Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by -1- » Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:57 am

seeds wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:54 pm
Please provide a detailed description of the proof you require {for a belief in god}.
A proof that can't be shown to be wrong. Okay, a proof that I, personally, can understand and I can't show to be wrong, or a proof that I understand and I can't research and find a logical refutation to.

A proof that makes sense and can't be denied. In this case, however, my belief in a god would not become out of non-existence; I would still not have a belief, because I'd have knowledge. And knowledge is certain belief, which denies the necessity for belief.

In other words, without a proof, I will not believe in god; with a proof I will not need to believe in a god. (Because I'll have certain knowledge.)

seeds
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by seeds » Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:46 am

seeds wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:54 pm
Please provide a detailed description of the proof you require {for a belief in god}.
-1- wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:57 am
A proof that can't be shown to be wrong. Okay, a proof that I, personally, can understand and I can't show to be wrong, or a proof that I understand and I can't research and find a logical refutation to.

A proof that makes sense and can't be denied. In this case, however, my belief in a god would not become out of non-existence; I would still not have a belief, because I'd have knowledge. And knowledge is certain belief, which denies the necessity for belief.

In other words, without a proof, I will not believe in god; with a proof I will not need to believe in a god. (Because I'll have certain knowledge.)
Okay.

Now just as a hypothetical, what affect do you think that absolute and irrefutable knowledge of the existence of God would have on humanity?

Keep in mind that we’re not talking about some weenie anthropomorphic nonsense handed down to us from the past.

No, we’re talking about a Being who not only (somehow) created and controls all of reality as we understand reality to be...

(a hundred billion – times – a hundred billion sun systems)

...but, presumably, is so far above us in scope and consciousness that we are like amoebas in comparison.

If everyone knew beyond any doubt that such a Being literally exists, then how do you imagine it would affect the way we think and act on earth?

Before you reply, really try to envision the full range of implications of such knowledge.
_______

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4208
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:18 pm

seeds wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:46 am
If everyone knew beyond any doubt that such a Being literally exists, then how do you imagine it would affect the way we think and act on earth?

Before you reply, really try to envision the full range of implications of such knowledge.
_______
It would be the end of free will in regard to that particular question.

We could no longer choose to go our own way, or to reject the knowledge of God. It would be epistemologically obligatory and necessary to know Him. You couldn't avoid knowing Him.

So the possibility of positively choosing to come to know God would also be gone. You cannot "choose" a particular thing when there is simply no alternative possible.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 503
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by Noax » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:39 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:18 pm
seeds wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:46 am
If everyone knew beyond any doubt that such a Being literally exists, then how do you imagine it would affect the way we think and act on earth?
...
It would be the end of free will in regard to that particular question.

We could no longer choose to go our own way, or to reject the knowledge of God. It would be epistemologically obligatory and necessary to know Him. You couldn't avoid knowing Him.

So the possibility of positively choosing to come to know God would also be gone. You cannot "choose" a particular thing when there is simply no alternative possible.
True, but I can think of nothing that is totally beyond doubt. There are those that doubt the apple in front of them, and the position is unassailable. So it seems there cannot be this epistemological obligation no matter how blatant the evidence, or lack of it. Free will as you describe it here is still safe.
But somehow I think an in-your-face sort of God would have different demands than belief.
Why belief anyway? It seems an absurd thing on which a non-revealing deity would base his judgement. Throw the minion into an environment with 175 different lists of rules on the wall. Massive punishment for those that don't pick out the correct one. Ever see Ghibli's "Spirited Away"? Chihiro is faced with such a choice at the end and makes the correct choice.

jayjacobus
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by jayjacobus » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:18 pm

Every person will rate their own argument a 10 while perhaps no argument is greater than a 5.1 when compared to all other arguments.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1275
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:26 pm

Viveka wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:36 am
thedoc wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:31 am
jayjacobus wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:11 am
Intelligent design makes sense. Counter arguments also make sense. Who knows?
Intelligent Design as opposed to evolution has been debunked in every case that has been investigated by science. Evolution has been demonstrated as the correct answer.
This is how the arguments go: Behe finds out that something is Irreducibly Complex(heretofore called IC). Then evolutionists say 'no way! it's this and this that COULD have happened and this and this being POSSIBLE means that IC is wrong.' Of course, they don't demonstrate intermediates in fossils or produce solid evidence, but just say 'well this and this means this, therefore Evolution COULD have done so.' In fact, they all create varying scenarios for a single demonstration of IC! Who's to say which scenario is correct without solid experimental or empirical evidence?
That about sums it up.....

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1275
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:28 pm

jayjacobus wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:11 am
Intelligent design makes sense. Counter arguments also make sense. Who knows?
If they "both" make sense...why not synthesize them so everyone is "happy".

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1275
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:29 pm

jayjacobus wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:18 pm
Every person will rate their own argument a 10 while perhaps no argument is greater than a 5.1 when compared to all other arguments.
Thanks for the 5.1 argument.

jayjacobus
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by jayjacobus » Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:18 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:28 pm
f they "both" make sense...why not synthesize them so everyone is "happy".
You might be happy now and understanding my point may make you unhappy.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4208
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:19 pm

Noax wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:39 pm
Free will as you describe it here is still safe.
Yes, I think it is, in reality. But seeds' question was a hypothetical, a "what if." We can all concede that it is not the case that we have certain knowledge of God; he was only asking for possible reasoning why such a thing isn't even desirable, if one were to demand it.
Why belief anyway?
Oh, I think that's an easy one.

We all know in practice that the basis of relationship is faith. If you have no faith in someone, then you simply do not like or trust them, and you don't want them around. But if you understand them to be decent people, people in whom you're happy to invest some of your confidence, then you can build on your relationship and maybe even see it become something great.

Without a certain amount of mutual goodwill and confidence in each other's character, that just cannot happen. And, of course, you always have to have the option, in any relationship, to choose not to go forward, or to choose someone else to whom to relate. Otherwise, there's just no choice.

jayjacobus
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by jayjacobus » Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:26 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:29 pm
jayjacobus wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:18 pm
Every person will rate their own argument a 10 while perhaps no argument is greater than a 5.1 when compared to all other arguments.
Thanks for the 5.1 argument.
Notice how I don't argue.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by Viveka » Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:01 pm

From your first link:

"Can we know for sure that this is how blood clotting (or any other biochemical system) evolved? The strict answer, of course, is we cannot. The best we can hope from our vertebrate ancestors are fossils that preserve bits and pieces of their form and structure, and it might seem that their biochemistry would be lost forever. But that's not quite true. Today's organisms are the descendents of that biological (and biochemical) past, and they provide a perfect opportunity to test these ideas."

Like I said, they make up hypothetical scenarios based upon evolutionary past schemes and then claim that IC is wrong. A true intermediate would be in the process of making blood clotting from the entire cascade.


For your second link:


"It has been proposed that the flagellum originated from a protein export system. Over time, this system might have been adapted to attach a bacterium to a surface by extruding an adhesive filament. An ion-powered pump for expelling substances from the cell might then have mutated to form the basis of a rotary motor. Rotating any asymmetrical filament would propel a cell and give it a huge advantage over non-motile bacteria even before more spiral filaments evolved."

"Without a time machine it may never be possible to prove that this is how the flagellum evolved."

In other words, they do NOT have a intermediate of the flagellum as in the middle of the process of 'building' a flagellum or else we would have proven IC wrong completely. Instead they offer speculation based upon 'past' non-intermediate mechanisms and the variety of flagellums.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by -1- » Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:17 pm

seeds wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:46 am
Okay.

Now just as a hypothetical, what affect do you think that absolute and irrefutable knowledge of the existence of God would have on humanity?

Keep in mind that we’re not talking about some weenie anthropomorphic nonsense handed down to us from the past.

No, we’re talking about a Being who not only (somehow) created and controls all of reality as we understand reality to be...

(a hundred billion – times – a hundred billion sun systems)

...but, presumably, is so far above us in scope and consciousness that we are like amoebas in comparison.

If everyone knew beyond any doubt that such a Being literally exists, then how do you imagine it would affect the way we think and act on earth?

Before you reply, really try to envision the full range of implications of such knowledge.
_______
Interesting question. I don't think it would have any effect on humanity, other than a quick change-about toward repenting, to gain redemption by those who follow a scripture. Then this sinless life (each adhering to the teaching of their own religion) would slowly but surely change back to a life as determined by natural forces, i.e. evolutionarily developed behaviour patterns.

The atheists would not be affected: they never followed a srcipture, as atheists for life, and they realize that this hypothetical god's relationship will not change just because we know about its existence. Basically what you described your god as, paints him a distanced being from humanity, with no ties or special interest in it; some, but none special. In fact, even if it is proven to exist, its functionality would render the universe just as scientifically scrutable, and just as open to man's inquiry and discovery of its workings, as if there were no god such as the one you described. In fact, there is no visible or other tangible or intangible way of seeing the effect of your hypothetical god more than in a world of belief, where there is not even a belief in it.

Beyond these two changes, if this god does not communicate anything new to humanity, then after a while life will be indistinguishable from how it used to be before the "knowledge" was learned.

0000000000000000

What do you think, Seeds? How would you answer your own question? I considered that the scriptures of any religion were all written by people, not inspired by gods, and were the vehicles primarily created to control people.

Dubious
Posts: 1615
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by Dubious » Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:14 pm

If the universe were created by conscious intent why must it be by a so-called god? If "designed", it would seem more viable that an alien vastly advanced civilization in another universe or dimension understood the recipe, the rules by which to create one and so made the experiment. Once the engineering and rules of operation was completed the incipient universe goes its own way subject only to its internal dynamic or Dunamis.

Such a scenario would preclude any belief in god as absurd while still acknowledging the universe as created by an external will...not that I adhere to this idea. It was simply meant to show a counter possibility based on a conscious design setting without endlessly inserting god as its creator. It unbalances the heretofore historical relationship between god and universe.

Who knows if humans couldn't "compose" a universe in the fullness of time if allowed to exist and progress to the point when such an option may become viable. Logically, this idea makes more sense whether true or not than any single entity called god which is only deposited by the imagination since there's no other way to get there by other means.

uwot
Posts: 3437
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by uwot » Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:28 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:04 pm
You believe some god may exist, but you don't believe he actually exists?
That's one way of putting it.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:04 pm
If God(s) may possibly exist, must God(s) eventually exist otherwise it would be "impossible"?
Do you really mean "eventually"? That doesn't fit the template of a creator of the universe. That aside, I cannot see any logical link between 'could exist' and 'must exist'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:29 pm
...what arguments are those?
The usual suspects: ontological, which is simply unsound, and all the variations on teleological/design arguments, all of which rest on dodgy premises.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:04 pm
I have to ask because the man who wrote the article, whatever his name is, didn't do a good job at all. I hoped for better from an "academic".
Well, it is a review of a book, that deals with two specific arguments (listed at the end of the review) that aim to show that "the God of evangelical Christianity" does not exist. To me, that's a no-brainer. The god of evangelical Christianity is transparently based on a iron age myth, itself the distillation of earlier bronze age myths; manipulated and codified by the then two most influential mediterranean cultures, Rome and Greece, which since the reformation has been further distorted to suit a wide variety of local requirements. But that is a different claim to no god at all exists.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests