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

[seeds]

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.

Fair enough.

However, anyone who suggests that in the event of God revealing himself to humanity...

The atheists would not be affected...

...doesn’t seem to be interested in an “honest discussion.”

In my initial post I complained about Theodore Drange’s arguments by stating the following...

Clearly this is just another situation of someone creating a “thought bubble” that we’re all supposed to step inside of, wherein everyone is then expected to accept the dubious precepts from which the bubble is formed as being true.

...in which case, I am obviously guilty of doing the same with my “what if God were to reveal himself” scenario.

Therefore, I understand and accept your point as being valid.

Nevertheless, because so very little thought has been given to how damaging it might be to humanity if God did indeed reveal himself...

(along with our ultimate purpose and destiny)

...then my question was merely intended to induce a deeper exploration of why it might be important for God to remain hidden from us.
_______

[seeds]

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 cannot speak for Viveka, but I assure you, there is a lot more supporting my world view than just religion and poetry.

I am too sober to be able to do that. For me, logic rules.

Me too, -1-.

Which makes it extremely perplexing to me how anyone who cherishes “logic” could actually buy-in to the idea that we and the universe exist because, as I stated earlier...

...mindless processes have taken hold of the fabric of reality and somehow managed to fashion it (like a potter’s hands) into a context of order that defies comprehension.

...That the utterly blind workings of gravity and thermodynamics were not only able to “magically create” the impossibly stable setting depicted below...



...but also managed to equip the setting with every possible ingredient and process necessary to bring-forth and sustain a flourishing biosphere of living beings.

Now I realize (and agree) that the silly depictions of a universal intelligence handed down to us from the past are ridiculously naïve.

However, what the atheist/materialist is willing to settle for (in place of intelligence) is sheer nonsense.
_______

[-1-]

Seeds, I'll leave it at that.

[attofishpi]

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

A contrary argument right here on PHN:- viewtopic.php?f=16&t=23316

[The Woodster]

x

[Eodnhoj7]

I believe that a God exists, but it is neither omnipotent or spiritual.
It is a God which is essentially powerless.
It cannot influence or control any of the physical universe. Neither can it influence the course evolution has taken on earth, or have any control over the actions and thoughts of any living things.
However without it there would be no life, or universe.

I've submitted a theory about the meaning of life which explains in detail, among other stuff, the statements above. When it is approved and published please read it, and hopefully you will view the universe and life from a different perspective.

The Woodster

God as a neutral synthesis.

[attofishpi]

I believe that a God exists, but it is neither omnipotent or spiritual.
It is a God which is essentially powerless.
It cannot influence or control any of the physical universe. Neither can it influence the course evolution has taken on earth, or have any control over the actions and thoughts of any living things.
However without it there would be no life, or universe.

I've submitted a theory about the meaning of life which explains in detail, among other stuff, the statements above. When it is approved and published please read it, and hopefully you will view the universe and life from a different perspective.

The Woodster

Oh dear - as what some could label me a 'gnostic panentheist' - you are making a big mistake in judgement re 'God'.
I've had > 20 yrs of experience of this entity, it very much is or at least has, control over sub atomic 'matter' a potency more potent than a theist might even consider.
You might want to have a look at a site i created - check the central part 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt.' www.androcies.com
But good luck with your book nonetheless.

[jayjacobus]

Oh dear - as what some could label me a 'gnostic panentheist' - you are making a big mistake in judgement re 'God'.
I've had > 20 yrs of experience of this entity, it very much is or at least has, control over sub atomic 'matter' a potency more potent than a theist might even consider.
You might want to have a look at a site i created - check the central part 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt.' www.androcies.com
But good luck with your book nonetheless.

I suppose you can deduce the creation of the universe but your proof must be unassailable because you can't test your conclusion. The same is true of theists and atheists. Point, counterpoint can be said but neither can be tested in totality. And neither stands a chance of unassailable logic.

[attofishpi]

Oh dear - as what some could label me a 'gnostic panentheist' - you are making a big mistake in judgement re 'God'.
I've had > 20 yrs of experience of this entity, it very much is or at least has, control over sub atomic 'matter' a potency more potent than a theist might even consider.
You might want to have a look at a site i created - check the central part 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt.' www.androcies.com
But good luck with your book nonetheless.

I suppose you can deduce the creation of the universe but your proof must be unassailable because you can't test your conclusion. The same is true of theists and atheists. Point, counterpoint can be said but neither can be tested in totality. And neither stands a chance of unassailable logic.

I agree, well said.

[Necromancer]

From my idea, The Slipstream Argument - The requirements to Agnosticism increase..., link: https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/20 ... ts-to.html.

The Argument From Evil (AE) and The Argument From Nonbelief (ANB), Theodore Drange, suggest to me that a person by these two ideas haven't followed through with modern, Biblical ethics (commonly Kantian) and morality. There is no seriousness from such a person to take up ethics/morality to such ends that the impression of God becomes sound enough. Rather such a person is more "eligible" for Hell in being dishonest and morally insufficient for Heaven. The idea of Heaven with the sound impression and deep feeling of God are lost to this person. With Søren Kierkegaard's Three stages of life, it seems that the aesthetics on behalf of the health and well being of people isn't strong enough to compel the person to these serious Christian/Kantian ethics or law-abiding character for that matter.

Now, for real, I should have followed up with empirical studies by fMRI, interviews and retrieved neuro-values/bio-electrical values from research participants, but for now this will have to happen some other time into the future. However, the leads are given, you! Go and do?

[Belinda]

Seeds, what makes you think that the creator of all that exists is conscious of what it is doing?

[seeds]

Seeds, what makes you think that the creator of all that exists is conscious of what it is doing?

A while back in an alternate thread, I stated that in the summer of 1970 I experienced a profound spiritual epiphany – the details of which I am not prepared to discuss on a forum (at least not at the present moment).

However, I am willing to profess that it transformed my “belief” in the existence of a Creator, into the “knowledge” of its existence.

And yes, I am talking about a Creator that is extremely “conscious” of what it is doing. Again, higher in consciousness relative to us, similar to how a mother is higher in consciousness relative to a fetus in her womb - as is metaphorically depicted in one of my fanciful illustrations...



(For a clearer view of the dialogue, click on the following link - http://www.theultimateseeds.com/murmurings.htm)

And as is speculatively suggested in the illustration, there is more to “all that exists” than just this one universe. With the implication being that the Creator of our particular universe is not the Creator of “all that exists.”
_______

[Belinda]

Seeds, it is impossible to discuss anyone's mystical experience. I do recognise that you know what you know. Your experience is like when someone says they feel cold there is no sense in denying that they do so. This sort of knowing is called ' privileged access'. Unless my nervous system were to be connected to your brain-mind I cannot know what you know with respect to your private knowledge.

The sorts of knowledge that philosophers can discuss are about deductions e.g. mathematics, and about matters of empirical fact, e.g. the climate.

[seeds]

Seeds, it is impossible to discuss anyone's mystical experience.

Nonsense!

Mystical experiences have been discussed in one form or another since humans arose on this planet.

I mean, what in the world do you think most religions are founded upon?

I do recognise that you know what you know. Your experience is like when someone says they feel cold there is no sense in denying that they do so. This sort of knowing is called ' privileged access'. Unless my nervous system were to be connected to your brain-mind I cannot know what you know with respect to your private knowledge.

That’s quite true, Belinda.

However, isn’t the revealing and comparisons of our inner private knowledge (in the hope of mutual growth) the very purpose of forums such as this one?

The sorts of knowledge that philosophers can discuss are about deductions e.g. mathematics, and about matters of empirical fact, e.g. the climate.

You can’t be serious, B.

Clearly, Plato was not discussing matters of empirical fact (empirical evidence) when he talked about “ideal forms” or the “cave allegory.” Nor was Kant discussing matters of empirical fact when he talked about the “noumenon” or the “categorical imperative.”

Therefore, according to you, neither one of those icons of philosophy were actually doing philosophy.

Would you like to rethink and restate your assertion?
_______

[Belinda]

Seeds, it is impossible to discuss anyone's mystical experience.

Nonsense!

Mystical experiences have been discussed in one form or another since humans arose on this planet.

I mean, what in the world do you think most religions are founded upon?

Belinda's reply: we can discuss the nature of mystical experiences, and I have done so.
Most religions are founded upon the need for groups of people to cooperate. That's to say, there is an immediate and pressing need at all times for people in society to adhere in some manner to a moral consensus, what's right and what's wrong.

I do recognise that you know what you know. Your experience is like when someone says they feel cold there is no sense in denying that they do so. This sort of knowing is called ' privileged access'. Unless my nervous system were to be connected to your brain-mind I cannot know what you know with respect to your private knowledge.

That’s quite true, Belinda.

However, isn’t the revealing and comparisons of our inner private knowledge (in the hope of mutual growth) the very purpose of forums such as this one?

Belinda's reply: I don't think so. We are comparing rational knowledge not mystical knowledge or knowledge about our personal feelings. Mystical feelings and other personal feelings are the province of the arts.There is an overlap with religious practice but many would call the overlap self -indulgence. Take, for instance, the wisdom that it's more blessed to give than to receive, and also that he who loses his life will redeem it; these wisdoms are counter to self indulgent perceived needs to have nice cosy safe feelings.

The sorts of knowledge that philosophers can discuss are about deductions e.g. mathematics, and about matters of empirical fact, e.g. the climate.

You can’t be serious, B.
Belinda's reply:One of my faults is that I am usually rather an earnest person and I have to check myself when small talk is called for.

Clearly, Plato was not discussing matters of empirical fact (empirical evidence) when he talked about “ideal forms” or the “cave allegory.” Nor was Kant discussing matters of empirical fact when he talked about the “noumenon” or the “categorical imperative.”

Therefore, according to you, neither one of those icons of philosophy were actually doing philosophy.

Would you like to rethink and restate your assertion?

Belinda's reply: metaphysics , that branch of metaphysics which is about what exists is not empirical investigation and is nevertheless considered to be philosophy. Ontology is largely deductive and may include much creative imagination.

While I don't decry your mystical experience, I do object to your confining your thought to dogmatic assertions that, because you had a mystical experience, therefor a supernatural supreme being exists. Plato believed in eternal and transcendent good. However Plato's belief can inspire everybody and does not depend upon individuals having the talent for mystical experience.
_______