The silence of God

[Visaki]

that is my point,

the problem is not the evidence for God, the problem is the philosophical assumption of naturalism.

So the problem is that we don't accept supernatural "evidence"?

There is nothing that God could do to convert you,

What kind of puny God do you worship that can't provide the evidence I need to believe in his existence? If among Gods attributes are allknowing and allpowerful I can only conclude that he wants me to be an atheist since proving His existence to me in an undisputable way would be a trivial task to Him. From my point of view God either doesn't want me to believe in Him (and who am I to argue with Him) or He doesn't exist.

for the same reason there is nothing you can do to convince Ken Ham that the bible is wrong.

Wrong. Ken Ham has admitted that nothing can convince he is wrong (which he is), but on the other side I'd like quote Hams opponent Bill Nye on what would it take to change his mind: "Evidence".

If you would have started with the assumption that the existence of God is posible (say a 50% probability) and start looking at the evidence from that assumption, arguments like the Kalam Cosmological Argument, teleological, resurrection, etc. would be convincing enough to grant the existence of God.

What a silly thing to say. Why would I start with the assumption that the existence of God was possible? I don't know if God (with the thee onmis) is actually possible, since He seems to have some major logical contradictions. Even if I grant that a gods existence is possible how can I calculate the probability of such a creature?

 

[Grumpy Santa]

So here's how I see it. If this God character existed and actually has the powers and knowledge many ascribe to it, then you would think it would be capable of knowing exactly what evidence each and every person would require in order to accept its existence. Knowing that, it would be a relatively simple task for this God to provide that evidence, demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that it exists, while still leaving us with the free will to live how we see fit. It would certainly simplify things, wouldn't it? There would be only one religion and everyone would know the God of that religion existed, plus there would likely be a more clearly defined set of rules to live by as well as actual knowledge of the consequences of breaking those rules.

Right now religion controls people in part with the scary mythology of hell and eternal torment. An involved and demonstrable God would take away the myths and you'd have facts alone. Do this, this or this, bad things. Do that, that or that, good things. Hey, it's even possible then that religious texts would be able to keep up with modern times and these God-rules would alter to actually go against things like slavery, genocide, and rape. Or, maybe, slavery, genocide, and rape would still be OK...

Yes God could have make his existence more obvious, but why would he do it? God is not interested in having more believers, he is presumably interested in having more individuals that have a loving relationship with him. for example demons believe in God, but they certainly don't have the relationship that God would like to have.

If this god loves everyone then simply making his presence known would guide more people to him, would it not? I'm sure he would be able to tell the sincere from those just playing along, after all.

what you have to do is accept your burden and prove that whatever you would call "more evidence" would result in more followers and not just more believers.

My burden? Not sure what you mean. Just an observation, if this god has the power to prevent people from going to hell simply by making his presence known to everyone and fails to do so, I'd say the burden lies on that god for sending people to hell that he never had to if it only took a little initiative.

just an analogy, if your paranoid and jealous girl friend, accuse you for cheating on her, what would you do.


option 1 you would prove to her that you are not cheating on her, by letting her put you a tracking devisor and a spy cam so that she could now where are you 24 / 7 and make your fidelity as evident possible?

option 2 you would tell her, fuck off, I love you, and I would like to have a relation with you, but you have to stop being so paranoid and trust me. I ll be waiting for you with an open hart, just let me know if you ever decide to trust me and I will receive you with my open hart. ?


hopefully you would pick option 2 , you could make your fidelity more evident, but why would you do it? you want a nice and loving girl fried that trusts you, not someone who is always skeptic about your fidelity.

There's also option 3, move on and find a new girlfriend because someone that un-trusting and demanding is likely to make you miserable in the long run.

of course you can always disagree, accept your burden and prove, that if God exist he would have picked option 1,

Your analogy fails completely with regards to what I was talking about. I'm simply saying that this God only needs to demonstrably show it exists then let people live as they please with that knowledge. By completely hiding all evidence of it's existence from mankind it would have noone to blame but itself for any non-believers.

Although there's a more likely explanation for the absence of evidence...

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Well of course. Everything we know of has a naturalistic explanation so the odds favor one for the unknown as well. Therefore the most logical step is to look for that naturalistic explanation instead of just saying "miracle" and looking no further.

that is my point,

the problem is not the evidence for God, the problem is the philosophical assumption of naturalism. There is nothing that God could do to convert you, for the same reason there is nothing you can do to convince Ken Ham that the bible is wrong.

Except if this God really was the god people claim then it would know exactly what evidence would be needed to "convert" me and offer it.

If you would have started with the assumption that the existence of God is posible (say a 50% probability) and start looking at the evidence from that assumption, arguments like the Kalam Cosmological Argument, teleological, resurrection, etc. would be convincing enough to grant the existence of God.

Why start with that assumption at all when there's no evidence supporting it? It's no more of a 50% probability than the existence of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a 50% probability. There only being two options (it exists or it doesn't) doesn't mean each option carries equal weight.

 

[MarsCydonia]

As usual, Leroy either refused or failed to educate himself... But I'll get back to the "Silence of God!" argument later because I want to first point out the brainlessness of this:

that is my point,

the problem is not the evidence for God, the problem is the philosophical assumption of naturalism. There is nothing that God could do to convert you, for the same reason there is nothing you can do to convince Ken Ham that the bible is wrong.

If you would have started with the assumption that the existence of God is posible (say a 50% probability) and start looking at the evidence from that assumption, arguments like the Kalam Cosmological Argument, teleological, resurrection, etc. would be convincing enough to grant the existence of God.

This has multiple glaring flaws, pretty much like everything else Leroy writes:

1. If god does not have the power to establish his existence, then he is not-all powerful or all-knowledgeable, is he? Here's where I expect Leroy to try and change "believe in god's existence" to "followers of god" like in an objection in his original comment (more on that when the argument is adressed).

2. If it's beyond god's ability, it's pretty much impossible by theologians' definition (god can do everything that is logically possible). So if its impossible for someone to be convinced, since heaven and hell rests on a belief in Jesus and god, how immoral is it for god to punish people for something that impossible to change? This would make god the greatest being in reality (or outside of it some theists assert).

3. How the hell was this "50%" calculated? Studies? Surveys? Out of Leroy's ass? It's the third because I used to 100% believe in god's existence. Then I tried to convince other people and it blew up in my face because I couldn't find any solid evidence or any sound arguments. I realize I had nothing but wishful thinking so this lead to my deconversion.
"Someone starting with the assumption that the existence of God is possible (say a 50% probability),is honest, has a brain convinced only by sound reasoning, and starts looking at the evidence from that assumption, arguments like the Kalam Cosmological Argument, teleological, resurrection, etc., s/he would still be unconvinced".

4. Does Leroy not realize that the Kalam Cosmological Argument does not lead to a god, much less the god of christianity?

So now to the pointless education of Leroy (as he lacks the ability to learn and improve):
"The silence of god" is known to the rest of us as the Argument from Nonbelief or as the Argument from Divine Hiddeness. We've even discussed it here but as your usual lazy self, you've missed it.

P1: God wants mankind to know he exists
Supported by: The whole point of christianity is that God "loves" mankind and wants mankind to be near him but since sin, people cannot be near god unless they accept god's "forgiveness for sin" clause a.k.a Jesus as their savior from their sin. For people to follow god, they first need to believe he exists.
P2: God has the power to establish his existence to mankind clearly and unambiguously
Supported by: because god is supposed to all-knowledgeable and all-powerful (christian theology) so there is nothing beyond his ability to accomplish this. It knows how to and has the power to.
C1: (from p1 and p2) God's existence should be clear and unambiguous as nothing would stop god from accomplishing his objective.
P3: God's existence is not clear and unambiguous.
Supported by: there are a multitude of religions whose adherents sincerely believe in a different god, varying sincere but different god-beliefs (deism, pantheism, etc.) and people who sincerely do not believe.
C2: (from c1 and p3) god does not exist.

 

[leroy]

I find it amazing that you think you know what a deity wants, while being unable to demonstrate one exists. Why are we assuming a god wants loving relationships with us? You have done nothing to justify this. However, good to know that you also believe in demons.

I don´t need to know what a deity wants, all I have to do is show that it is possible for an all powerful being to decide not to make his existence more obvious for whatever reason.

And I already provide a possible reason,


what you have to do is prove that if God exist he would necessarily have made his existence more obvious.



but we both know that you are not going to accept the burden proof, because for some mysterious reason you believe that atheist don't have to prove anything, even if they are the ones making the positive statement

 

[leroy]

that is my point,

the problem is not the evidence for God, the problem is the philosophical assumption of naturalism.

So the problem is that we don't accept supernatural "evidence"?

There is nothing that God could do to convert you,

What kind of puny God do you worship that can't provide the evidence I need to believe in his existence? If among Gods attributes are allknowing and allpowerful I can only conclude that he wants me to be an atheist since proving His existence to me in an undisputable way would be a trivial task to Him. From my point of view God either doesn't want me to believe in Him (and who am I to argue with Him) or He doesn't exist.

for the same reason there is nothing you can do to convince Ken Ham that the bible is wrong.

Wrong. Ken Ham has admitted that nothing can convince he is wrong (which he is), but on the other side I'd like quote Hams opponent Bill Nye on what would it take to change his mind: "Evidence".

If you would have started with the assumption that the existence of God is posible (say a 50% probability) and start looking at the evidence from that assumption, arguments like the Kalam Cosmological Argument, teleological, resurrection, etc. would be convincing enough to grant the existence of God.

What a silly thing to say. Why would I start with the assumption that the existence of God was possible? I don't know if God (with the thee onmis) is actually possible, since He seems to have some major logical contradictions. Even if I grant that a gods existence is possible how can I calculate the probability of such a creature?

1 if you what to claim that the existence of God is not possible (impossible) then you would have a heavy burden proof,

2 if nothing would convince that God exists, then there is nothing that God can do

3 even if there where something that would convince, and even if God has the powers to do that thing, there is no reason to think that God would necessary do it

 

[MarsCydonia]

And I already provide a possible reason,

what you have to do is prove that if God exist he would necessarily have made his existence more obvious.

And Leroy fails again.

The Argument from Nonbelief/Divine Hiddeness doesn't work with every god, it works with specific gods:
Gods that want mankind to know it exists and has the power to make its existence known.

If you're saying that god doesn't want people to know he exists or only wants certain people to know he exists, what the hell are the people who do not know are supposed to do if god wants to remain hidden?

Do you ever happen to think these things through?

 

[thenexttodie]

Everything we know of has a naturalistic explanation.

What do you mean?

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Everything we know of has a naturalistic explanation.

What do you mean?

Hmm... apologies if that wasn't clear.

Everything that we've discovered the explanation for has/had a naturalistic explanation. Nothing has been discovered that can only (or even best) be explained as being by a supernatural agent.

 

[leroy]

[

My burden? Not sure what you mean. Just an observation, if this god has the power to prevent people from going to hell simply by making his presence known to everyone and fails to do so, I'd say the burden lies on that god for sending people to hell that he never had to if it only took a little initiative.

well, I don't accept that premise, I don't grant that more evidence would translate in to more followers. that is something that the atheist has to proof



. Defining follower as someone who decides to have a loving relation with God

There's also option 3, move on and find a new girlfriend because someone that un-trusting and demanding is likely to make you miserable in the long run.

the point of the analogy was, that even though you have the power to make your fidelity more evident, that doesn't necessary imply that you will do it.

or even though God has the power to make his existence more evident that doesn't necessarily implies that he will do it.

Your analogy fails completely with regards to what I was talking about. I'm simply saying that this God only needs to demonstrably show it exists then let people live as they please with that knowledge. By completely hiding all evidence of it's existence from mankind it would have noone to blame but itself for any non-believers

I don't grant this premise ether, I think there is sufficient evidence for anyone who looks at it with an open mind an open hart. .

 

[leroy]

Except if this God really was the god people claim then it would know exactly what evidence would be needed to "convert" me and offer it.

2 things,


1 apparently given your own admission, nothing will convince you that God exist, there is nothing that God could possibly do

2 In case there is something that would convince you know exactly what would convince your paranoid girl friend (hypothetical of course) that you are no cheating on her, a spy cam and a tracking devisor. ...........but that doesn't mean that you will do it,

 

[leroy]

Everything that we've discovered the explanation for has/had a naturalistic explanation. Nothing has been discovered that can only (or even best) be explained as being by a supernatural agent.

that is because according to your metrics a discovered explanation is by definition a naturalistic explanation.............given your standards it is literally impossible to discover a supernatural explanation for anything.

 

[MarsCydonia]

I don't grant this premise ether, I think there is sufficient evidence for anyone who looks at it with an open mind an open hart. .

Then, prove that atheists, believers in other religions, believers in other gods concept, etc. do not have an open mind and an open heart.

The burden of proof is on you.

On another note, still refusing to google translate, uh.

 

[leroy]

P1: God wants mankind to know he exists
Supported by: The whole point of christianity is that God "loves" mankind and wants mankind to be near him but since sin, people cannot be near god unless they accept god's "forgiveness for sin" clause a.k.a Jesus as their savior from their sin. For people to follow god, they first need to believe he exists.
P2: God has the power to establish his existence to mankind clearly and unambiguously
Supported by: because god is supposed to all-knowledgeable and all-powerful (christian theology) so there is nothing beyond his ability to accomplish this. It knows how to and has the power to.
C1: (from p1 and p2) God's existence should be clear and unambiguous as nothing would stop god from accomplishing his objective.
P3: God's existence is not clear and unambiguous.
Supported by: there are a multitude of religions whose adherents sincerely believe in a different god, varying sincere but different god-beliefs (deism, pantheism, etc.) and people who sincerely do not believe.
C2: (from c1 and p3) god does not exist.

I would reject premise 1, God wants man kind to have a loving relationship with him, not just that man kind knows that he exists.


and I would say that more evidence (whatever you would consider evidence) would not necessarily lead to more individuals that decide to have a loving relationship with God.


this is supported by the fact hat most (if not all) atheist openly admit that no amount of evidence would ever convince them and even if they are convince they would say that they wouldn't follow him.

3. How the hell was this "50%" calculated? Studies? Surveys? Out of Leroy's ass? It's the third because I used to 100% believe in god's existence. Then I tried to convince other people and it blew up in my face because I couldn't find any solid evidence or any sound arguments. I realize I had nothing but wishful thinking so this lead to my deconversion

you mist my point,

for example if you where a detective and you are asked to investigate if John is guilty or innocent for the crime he is being accused, you would start the with assumption that he might be guilty or he might be innocent............and look for evidence from that starting assumption.


if you start with the assumption that he is guilty and you openly admit that no amount of evidence would convince you, then it doesn't matter if there is evidence for his innocence, you would reject it by default.


so if you start with the initial assumption that God may or may not exist and look at the evidence for and against God, from that initial assumption, you would conclude that God almost certainly exists. (or that is what I would argue)

 

[leroy]

I don't grant this premise ether, I think there is sufficient evidence for anyone who looks at it with an open mind an open hart. .

Then, prove that atheists, believers in other religions, believers in other gods concept, etc. do not have an open mind and an open heart.

The burden of proof is on you.

On another note, still refusing to google translate, uh.

nope, the burden proof in the atheist side.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

My burden? Not sure what you mean. Just an observation, if this god has the power to prevent people from going to hell simply by making his presence known to everyone and fails to do so, I'd say the burden lies on that god for sending people to hell that he never had to if it only took a little initiative.

well, I don't accept that premise, I don't grant that more evidence would translate in to more followers. that is something that the atheist has to proof

It's not that complicated. Ask any atheist here what it would take to convince them a god, any god, exists. I'd wager the vast majority could answer that with a single word... evidence.

. Defining follower as someone who decides to have a loving relation with God

Who knows? If it took the time and effort (which would be nominal for a god) to make its presence known then it would show it cares enough to consider.

There's also option 3, move on and find a new girlfriend because someone that un-trusting and demanding is likely to make you miserable in the long run.

the point of the analogy was, that even though you have the power to make your fidelity more evident, that doesn't necessary imply that you will do it.

or even though God has the power to make his existence more evident that doesn't necessarily implies that he will do it.

So entire cultures of people that never heard of this god or were raised under completely different religions, not even a hint of an effort to keep these folks out of hell? Seems like a dick move.

Your analogy fails completely with regards to what I was talking about. I'm simply saying that this God only needs to demonstrably show it exists then let people live as they please with that knowledge. By completely hiding all evidence of it's existence from mankind it would have noone to blame but itself for any non-believers

I don't grant this premise ether, I think there is sufficient evidence for anyone who looks at it with an open mind an open hart. .

By implying an open heart is needed you're implying to an appeal to emotion as opposed to actual, empirical evidence. Believe because feels, not facts. That is the basis behind every pseudo-science out there, from religion to homeopathy, acupuncture to climate change denial, anti-vaxxers to anti-GMO. Basically everything that goes against actual science.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Everything that we've discovered the explanation for has/had a naturalistic explanation. Nothing has been discovered that can only (or even best) be explained as being by a supernatural agent.

that is because according to your metrics a discovered explanation is by definition a naturalistic explanation.............given your standards it is literally impossible to discover a supernatural explanation for anything.

There's never been the need for a supernatural explanation.

 

[MarsCydonia]

I would reject premise 1, God wants man kind to have a loving relationship with him, not just that man kind knows that he exists.

and I would say that more evidence (whatever you would consider evidence) would not necessarily lead to more individuals that decide to have a loving relationship with God.

this is supported by the fact hat most (if not all) atheist openly admit that no amount of evidence would ever convince them and even if they are convince they would say that they wouldn't follow him.

:facepalm: I wonder how you still manage to impress me...

So...
1. To have a "relationship", you need to have belief in existence.
So, this would be where you moronically ask for atheists to demonstrate evidence of that.
That's quite easy: of all my relationships, none of them are with people I do not believe exists. It is impossible for me to have a relationship with someone I do not believe exists.

2. As I pointed out, if god is powerless to convince people he exists(going against christian theology), it is effing immoral to punish people for not believing his existence since it is impossible for them to do so.
Did you run from this point?

3. You still do not know what a fact is. But let me guess... It will be my burden of proof to say that this fact, that "most if not all atheists say no evidence would convince them", false rather than you to prove it is right...
Especially since my experience is that the atheists say evidence would change their mind while theists the sort of Ken Ham say nothing would (and I'm sure you're in the Ham camp).

4. As already pointed out, anyone who has at least an adequately functionning brain would understand that there is a difference between believing god's existence and following god. They are entirely two different issues.
Not wanting to follow a god/ideology is completely unrelated to its existence.

you mist my point,

for example if you where a detective and you are asked to investigate if John is guilty or innocent for the crime he is being accused, you would start the with assumption that he might be guilty or he might be innocent............and look for evidence from that starting assumption.

if you start with the assumption that he is guilty and you openly admit that no amount of evidence would convince you, then it doesn't matter if there is evidence for his innocence, you would reject it by default.

so if you start with the initial assumption that God may or may not exist and look at the evidence for and against God, from that initial assumption, you would conclude that God almost certainly exists. (or that is what I would argue)

IHow could I have missed your point when I explained how moronic it is?

3. How the hell was this "50%" calculated? Studies? Surveys? Out of Leroy's ass? It's the third because I used to 100% believe in god's existence. Then I tried to convince other people and it blew up in my face because I couldn't find any solid evidence or any sound arguments. I realize I had nothing but wishful thinking so this lead to my deconversion.
"Someone starting with the assumption that the existence of God is possible (say a 50% probability),is honest, has a brain convinced only by sound reasoning, and starts looking at the evidence from that assumption, arguments like the Kalam Cosmological Argument, teleological, resurrection, etc., s/he would still be unconvinced".

Don't worry Leroy, I do not expect you to understand this even on a second reading attempt.

nope, the burden proof in the atheist side.

:lol: why does Leroy thinks he never has the burden of proof when he makes an assertion?
So you refuse to support your assertion Leroy, that's noted. Which means your objection is bullshit.

Edited to correct typos.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I find it amazing that you think you know what a deity wants, while being unable to demonstrate one exists. Why are we assuming a god wants loving relationships with us? You have done nothing to justify this. However, good to know that you also believe in demons.

I don´t need to know what a deity wants, all I have to do is show that it is possible for an all powerful being to decide not to make his existence more obvious for whatever reason.

And I already provide a possible reason,


what you have to do is prove that if God exist he would necessarily have made his existence more obvious.



but we both know that you are not going to accept the burden proof, because for some mysterious reason you believe that atheist don't have to prove anything, even if they are the ones making the positive statement

I do not disagree with the idea that a deity can hide itself forever, I just see no clear reason why it would actively hide. However, my only point is that your reasoning fails for two reasons. First, you claim this god wants us to have a loving relationship with it. That claim is unsupported, and only rests on a Biblical claim. Second, since you want to play with the Christian mythos; Christianity only makes up nearly 1/3 of the earth's population. As you pointed out earlier, most of the world believes in some sort of god(s), but not Jesus. However, the Bible also claims that your god is a jealous god and thinks that we should not worship anything else but it. That means there are nearly 2/3 of the world's population that your god can convince (they already believe in god(s)), yet refuses to do so. That means your deity is condemning nearly 2/3 of the earth to hell fire (another Biblical claim) simply by not demonstrating itself.

for example if you where a detective and you are asked to investigate if John is guilty or innocent for the crime he is being accused, you would start the with assumption that he might be guilty or he might be innocent............and look for evidence from that starting assumption.

:facepalm:

Wow. Thank you for this insight into just how terrible your logic and reasoning skills are. For the record, anyone investigating any claim is supposed to go into it with as little bias as possible. One is supposed to let the evidence guide one to the truth.

 

[leroy]

It's not that complicated. Ask any atheist here what it would take to convince them a god, any god, exists. I'd wager the vast majority could answer that with a single word... evidence.

I have done that,

in most of the cases they would ether say that no evidence would convince them or they would say that they would not follow God anyway


the existence of God is evident for something like 99% of the worlds population and the remaining 1% openly admit that there is nothing that God could do to change their view.

.

So entire cultures of people that never heard of this god or were raised under completely different religions, not even a hint of an effort to keep these folks out of hell? Seems like a dick move.

I don't buy the idea that non Christian will go to hell, but that is a completely different topic.

By implying an open heart is needed you're implying to an appeal to emotion as opposed to actual, empirical evidence. Believe because feels, not facts. That is the basis behind every pseudo-science out there, from religion to homeopathy, acupuncture to climate change denial, anti-vaxxers to anti-GMO. Basically everything that goes against actual science.

with open hart I mean emotionally open to the idea. even if you personally don't like the idea.




things are very simple

I grant that God could have made his existence more obvious, but I don't grant that making his existence more obvious would lead to more followers,

the silence of God argument is suppose to be an atheist argument against the existence of God, therefore atheist have the burden proof, atheist have to show that more evidence would lead to more followers