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
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 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:30 pm

uwot wrote:
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'.
What template is that exactly as you have provided none. In an infinite universe all possibilities must exist through a form of modal realism. However if you do not believe the universe is infinite, nor believe the concept of infinity exists, they by default your "truth as belief" will inevitably end.
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.
And as I said, what arguments are those? Ontological arguments stem from a priori evidence, much in the same manner atheist arguments do. The same for teleological arguments emphasis on order as a foundation, is simultaneously founded for atheist arguments in a seperate respect. The definition of a creator is not, and cannot be limited to either ontological and/or teleological arguments.

Now according to you, the premises are dodgy...what premises are those exactly? The premises you chose break down to belief in one respect and absence of belief in another, religious arguments follow a similiar structure as they believe in God but not x or they do not believe in x therefore they believe in God.

In all frankness, from what it appears, you appear not to believe in God(s) simply because you don't "feel" like it. That I can understand as a premise, but don't argue strict logic with the above.

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 arguments he applied used premises which do not exist. Take for example: God does not exist because Christians believe in x as a universal. However if X does not exist as part of the Christian doctrine, then the argument is founded on unsounded premises. The author is a bad author because he simply "lied" and used logic as a covering mechanism. Atheistic are bigger hypocrites than the religious.

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.
Agreed, however the author does not argue this point specifically in his argument, if I remember correctly. Arguing against evangelical Christianity does not equate to God does not exist. You understand that logic, right?

But that is a different claim to no god at all exists.
Agreed, it is a completely different claim

Belinda
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

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

Post by Belinda » Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:49 pm

Dubious wrote:
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.
I think that like other posters to the thread you refer to God the Creator of all, and alternative creators. I agree with you as to God the Creator of all, and alternative creators. However I suggest that there are at least two definitions of God. There's the Creator, and there's Sovereign Good. Now that science has overtaken God the Creator as explanation for existence, Sovereign Good is much more interesting and has practical applications too.

uwot
Posts: 3439
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 11:25 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:30 pm
What template is that exactly as you have provided none.
Any that includes a god as creator of the universe.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:30 pm
In an infinite universe all possibilities must exist through a form of modal realism. However if you do not believe the universe is infinite, nor believe the concept of infinity exists, they by default your "truth as belief" will inevitably end.
I have no idea whether or not the universe is infinite. Certainly all the visible matter appears to have originated in one place, but whether that was the origin of everything, or was some sort of chain reaction in something much larger is moot.
It is not my "truth as belief", but what is the logic behind your assertion that it must inevitably end, in the absence of infinity?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:29 pm
And as I said, what arguments are those? Ontological arguments stem from a priori evidence, much in the same manner atheist arguments do. The same for teleological arguments emphasis on order as a foundation, is simultaneously founded for atheist arguments in a seperate respect.
Tell that to an atheist who presents such an argument.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:30 pm
The definition of a creator is not, and cannot be limited to either ontological and/or teleological arguments.
Fair enough. What else have you got?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:30 pm
Now according to you, the premises are dodgy...what premises are those exactly?
Take your pick. If there is any you think is sound, I'll tell you why I think it's dodgy.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:30 pm
In all frankness, from what it appears, you appear not to believe in God(s) simply because you don't "feel" like it. That I can understand as a premise, but don't argue strict logic with the above.
Well, if an atheist's attitude to god reduces to feeling, is the same not true of theists?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:04 pm
The author is a bad author because he simply "lied" and used logic as a covering mechanism. Atheistic are bigger hypocrites than the religious.
Have you read his book? Can you cite a passage that supports this claim?

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 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:30 pm

seeds wrote: Now just as a hypothetical, what affect do you think that absolute and irrefutable knowledge of the existence of God would have on humanity?
-1- wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:17 pm
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.
Judging from your answers (and keeping in mind that this is just a fanciful “what if” thought experiment), I realize that I have not provided enough details to the question.

It’s my fault, but I guess I naively presumed that those to whom the question is directed would infer that the revealing of the truth of the existence of God would also include a wide range of other clarifying revelations – a few of which I will attempt to list in no specific order of importance:

One – The ultimate intention of God, along with the truth of what lies beyond the veil of death, will be made clear to us.

Two – It will immediately be understood by all humans that the creation of the universe is no accident.

Three – All of the divergent religions of the world, along with their silly and inept depictions of God, will be wiped out, wherein there can only exist one singular vision of what God truly is – a vision based on the absolute truth, which has now been revealed.

With that in mind, let’s move on to your other points.

(Continued in next post)
_______

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 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:31 pm

_______

(Continued from prior post)
-1- wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:17 pm
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.
Are you kidding?

The atheists would be the most affected of all, for they can no longer not believe in the existence of God.

Atheism would be revealed to be utterly false, wherein all atheists would have no choice but to be theists.
-1- wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:17 pm
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 presenting the Creator of this universe as being vastly above us in scope and consciousness...

(a seemingly obvious fact of a Being who is capable of creating and controlling a hundred-billion galaxies of suns and planets)

...I never meant to imply that the Creator is literally “distant” or uninterested in us. For, indeed, awakening us into existence seems to be one of his* primary goals.

*(Gender-based pronouns, along with the word “God” are unfortunate (baggage-laden) terms. But unless one is prepared to muddle the conversation with PC alternatives, then they are often unavoidable.)
-1- wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:17 pm
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.
Yes, it would still be scientifically scrutable.

However, from the moment of the revelation of God’s existence, all scientific inquiry from that point forward would no longer be based on how “chance” created the universe, but on how God created the universe.

Surely human science would be interested in what it is that connects God’s will to the fabric of reality in such a way that allowed him to shape it into suns and planets?

(Btw, the truth of what that connecting feature is seems obvious to me, how about you?)
-1- wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:17 pm
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.
Who said that the revelation wasn’t visible or tangible in some way? I mean, how else could it be irrefutable to everyone?
-1- wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:17 pm
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.
From the moment humans come into the knowledge of the absolute truth of the existence of God, then I suggest that all human endeavor and focus – again, from that point forward – would be dedicated to understanding and complying with God's ultimate intentions.

In other words, almost all human focus would be tilted toward the transcendent realm, as opposed to its present focus on the material realm.

And the point is that the impetus that drives humans to explore and manipulate the constituents of our present level of reality would now be applied to visualizing and longing for God’s level of reality – effectively rendering the material universe meaningless in comparison.

Furthermore, to assume that humans (after the passage of time) would simply ignore such a profound revelation and thus revert to something resembling materialism, is utter nonsense.

However, I do get your point.

For it reminds me of the ridiculous story in the Bible where humans allegedly witnessed Moses holding up his staff and parting the Red Sea, and just a few years later, ignored what would logically be an utterly mind-blowing (indelible) event and reverted back to their old idols.*

*(Imagine someone holding up a staff and parting Lake Michigan so that you could walk (perhaps 90 miles) between two gigantic walls of water from the shore of Michigan over to the shore of Wisconsin. I’m guessing it would leave a lasting impression.)

Nevertheless, for the sake of this fanciful scenario, let’s just assume that whatever the method was that allowed for the revelation of the Creator’s existence in the first place, remains in-play for all future humans to experience.

Does any of that change your interpretation of the question?

(Continued in next post)
_______

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 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:33 pm

_______

(Continued from prior post)
-1- wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:17 pm
What do you think, Seeds? How would you answer your own question?
Well, based on the fact that I am a “Panentheistic/Berkeleyanish Idealist” who believes that the closed bubble of this one particular universe is the literal mind of God – a mind that is an extremely advanced version of our own minds, as is depicted in one of my oft-used illustrations...

Image

...then answering my own question is intimately related to what I believe our relationship with God truly is.

If you are interested, then click on the following link to my website and scroll down through my drawings - http://theultimateseeds.com/murmurings.htm

However, a quick answer to your question is that I believe that if God were to reveal himself, along with his ultimate intentions for us, then it would destroy the integrity of the “illusion” of objective reality, and all of humanity would disappear from the face of the planet.

To understand why, then read the post I made for Belinda in the “Einstein and the Cosmic Man” thread - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22708&start=615#p336360
_______

Dubious
Posts: 1617
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 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:35 pm

Belinda wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:49 pm
I think that like other posters to the thread you refer to God the Creator of all, and alternative creators. I agree with you as to God the Creator of all, and alternative creators. However I suggest that there are at least two definitions of God. There's the Creator, and there's Sovereign Good. Now that science has overtaken God the Creator as explanation for existence, Sovereign Good is much more interesting and has practical applications too.
I think you misunderstood my post or there's something I'm not getting in yours. My view is the universe may not need a God to exist. If created by an external will as compared to a "self-creating natural process" there is no reason to call it god measured in the way WE define the word GOD. In that sense, excluding a Sovereign Will also excludes a Sovereign Good...aside which, I have no idea what a Sovereign Good is or meant to imply!

Belinda
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

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

Post by Belinda » Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:06 am

Dubious wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:35 pm
Belinda wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:49 pm
I think that like other posters to the thread you refer to God the Creator of all, and alternative creators. I agree with you as to God the Creator of all, and alternative creators. However I suggest that there are at least two definitions of God. There's the Creator, and there's Sovereign Good. Now that science has overtaken God the Creator as explanation for existence, Sovereign Good is much more interesting and has practical applications too.
I think you misunderstood my post or there's something I'm not getting in yours. My view is the universe may not need a God to exist. If created by an external will as compared to a "self-creating natural process" there is no reason to call it god measured in the way WE define the word GOD. In that sense, excluding a Sovereign Will also excludes a Sovereign Good...aside which, I have no idea what a Sovereign Good is or meant to imply!
A "self-creating natural process" is an alternative to God as creator.

A self creating natural process is not good or bad it's amoral. By sovereign good I mean a mirage of which we can barely make out details but which some of us need for a compass bearing.

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 » Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:43 am

seeds wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:33 pm
_______

(Continued from prior post)
-1- wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:17 pm
What do you think, Seeds? How would you answer your own question?
Well, based on the fact that I am a “Panentheistic/Berkeleyanish Idealist” who believes that the closed bubble of this one particular universe is the literal mind of God – a mind that is an extremely advanced version of our own minds, as is depicted in one of my oft-used illustrations...

Image

...then answering my own question is intimately related to what I believe our relationship with God truly is.

If you are interested, then click on the following link to my website and scroll down through my drawings - http://theultimateseeds.com/murmurings.htm

However, a quick answer to your question is that I believe that if God were to reveal himself, along with his ultimate intentions for us, then it would destroy the integrity of the “illusion” of objective reality, and all of humanity would disappear from the face of the planet.

To understand why, then read the post I made for Belinda in the “Einstein and the Cosmic Man” thread - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22708&start=615#p336360
_______
I enjoyed the writings on that thread by you. Gnosis is the propagator and origin of all religious dogma and theology. Without mystical experience religion would be mute and blind.

davidm
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Post by davidm » Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:31 pm

seeds wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:31 pm
In presenting the Creator of this universe as being vastly above us in scope and consciousness...

(a seemingly obvious fact of a Being who is capable of creating and controlling a hundred-billion galaxies of suns and planets)

...I never meant to imply that the Creator is literally “distant” or uninterested in us. For, indeed, awakening us into existence seems to be one of his* primary goals.
So ... he can create and control a hundred billion galaxies and sun and planets ... but he has a goal of "awakening us into existence," whatever that is supposed to mean.

Funny he can create and control a hundred billion galaxies and sun and planets but is so inept at "awakening us into existence!" :lol:

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 » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:37 am

-1- wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:17 pm
What do you think, Seeds? How would you answer your own question?
seeds wrote:
...answering my own question is intimately related to what I believe our relationship with God truly is.

If you are interested, then click on the following link to my website and scroll down through my drawings - http://theultimateseeds.com/murmurings.htm

However, a quick answer to your question is that I believe that if God were to reveal himself, along with his ultimate intentions for us, then it would destroy the integrity of the “illusion” of objective reality, and all of humanity would disappear from the face of the planet.

To understand why, then read the post I made for Belinda in the “Einstein and the Cosmic Man” thread - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22708&start=615#p336360
_______
Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:43 am
I enjoyed the writings on that thread by you.
Thank you, Viveka, that is very kind of you to say.
Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:43 am
Gnosis is the propagator and origin of all religious dogma and theology. Without mystical experience religion would be mute and blind.
Not only mute and blind, but probably nonexistent.

And isn’t it unfortunate (and even perplexing) that so many humans are not only uninterested in gnosis (i.e., spiritual and mystical knowledge), but are downright hostile and mocking of those who are.

I have my own theories as to why that is, however, what say you?
_______

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- » Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:27 am

Seeds, there are too many "what if..., then this must be"-s in your text. You say I must hypothetically assume a lot of things I consider untruths. You can't ask me that.

Gimme an different question, and if you want an honest discussion, please don't change the parameters AFTER the question has been posed.

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- » Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:33 am

Seeds, and Viveka, you two are great believers, and I think it's only possible because you live your lives with a belief in a world view which is a mix of religion and poetry. Whatever one lacks, the other will fulfill.

I am too sober to be able to do that. For me, logic rules. Along with evidence, and in lieu of evidence, reasonable belief. Where the buck stops is that I consider some belief reasonable which I believe, and some belief unreasonable, which I don't find believable. This is a subjective decision, and I won't deny that. Only a fool will try to convince you that his subjective system of beliefs is the objective truth.

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- » Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:42 am

davidm wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:31 pm

Funny {God} can create and control a hundred billion galaxies and sun and planets but is so inept at "awakening us into existence!" :lol:
Well, humans are dependent on their senses and on their interpretation of the signals given to them by their senses, to get a picture of reality. There are doubts, serious doubts about our senses being accurate or truthful, and there are serious doubts about our interpretations being flawless. In other words, we need our mind to sort out the sensations, and the mind could be given counter-factual sensations, and the mind can mishandle the data (whether the data it deals with is false or true).

So... not so miraculously, even god can't penetrate man's perception to help him perceive reality. If god could do that... but he can't. Nobody can, not with the apparatus given to humans to sense and make sense of the world around them.

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- » Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:48 am

It's easy to control the behaviour of stars and galaxies... they obey physical rules, uniformly.

Controlling humans is a bit of a walk on slippery rocks: no direct control can be established, and without direct control, or direct communication, all meaning and instruction is potentially lost, damaged, altered, or mutilated.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests