn, is slavery, not servantship.

Anyways, in the end, I think the argument made here is a good attempt but better ones do exist. The main nitpick would probably be with #3, which says "If there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists." because it suggests that God can not be perfectly loving while others don't openly love him as well, while I believe this is technically an untrue assumption. It can be considered exponentially tragic, then, for those who do believe in God and in the fact that those "non-resistantly unaware" of God's existence will be condemned to Hell, as that suggests that numerous amounts of people around the world have condemned fates and might not even know it, and probably would even embrace the idea if they were introduced to it -- however, that's where the New Testament's insistence on "spreading the gospel" comes in, being the reason behind evangelical missions and crusades and so on and so forth. It's because the responsibility was laid upon the people.


You say choice is the reason there is nonresistant nonbelief. But nonresistant nonbelief does not describe people who choose not to believe in God. Nonresistant nonbelief describes people who do not believe in God, not by fault of their own. This describes people who have tried to believe in God, but could not do so. These people never even had a chance to have a loving relationship with God even when they tried.

An omnipotent God who genuinely wanted to have a relationship with everyone would have given everyone reasonable and fair means to find him. And by reasonable and fair, I don't mean things like blind faith, following your culture's religion, or merely guessing that he is there; since this means every individual's chance for finding God is a guessing game and/or is based on chance. A perfectly loving and all-powerful God would not base his discovery and guesses and chance. 



Jay520 on 25 July 2013
mysticwolf said:
3 and 4 (and the rest of it) is where is starts to become nonsense.
It's saying that since there are people unaware of God, therefore God does not exist. That simply doesn't make sense. In most cases, someone tells you about God, or you inform yourself, and then you believe in him. At least that's the short version.
However, if you don't know about the Bible, that makes it pretty hard to believe in God. There are a few secluded countries on Earth where the Bible has not been shared.
It says since there are people that don't know about God that must mean God is not perfectly loving. Then they somehow conclude that since God is not perfectly loving, he does not exist. That logic just plain isn't logical reasoning. Here's why:

Just because there are people that don't know about God doesn't mean that God isn't perfectly loving. It's not God's fault that some people don't know about him. That's our fault. We were told to spread the World, it's our responsibility not God's. God loves us all equally, whether we love him, hate him, or don't know about him. That's why it's a perfect love.
I just disproved argument #1, and now the whole list falls apart


Millions of people are destined to never find God, not because of their own fault, but because other people neglected to inform them about God. God knows this with his omniscience and can change this with his omnipotence. And by "change this", I don't mean force these people to follow Him, but at least offer them a fair opportunity to find Him. Instead, He let's their fate be determined be factors outside of their control. He doesn't give certain individuals fair opportunity to form a loving relationship with him. Which means He is not perfectly loving. Depending on your definition of a "God" (whether or not it includes being perfectly loving), that means a god just doesn't exist.



JWeinCom on 25 July 2013

Retarded from step 1. It's a pretty classic strategy, usually used by theists. Make up a random rule, and then draw conclusions based on that. Even if the conclusions are logical (don't think they are) that doesn't matter if you start from a random point. There is no need for god to be perfectly loving, and if you read the bible (especially the old testament) that term really doesn't describe god.

But anyway, I have a great 100% proof that god does not exist.

1. There is no evidence that there is a god.
2. If there is no evidence for a god, we act on the assumption there is no god.
3. If evidence is presented that there is a god, we can reconsider.



tiffac on 25 July 2013

What we need to do is accept that there will be people who accept God and those who will never do. Instead of questioning the belief or ideology of each other, we should be vigilant of the real issues that divides us. Religious Extremism and Bigotry.



Around the Network
gooch_destroyer on 25 July 2013
tiffac said:
What we need to do is accept that there will be people who accept God and those who will never do. Instead of questioning the belief or ideology of each other, we should be vigilant of the real issues that divides us. Religious Extremism and Bigotry.


Argeed. When will us Thesis and Atheist get along.



Aielyn on 25 July 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.

I see three flaws.

1. Why must an existing god be "perfectly loving"? One could certainly envisage a god that is capable of... forsaking a person.

2. Why must a god being open to personal relationship with each person necessarily mean that, in the absence of resistance, they must be aware of the relationship? That's like suggesting that, because some people weren't aware of the existence of air despite their dependence on it, therefore air can't exist.

3. Can you prove that there exists people who are neither resistant nor aware of this god's existence? Otherwise, that predicate remains untested.

Mind you, I lack a belief in any deity. Without evidence supporting existence, I default to the position of non-existence. But one cannot prove nonexistence, just as one cannot prove that there has never existed a unicorn.



Jay520 on 25 July 2013
JWeinCom said:
Retarded from step 1. It's a pretty classic strategy, usually used by theists. Make up a random rule, and then draw conclusions based on that. Even if the conclusions are logical (don't think they are) that doesn't matter if you start from a random point. There is no need for god to be perfectly loving, and if you read the bible (especially the old testament) that term really doesn't describe god.

But anyway, I have a great 100% proof that god does not exist.

1. There is no evidence that there is a god.
2. If there is no evidence for a god, we act on the assumption there is no god.
3. If evidence is presented that there is a god, we can reconsider.


I agree that assuming God is perfectly loving makes no sense. I just pretend the argument is to specifically disprove a perfectly loving God, which works against what most theists believe. 



Jay520 on 25 July 2013
Aielyn said:

I see three flaws.

1. Why must an existing god be "perfectly loving"? One could certainly envisage a god that is capable of... forsaking a person.

2. Why must a god being open to personal relationship with each person necessarily mean that, in the absence of resistance, they must be aware of the relationship? That's like suggesting that, because some people weren't aware of the existence of air despite their dependence on it, therefore air can't exist.

3. Can you prove that there exists people who are neither resistant nor aware of this god's existence? Otherwise, that predicate remains untested.

Mind you, I lack a belief in any deity. Without evidence supporting existence, I default to the position of non-existence. But one cannot prove nonexistence, just as one cannot prove that there has never existed a unicorn.

1. Fair

2. Bad analogy. Unless air was (a) all-powerful, and (b) wanted everyone to have the opportunity to become aware of its existence. An all-powerful and all-loving God would want to have a loving relationship with every human; and would thus give everyone a fair and reasonable opportunity to form such a relationship (see below).

3. For one, people who have never been introduced to God, among others too.



ListerOfSmeg on 25 July 2013
LilChicken22 said:

I think this is one of the best arguments: If God is perfect, then how are the law of physics imperfect? Examples: development of diseases like cancer and autoimmune diseases, evolution of pathogens and getting resistant to antibiotics, disasters that are occurring in nature. Those kind of things occur because of 'flaws' or mechanisms that are compromised by another law that are made up by God. When he made them, he knew these kind of things would happen. Since he's perfect, he should've taken the time to come up with a perfect universe. Now this all sounds like bullcrap because it takes law of physics to CREATE something. Also, if God is HAPPY, or ANGRY with you (like many religious people told me because I'm a non-believer), then he's dependent of his own laws which means he's not perfect or the creator of ALL. Simple put: God doesn't exist.

Wow.... I have not read a more uninformed post from anyone on religion like that in a long time. Which one are you even referencing because of those I know, your knowledge doesnt fit any of them.

Sorry but you will always fail at trying to comprehend what a being with vastly more knowledge than you by pretending you know more or are better suited to judge them.

A caveman might think we are stupid for building roads and they make no sense. You are doing the same thing.You are looking at it as if you have all the pieces and know all the answers but that isnt the case.

A race created to never know pain, death, suffering would not appreciate a world where those things are not present.

I am assuming you are refering to Christianity with your post. I would suggest actually looking into it before posting your opinion again. An opinion based off lack  of knowledge is not a valid opinion at all. I'm not even Christian but I did my research on it at least.

"

If we all knew there was indeed a An omnipotent God who genuinely wanted to have a relationship with everyone would have given everyone reasonable and fair means to find him. "

God, we would all follow him.  Silly argument there. What reason would God have to want everyone to follow him? He is just after the best. Not the worst. You dont see humans true side by standing over them. You are trying to out think a being that knows and understands you better than you do.

It always amuses me when people try to play God and act like because they cant understand why someone far older and wiser then them did what they did.