Topic: Arg 3 for Atheism: Divine Silence (Read 16876 times)

Copernicus · « **Reply #40 on:** February 23, 2006, 10:13:34 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

Nah, that's a nice try, but this is just your most refined formulation. However, it would be unfair of me to not allow you to refine your thoughts. I think that's what makes such discourse valuable. However, there is a difference between refining what you mean and saying one thing and saying another later and then saying you were saying the same thing all along.

Whatever. Now we can get back to the topic--the problem of divine silence. There is also the matter of your silence in the face of certain questions. For example:

"Do we agree that God no longer communicates with humans as he once did, according to the biblical record? Do you have an opinion as to why this being changed his behavior?"

"Can you explain how knowledge that God exists--a knowledge that many people claim to have anyway--destroys the freedom to choose? I've asked this before and gotten responses that didn't really answer the question. All of our choices are coerced on some level, so coercion is not really the issue here. If god wants us to obey him, what end does his silence serve? After all, we're supposed to get that direct communication at some point. Why be coy about it?"

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #41 on:** February 23, 2006, 10:32:31 PM »

"There is also the matter of your silence in the face of certain questions."

Intimidated, no doubt. I guess maybe I need to hunt up some of your silence against some of my awe-inspiring questions, too.

"Do we agree that God no longer communicates with humans as he once did, according to the biblical record? Do you have an opinion as to why this being changed his behavior?"

I do not agree. Any person who is versed in the biblical record knows that there were some main examples that were unique. The nation of Israel, for example, was the first and only true theocracy within a covenantal situation. The Israelites did not keep up their side of the covenant. Aside from the national revelation discussed in Exodus-Deut, much of the other instances were sporadic. There is no reason to think this is precluded at the current time. However, much, if not all of this was a build-up to the arrival of God himself on the scene. See, please Luke 20:9-19 where Jesus himself discusses this progression.

It is certainly meaningless to discuss it further if the OT and NT are not at least taken as recording real events for the sake of discussion. Out of curiosity- do you guys have Bibles? Do you look up the passages that are cited, or is that effort wasted? This is not meant to be condescending, and I don't have to be told that many atheists know their 'bible' quite well.

"Can you explain how knowledge that God exists--a knowledge that many people claim to have anyway--destroys the freedom to choose?"

Asked and answered. "Destroys the freedom to choose?" That's your language, not ours. Not mine, anyway. Its a strawman.

"If god wants us to obey him, what end does his silence serve?"

Why do you think that's his goal?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #42 on:** February 23, 2006, 10:52:41 PM »

I want to slip in here something from my very first post on this thread:

Quote

The FWD argument is only one component of my response. I won't have time to defend more, but possibly I may become more interested as time goes on. (Nothing further on the Jesus Exists threads?)

In actuality, the FWD is a minor component of my response. The primary response has to do with epistemology. You seem to think it would be easy for God (monotheistic, panetheistic, Christian God) to reveal himself in a way that respects a robust epistemology.

Continuing to harp at me about free will is a complete non-starter. I'm on the record from my very first post in the thread emphasizing the epistemological aspects of the question rather than the 'free will' aspects.

Cogito · « **Reply #43 on:** February 24, 2006, 02:06:00 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

Fantastic is subjective. Sorry.

"Fantastic" is an adjective which means "based on or existing only in fantasy; unreal."

If this adjective isn't applicable to events like resurrections, virgin births, sea partings, worldwide inundations, burning bushes that speak, etc., I'm not sure to what events it might be applicable.

Quote from: sntjohnny

"This can be shown."

Oh, I don't think so.

Can, too. :)

Quote from: sntjohnny

Well, naturally that follows from your preconceptions about the world. Its your own comfortable security blanket. The idea that somebody could honestly look at the evidence and come away thinking the evidence good is anathema to your theology. Clearly Copernics feels the same way. That says more about your biases than about the state of the evidence or the arguments surrounding them.

Actually the "preconceptions" about the world that I have (that an external reality exists which we can know; that cause-and-effect operates in our universe; that natural law applies consistently and regularly; etc.) are the same preconceptions that you have. The only difference is that I apply those preconceptions universally and you apply them selectively.

Quote from: sntjohnny

My view is not based on faith. Call me a liar if you want, but don't misrepresent me.

What is it with you Christians? :) Why does everyone's view on this subject have to be either accurate or a lie? I don't think you're a liar. I simply believe you to be mistaken.

Quote from: sntjohnny

What you think is 'extraordinary' is only your subjective opinion about what to expect from existence. Sorry.

Again, words have definitions and common usages. I use the word "extraordinary" to mean only "beyond what is ordinary or usual."

A resurrection is not an ordinary or usual event according to most people's reckoning. I doubt that it is even according to your own. The same goes for sea partings, worldwide inundations, etc. If these events are ordinary, usual events to you, then state that clearly and I'll believe you. Otherwise, I'll assume that your opinion is similar to virtually every other Western human's and that such events are just as I described them -- extraordinary.

Quote from: sntjohnny

Wow, well I guess Copernicus was wrong when he accused me of misrepresenting you. You do preclude the possibility of such communication.

No. It's just that I wrote that poorly. I meant to say that "Actually my use of the word 'alleged in the second statement that you quote does preclude the impossibility of communication between a god and oneself. . . " In other words, only communication between god and someone else can be alleged to me. I cannot allege to myself that god has communicated with me. If god communicates with me, then god communicates with me.

. . . more later.

Copernicus · « **Reply #44 on:** February 24, 2006, 02:21:46 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

"Do we agree that God no longer communicates with humans as he once did, according to the biblical record? Do you have an opinion as to why this being changed his behavior?"

I do not agree. Any person who is versed in the biblical record knows that there were some main examples that were unique...

Exactly so. This contradicts your claim not to agree, since, by calling those instances "unique", you acknowledge that your god no longer employs those same methods.

Quote

...The nation of Israel, for example, was the first and only true theocracy within a covenantal situation. The Israelites did not keep up their side of the covenant. Aside from the national revelation discussed in Exodus-Deut, much of the other instances were sporadic. There is no reason to think this is precluded at the current time. However, much, if not all of this was a build-up to the arrival of God himself on the scene. See, please Luke 20:9-19 where Jesus himself discusses this progression.

The short-lived Hebrew empire was no more a theocracy than those that came before or after in the region. All religions at the time were just as nationalistic as the Hebrew religion, and the Jews are not really proselytizers now, let alone before the exilic period. It was really the Persians who got them thinking along the lines of internationalizing their local deity. Neither Solomon nor David seemed to feel compelled to follow all the Yahwist rules, and the Hebrew prophets kvetched incessantly about that. So what we find in the Bible is not all that surprising, since the behavior of Yahwe (and the way his followers used him to promote themselves) was not that different from competing gods.

But here's a poser for you. If God still communicates with us like he did in the past, then why has nobody added any new books to the Bible for two millenia? (excluding our Mormon friends, of course)

Quote

It is certainly meaningless to discuss it further if the OT and NT are not at least taken as recording real events for the sake of discussion. Out of curiosity- do you guys have Bibles? Do you look up the passages that are cited, or is that effort wasted? This is not meant to be condescending, and I don't have to be told that many atheists know their 'bible' quite well.

With the internet, who needs to own a Bible? Everything is available online. I often do read passages that you refer me to.

Quote

"Can you explain how knowledge that God exists--a knowledge that many people claim to have anyway--destroys the freedom to choose?"

Asked and answered. "Destroys the freedom to choose?" That's your language, not ours. Not mine, anyway. Its a strawman.

It's no straw man as far as the FWD goes. This question has been asked of you many times, and I have seen nothing but ducks and dodges. Now's about time to pull out that there "epistemology" card, eh?

Oh, wait. It's coming in your next post, which I'll append my response to here.

Quote

"If god wants us to obey him, what end does his silence serve?"

Why do you think that's his goal?

Don't you think that he wants us to obey him? I doubt many Christians would balk at admitting to that, but you may have your own spin on that. You often do.

Quote

Continuing to harp at me about free will is a complete non-starter. I'm on the record from my very first post in the thread emphasizing the epistemological aspects of the question rather than the 'free will' aspects.

I'll continue to ask those questions of anyone who offers the FWD to explain the reticence of their god. Your so-called "epistemological aspect" is just an admission that you don't know why God fails to say much. He must have some impediment that we cannot fathom. To further get the point across, you point out that God cannot bring about logical contradictions, which is a complete red herring in this discussion.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #45 on:** February 24, 2006, 08:24:36 AM »

"Exactly so. This contradicts your claim not to agree, since, by calling those instances "unique", you acknowledge that your god no longer employs those same methods."

No it doesn't. I'm attacking your generalization. You seem to think that those 'same methods' were used frequently.

"The short-lived Hebrew empire was no more a theocracy than those that came before or after in the region."

Once again, we see how you raise questions from a text demanding answers but do not accept answers derived from the same text. That's called selective inerrancy.

"But here's a poser for you."

The funniest thing about you Cop is that you think you have original questions. You have yet to ask me even a single question- about anything... I include the evolutionary stuff too- that my seventh and eigth graders haven't already asked me. The only difference is the attitude in which the questions are posed and the attitude in which the answers are received.

"If God still communicates with us like he did in the past, then why has nobody added any new books to the Bible for two millenia?"

The question cannot be answered in these terms. The whole thing represents an extremely muddled view. Fine- I'm used to talking to people with muddled views- but they're usually open to being informed and corrected. Now, CNM did a pretty darn good job of laying out some of the details on how the NT came to be in the first place. She recently abandoned her attempt to show that the NT makes claims of divinity of itself, but she put on a good show of some information that was sound. Perhaps you two could chat.

Or, I could present to you a couple of pretty hefty works you can look to gain some important background. Metzger's "The Canon of the New Testament" is a good first start.

"I often do read passages that you refer me to."

That's all I wanted to know. Thanks.

"It's no straw man as far as the FWD goes."

Sure it is. You said 'destroy.' Cogito has used words like it. It was NEVER my position that it would destroy free will. Or obliterate it, or whatever on/off scenario you guys have presented it. It affects FW, that's true, but as I have consistently said, its the epistemological reasons that form the primary basis. To the extent that FW is still important, we have not arrived yet at a place where I can go into that, though I have alluded to it but you haven't yet noticed.

"Don't you think that he wants us to obey him? I doubt many Christians would balk at admitting to that, but you may have your own spin on that. You often do."

I do have my 'own' spin. But I do not think I am unique, either. If you would like, I could summon some Christians, without giving them any hint of the conversation, and see how they would respond. I think you would benefit from seeing that some of your conceptions of Christians and Christianity are a bit narrow. Would you like me to do that? I'd start a thread on it.

"I'll continue to ask those questions of anyone who offers the FWD to explain the reticence of their god."

But your questions have to match the response. If I was saying that FW was 'destroyed' than your question would have merit. But that hasn't been my position at all, so your question does not have merit.

"Your so-called "epistemological aspect" is just an admission that you don't know why God fails to say much."

Actually, it represents a well thought out analysis and set of conclusions about why God 'fails to say much.' In my first post, again, I said:

Quote

"You seem to think it would be easy for God (monotheistic, panetheistic, Christian God) to reveal himself in a way that respects a robust epistemology."

I don't think you've given much attention to it. I spent a lot of time going over this with Cogito but both of you completely ignored it and skipped over to the stuff that I said from the start was, imo, a minor part of the response.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #46 on:** February 24, 2006, 08:38:02 AM »

Quote

"Fantastic" is an adjective which means "based on or existing only in fantasy; unreal."

If this adjective isn't applicable to events like resurrections, virgin births, sea partings, worldwide inundations, burning bushes that speak, etc., I'm not sure to what events it might be applicable.

lol, well for one thing, your definition presumes the events are false to begin with, don't they. That's question begging.

So, in order for something that is not real to be demonstrated you need what? lol.... nothing could demonstrate something that is not real! You've defined yourself right out of an open minded and sincere evaluation of any event you are predisposed to thinking is 'unreal.'

"Can, too. :)"

:)

"Actually the "preconceptions" about the world that I have (that an external reality exists which we can know; that cause-and-effect operates in our universe; that natural law applies consistently and regularly; etc.) are the same preconceptions that you have. The only difference is that I apply those preconceptions universally and you apply them selectively."

Actually, its the reverse. But we're getting to that.

"What is it with you Christians? :) Why does everyone's view on this subject have to be either accurate or a lie? I don't think you're a liar. I simply believe you to be mistaken."

lol aren't you the one trying to force me and cimics into a position where we reduced you to a liar or lunatic if you did not accept the evidence for Christian theism? No quarter was given me, then! My point about 'faith,' is that it is flawed and does not represent the extent of its usage among Christians and the NT itself. My faith in God is distinct from my belief that he exists. My belief that Jesus rose from the dead is distinct from my faith in Jesus.

"Again, words have definitions and common usages. I use the word "extraordinary" to mean only "beyond what is ordinary or usual."

Interesting. :) How do we know what is ordinary or usual? Do you not agree with the evolutionists that the universe is billions of years old? You have only been alive.... what.... 40, 50 years? What right do you have to think you have good reason to believe that what is 'ordinary' or 'usual' in your life's experience is really ordinary given your small slice of observation?

"doubt that it is even according to your own. The same goes for sea partings, worldwide inundations, etc. If these events are ordinary, usual events to you, then state that clearly and I'll believe you. Otherwise, I'll assume that your opinion is similar to virtually every other Western human's and that such events are just as I described them -- extraordinary."

Although, listening to your litany, it would seem that such things are not so extraordinary, after all. Add these to many other examples and you begin to wonder if perhaps they are more ordinary than you let on.

However, I think we would be better served to hear what your notion of extraordinary evidence is, and why you think its reasonable to demand that.

"No. It's just that I wrote that poorly."

Got it. That returns me to a question which you may have answered but I missed: So you think that God needs to appear indisputably and overwhelmingly to each and every person in order for each and every person to have a rational belief that God exists... is that right?

Copernicus · « **Reply #47 on:** February 24, 2006, 03:59:58 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

"Exactly so. This contradicts your claim not to agree, since, by calling those instances "unique", you acknowledge that your god no longer employs those same methods."

No it doesn't. I'm attacking your generalization. You seem to think that those 'same methods' were used frequently.

Actually, 'never' is quite infrequent, I assure you.

OK, have it both ways. At times, you seem to concede divine silence, especially when you are trying to use the 'epistemology' ploy to defend it. On the other hand, your normal modus operandi is to argue over every little point.

Quote

"It's no straw man as far as the FWD goes."

Sure it is. You said 'destroy.' Cogito has used words like it. It was NEVER my position that it would destroy free will. Or obliterate it, or whatever on/off scenario you guys have presented it. It affects FW, that's true, but as I have consistently said, its the epistemological reasons that form the primary basis. To the extent that FW is still important, we have not arrived yet at a place where I can go into that, though I have alluded to it but you haven't yet noticed.

Actually, it appears to me that you've laid out your argument as best you can. If you've got more to add, it wouldn't be a bad idea to just say it. I don't mean to sound impatient, but your drib-drab approach to making arguments can be perceived as temporizing.

Quote

"Don't you think that he wants us to obey him? I doubt many Christians would balk at admitting to that, but you may have your own spin on that. You often do."

I do have my 'own' spin. But I do not think I am unique, either. If you would like, I could summon some Christians, without giving them any hint of the conversation, and see how they would respond. I think you would benefit from seeing that some of your conceptions of Christians and Christianity are a bit narrow. Would you like me to do that? I'd start a thread on it.

No, don't summon up other Christians. I'd rather that you expressed your own views without their help. I've argued with more Christians than you ever have (being somewhat older), and I think that I have a broader view of the variety in the religion than you do. So the condescension is quite unnecessary. A little more focus on the argument, rather than on rhetorical ploys, would be much appreciated.

Quote

"I'll continue to ask those questions of anyone who offers the FWD to explain the reticence of their god."

But your questions have to match the response. If I was saying that FW was 'destroyed' than your question would have merit. But that hasn't been my position at all, so your question does not have merit.

I can see that you might not like the words I use, and you have ample opportunity to address that. I cannot see how that prevents you from addressing the issue squarely. Again, you seem more intent on rhetoric than addressing the substance of the argument.

Quote

"Your so-called "epistemological aspect" is just an admission that you don't know why God fails to say much."

Actually, it represents a well thought out analysis and set of conclusions about why God 'fails to say much.' In my first post, again, I said:

Quote
"You seem to think it would be easy for God (monotheistic, panetheistic, Christian God) to reveal himself in a way that respects a robust epistemology."

How does this represent a "well thought out analysis"? What you've said so far seems to reduce to the claim that you don't really know God's motives. Calling it "epistemology" is just a fancy dressing for ignorance. And, in the end, that's all you seem to have here--an argument from ignorance. If you've got a more nuanced argument, let's hear it.

Quote

I don't think you've given much attention to it. I spent a lot of time going over this with Cogito but both of you completely ignored it and skipped over to the stuff that I said from the start was, imo, a minor part of the response.

Perhaps you bury the point inside too much text. Could you spell it out succinctly? Can you put it in syllogistic form? That might help to clarify your point considerably.

JustLiz · « **Reply #48 on:** February 24, 2006, 09:59:25 PM »

Quote

Now, CNM did a pretty darn good job of laying out some of the details on how the NT came to be in the first place. She recently abandoned her attempt to show that the NT makes claims of divinity of itself, but she put on a good show of some information that was sound.

Not true! I thought YOU had conceded the point since you have yet to respond to my rather lengthy post from last Fri 2/17! Bring it on!

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #49 on:** February 24, 2006, 10:38:29 PM »

"If you've got more to add, it wouldn't be a bad idea to just say it."

I said quite a bit in a series of posts that were never addressed by ya'll. I refer you to my posts on Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:41 am and Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:24 pm in particular. So, its already 'just been said,' and it was ignored.

"So the condescension is quite unnecessary. A little more focus on the argument, rather than on rhetorical ploys, would be much appreciated."

It would only be a ploy if I didn't mean it sincerely. I think you decline because you fear that in reality, you will hear Christians sharing views that do not support your statement. You know that chances are good it won't just be 'my spin.' Rather than opening yourself up to falsification, you belittle it as a ploy and try to puff up yourself at the same time. What's the matter, Cop?

?

"How does this represent a "well thought out analysis"?"

Hmmm. Maybe check some of the posts you've ignored.

I think you're just embarrased because you tried to make an argument off of alleged 'divine silence' by expecting the FWD to be the only response when in fact the response by the real Christian, and not your cute and cuddly caricature was not very close at all.

"Perhaps you bury the point inside too much text. Could you spell it out succinctly? Can you put it in syllogistic form? That might help to clarify your point considerably."

I'm not opposed to engaging in such exercises. However, I feel like you and Cogito both have completely ignored a whole category of argumentation that I've given on this thread. Perhaps you ought to read the posts I've already cited, and perhaps re-read my other posts with those posts in mind and maybe it won't be nearly so difficult to comprehend.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #50 on:** February 24, 2006, 10:39:16 PM »

"Not true! I thought YOU had conceded the point since you have yet to respond to my rather lengthy post from last Fri 2/17! Bring it on!"

Elisha · « **Reply #51 on:** February 25, 2006, 10:15:30 AM »

Cogito,

Quote

You use the word "perhaps" to describe God's communication through your subconscious. But "perhaps" wouldn't seem to be a word that one would choose to describe communication that is "clear and direct." If a god is only "perhaps" communicating with you then that god may be communicating with you but he is not communicating "directly and clearly."

You're looking too much into my words. I simply haven't thought about God speaking to me subconsciously (through my dreams, for example), though it's possible.

Quote

How does God communicate with you "through your conscious mind"? Does that communication come by way of your auditory system or is it by some other method? If it is by some other method, how does that method work? What does the voice of God within your conscious mind sound like? Can you describe it? How do you distinguish it from your own? How would you distinguish it from Satan's?

Discernment is difficult, though with prayer and personal thought it isn't difficult for a strong Christian (not that I'm one). Discernment is a different subject, though... it presupposes that God does communicate with us.
How does He communicate through my conscious mind? I can't say that I know. All I need to assert is that He does on a subjective level. There are a lot of "how" questions that I can't answer. It has nothing to do with the proposition in question.

Quote

Unless it is labeled otherwise, every proposition that we utter write is our opinion. Pointing this out is trivial.

You sure about that? Every proposition that we utter is our opinion? Think about it.

Quote

The reason that we assume God's complete and utter silence is because of the complete and utter lack of evidence that God communicates with Man.

You've moved towards realizing it's an assumption, which is a step forward. The only reason you see a lack of evidence is because you can't perceive God communicating with you. This is just your opinion and therefore is no more an argument than me claiming God is likely to exist because He communicates with me. Such an argument is untenable to the 'nth degree.

Quote

The onus is not upon me to present you with evidence of noncommunication. The onus is on you to present me with evidence of communication.

I'm sure we can agree that whomever makes a claim must be willing to back that claim up. I'm claiming that God speaks to me on a subjective level and so can only offer subjective "proofs" that He does. You are claiming that God does not speak at all, which leads to Him being likely to not exist (a totally different claim from mine) and is impossible to prove. It's a universal statement.

Quote

But I haven't argued a "lack of proof." I've argued that the hypothesis that "God communicates with His creation" is false because of a complete and utter lack of evidence.

Same thing... without the semantics. A lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. To say otherwise commits argumentum ad ignorantium. I can't prove that God speaks to me (of course, because it's a subjective experience), but just because I can't prove it does not entail non-existence to any degree. I also can't prove that I mowed lawns when I was a kid... does that mean that therefore I did not mow lawns as a kid?

Quote

Elisha: I'll be more precise: present me the non-subjective criteria you use to determine whether or not God "speaks" to individuals.

Cogito: In the absence of any evidence that God "speaks" to individuals it must be assumed that God doesn't.

Assumptions are invalid. If your entire argument is founded on an assumption then it isn't an argument at all. Once again, the evidences are entirely subjective. They are just as opiniated as your argument.

Elisha · « **Reply #52 on:** February 25, 2006, 10:32:42 AM »

Yeah, Cop, it has been a while. Nice to see that you understand me more than Cogito. Thanks. It saves me time explaining myself over and over.

You type, "it is quite possible that you are either suffering delusions or misinterpreting mental experiences as having a divine cause". Not exactly. I also take into mind the two dozen or so theistic arguments, the argument from Christian survival, the resurrection of Christ... I build my case cumulatively, rather on some subjective proof (like whoever started this thread is doing).

Even if I grant that such things are possibilities, all I've done is further demonstrated the subjectivity of the so-called "argument".

Quote

I would expect them to be interpretable, if the god in question wanted me to believe in him and also knew that I would misinterpret the signals that he did send.

Once again, note the subjectivity. It's my opinion that you have a hardened heart, mind, or are misinterpretating based on my subjective proof of God's conversing with me. See the circularity of the argument... this is what arguments based on opinions lead to.

Quote

It strikes me as more likely to be the case that you are the one with the misinterpretation

That's your opinion and it is welcome. :D

Quote

A complete absence of evidence is sufficient reason to disbelieve a claim

Note that argumentum ad ignorantium is a logical fallacy - lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. I can't prove all sorts of things (talking to people, watching football, mowing a yard when I was a kid, etc.) and to disbelieve these claims based on my lack of evidence is logically fallacious. The closest you can get to disbelief is remaining agnostic to the claims.

Quote

Can you tell us what kind of evidence would count as "non-subjective"? We've only been talking about subjective evidence so far.

The point is that no evidence can be objectively true if it has subjective foundations, correct? You can't provide a criteria just as I can't.

You can't, because the entire argument is an opinion. It's "I can't perceive God, therefore, God is likely to not exist". That's absurd, to be honest with you. It's like the "I can't see God, therefore God is likely to not exist"... except worse!

Later, man.

Copernicus · « **Reply #53 on:** February 25, 2006, 02:47:29 PM »

Quote from: Elisha

You type, "it is quite possible that you are either suffering delusions or misinterpreting mental experiences as having a divine cause". Not exactly. I also take into mind the two dozen or so theistic arguments, the argument from Christian survival, the resurrection of Christ... I build my case cumulatively, rather on some subjective proof (like whoever started this thread is doing).

This thread is about Divine Silence as evidence that gods do not exist. The argument is really about the plausibility of belief, not a logical proof or disproof of God's existence. So your comment that you think yourself to be in direct communication with God was relevant, and my response was directed at that comment. You may well have other reasons for considering gods plausible, but I'd like to keep focused on the direct communication issue in this thread. We can deal with those other arguments in other threads.

Quote

Even if I grant that such things are possibilities, all I've done is further demonstrated the subjectivity of the so-called "argument".

Belief that God talks to you is certainly a subjective opinion, is it not? The question here is what kinds of subjective experiences we can rely on and how we can reliably interpret them.

Quote

Quote
I would expect them to be interpretable, if the god in question wanted me to believe in him and also knew that I would misinterpret the signals that he did send.

Once again, note the subjectivity. It's my opinion that you have a hardened heart, mind, or are misinterpretating based on my subjective proof of God's conversing with me. See the circularity of the argument... this is what arguments based on opinions lead to.

But you've blown right past my point without even trying to address it. The god in question is not only supposed to have created me (with all my strengths and weaknesses), but he is also supposed to be fully aware of my state of mind and omnipotent. Given those defining aspects of the god, I would expect him to easily get past any communication problems. Is my expectation unreasonable? If so, why? Logically speaking, he either cannot get through to me (tough to believe of an omnipotent being) or he chooses not to. The FWD supports the latter view.

Quote

Quote
A complete absence of evidence is sufficient reason to disbelieve a claim

Note that argumentum ad ignorantium is a logical fallacy - lack of evidence is not evidence of lack...

Again, we are talking about plausibility rather than logical proof. The claim in question is that one or more gods exist. Lack of evidence is not proof that none exist, but it is sufficient to allow one to dismiss the claim on the grounds of burden of proof. You need to show that there is reasonable evidence to believe in a god's existence. Otherwise, you ought to reject that belief.

Quote

...I can't prove all sorts of things (talking to people, watching football, mowing a yard when I was a kid, etc.) and to disbelieve these claims based on my lack of evidence is logically fallacious. The closest you can get to disbelief is remaining agnostic to the claims.

Nobody is asking you to prove those things. The question is one of how well you trust your memories. If you were to ask me whether I believed those memories to be true, I'd be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. What does that expression mean--benefit of the doubt? It means that you could be asserting a falsehood (false memories, insincerity, etc.), but I have no reason to disbelieve your assertion. I won't give you the benefit of the doubt on your claim to be in direct contact with God. Why? Well, one reason is that I would expect to have the same kind of experience, given your view that this god is omnipotent and wants me to believe in him. Divine silence is therefore one of the factors that causes me to distrust your assertion.

Quote

Quote
Can you tell us what kind of evidence would count as "non-subjective"? We've only been talking about subjective evidence so far.

The point is that no evidence can be objectively true if it has subjective foundations, correct? You can't provide a criteria just as I can't.

If you cannot even provide criteria for what counts as "objective evidence", then why are you demanding that I provide you with it? Seems a bit unreasonable to me.

Quote

You can't, because the entire argument is an opinion. It's "I can't perceive God, therefore, God is likely to not exist". That's absurd, to be honest with you. It's like the "I can't see God, therefore God is likely to not exist"... except worse!

I have no problem discussing our opinions and our reasons for holding them. That strikes me as appropriate in a forum where we discuss reasons for believing or disbelieving in gods. I would add here that this statement you impute to me--"I can't perceive God, therefore God is likely not to exist"--is reasonable only for gods that we would expect to be perceivable. Yours falls squarely within that category. Other conceivable gods, not so much. I'm not proposing divine silence as an absolute reason to disbelieve in gods, but it is a powerful reason to disbelieve in your particular god.

Cogito · « **Reply #54 on:** February 25, 2006, 05:44:55 PM »

Quote from: Elisha

Nice to see that you understand me more than Cogito.

I will forthrightly admit that I am having a VERY difficult time understanding you. On the one hand you say that God communicates clearly and directly with Man; on the other, you say "How does God communicate through my conscious mind? I can't say that I know."

This is very peculiar if the communication is clear and direct.

What form does the communication take? Perhaps you can answer that. Is it a voice? Is this communication from God in the form of writing? You seem to be unsure which is odd since the communication is clear and direct.

I'll wager that there is not another being with whom you communicate clearly and directly that you also don't know how the communication takes place. You know how your friends communicate with you. You know how your relatives, your co-workers, other posters on this board all communicate with you. I would characterize THAT sort of communication as clear and direct.

The communication, if any, that you have with your god is at best indirect and unclear. Your responses in this thread show that.

But why should this be so? It cannot be because such communication might "coerce" your belief in God, because you already believe in God. So why doesn't God EVER communicate clearly and directly even with true believers? If God wanted to he could make your dog stand on its two hind legs and speak in His name. But that will never happen.

No matter how much you might want your god to communicate clearly and directly to you, it will not happen. And there's a very good reason for that.

Quote from: Elisha

You've moved towards realizing it's an assumption, which is a step forward.

Yes, but not recently. I "moved" there many years ago. Nonexistence is always only assumed because it cannot be proved. All we can possibly do is to prove what exists. The infinite remainder of what may possibly exist but for which there is no evidence is always only assumed to be nonexistent.

I can "prove" that my hands are touching the top of my keyboard at this moment, but how can I "prove" that nothing else is touching it, as well? I can't. Since there is no evidence whatsoever to support the thesis that "Something else besides Cogito's hands are touching the top of his keyboard," I ought to assume that thesis is probably false.

Quote from: Elisha

The only reason you see a lack of evidence is because you can't perceive God communicating with you. This is just your opinion and therefore is no more an argument than me claiming God is likely to exist because He communicates with me.

The same could be said for any madman who staggers around the streets while "communicating" with his invisible demons. Simply because someone asserts that he communicates with a supernatural being doesn't mean that he communicates with supernatural beings. At least the madman hears voices in his head; you cannot even specify how such communication takes place.

That is the sort of thing that needs evidence (very, very powerful evidence) to be believed.

Quote from: Elisha

I'm sure we can agree that whomever makes a claim must be willing to back that claim up.

No, that's incorrect. Initially, only nonintuitive claims need to be "backed up." If ten people gaze into an empty room and nine of them see nothing, it is the tenth person -- the one who claims that despite the room's apparent emptiness, a being is in the room -- who needs to offer evidence to support his claim.

If we "see" emptiness, nonexistence should be assumed.

Quote from: Elisha

You are claiming that God does not speak at all, which leads to Him being likely to not exist (a totally different claim from mine) and is impossible to prove. It's a universal statement.

How is it possible that a claim which is qualified by the term "likely" can be a universal statement?

The claim "God cannot speak" is a universal statement. The claim "God does not speak" speaks only to our experience. My claim "God does not speak" is an a posteriori claim.

Quote from: Elisha

Same thing... without the semantics. A lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. To say otherwise commits argumentum ad ignorantium. I can't prove that God speaks to me (of course, because it's a subjective experience), but just because I can't prove it does not entail non-existence to any degree. I also can't prove that I mowed lawns when I was a kid... does that mean that therefore I did not mow lawns as a kid?

In fact, you probably could prove that you mowed lawns as a kid if you tried. But beyond that, it's telling that you would compare the claim "I mowed lawns as a kid" to the claim "A supernatural being speaks to me" as if those are similar ontological claims when in truth those claims are radically different and in need of radically different degrees of evidence to substantiate them.

But about the "lack of evidence" thing. . . Of course, a lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. What it is, however, is a reason (not "evidence") to believe that a putative entity is nonexistent if where the evidence is lacking is in an area in which evidence should expect to be found if the putative entity is actually existent.

Again, we never have "evidence" for that which does not exist because such "evidence" itself does not exist. It cannot exist. We only have reasons, not evidence, to believe that a thing which is purported to exist is actually nonexistent; and one of the biggest reasons that we have to assume that a putative entity is actually nonexistent is a complete lack of evidence for that putative entity's existence.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #55 on:** February 26, 2006, 12:43:17 PM »

Elisha can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all he's really doing is trying to illustrate what I already said- this issue really boils down to the individual atheist's perception on how they think a God (if he exists) ought to communicate... how much, in what ways, when, where, etc. Thus, arg 3 here has no objective powers of persuasion.

Cogito · « **Reply #56 on:** February 26, 2006, 04:39:10 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

Elisha can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all he's really doing is trying to illustrate what I already said- this issue really boils down to the individual atheist's perception on how they think a God (if he exists) ought to communicate... how much, in what ways, when, where, etc.

This is true only if an atheist says something like: "If God doesn't appear in front of me as a talking dog on Friday afternoon at three o'clock then God does not exist."

But no atheist (in this thread, anyway) is saying that. We're not saying only that God will fail to appear as a talking dog on Friday afternoon at three o'clock. We're saying that God will fail to appear anywhere at anytime in any clear and direct fashion.

I have tried to get a clarification from theists (not from atheists) about what might constitute clear and direct communication from God and have received nothing but vague, ambiguous answers. Theists do not know what might constitute a clear and direct communication from their god because theists have never had a clear and direct communication from their god.

I can communicate with any theist clearly and directly. It would seem that their omnipotent God should be able to do the same, yet doesn't. The question is, Why not?

The most likely answers to that question appear to be:

A. He has nothing to say clearly and directly to His true believers.

--- I use the term "true believers" to negate the free will defense. Since true believers in God's existence already strongly and sincerely believe that God exists they are incapable of being "coerced" by God's clear and direct communication to believe that God exists.

B. He wishes to remain silent for inscrutable reasons.

--- This is the ol' "The ways of Our Lord are mysterious" defense which is about as ad hoc as it gets.

C. He doesn't exist.

D. ?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #57 on:** February 26, 2006, 09:15:26 PM »

"I can communicate with any theist clearly and directly. It would seem that their omnipotent God should be able to do the same, yet doesn't. The question is, Why not?"

A. He has nothing to say clearly and directly to His true believers.
B. He wishes to remain silent for inscrutable reasons.
C. He doesn't exist.

D. ?

Its a bit frustrating to have you say all this while ignoring the discussion I engaged in in posts already pointed out once again to Copernicus. You guys have flat out ignored them. There is not only D, but I have also E, F, and G. However, it seems to me that they ought to be acknowledged when they are raised, or it doesn't really further the conversation. Once again, you focus on free will when I have made it clear that FW is a minor aspect of this particular topic, and you guys completely skipped the part where I began to elaborate on the epistemological aspects, which I have said from the beginning are the major aspects of this topic.

Cogito · « **Reply #58 on:** February 26, 2006, 11:04:41 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

this issue really boils down to the individual atheist's perception on how they think a God (if he exists) ought to communicate.

This was your prior comment on the subject. When you say "this issue really boils down to x" I assume you mean that x is your essential argument for the issue. If not, then what does "this issue really boils down to x" mean? If that is in fact your essential argument against the claim that God does not communicate clearly and directly, then I just showed uncategorically in my prior reply that your claim is false.

To repeat, no atheist in this thread has asserted that there is only one way in which God ought to communicate with his alleged creation or only one timeframe in which this communication has to take place. Yet, you continue to maintain the ruse that we have. Why?

Again, it's not that God has failed to communicate clearly and directly with his followers in this way or in that way, at this time or at that time. It is that God has not communicated clearly and directly with his followers in any manner at any time.

The only stipulation that any of us have placed on God's communication to humanity is that it be clear and direct -- no leaves rustling in the wind, no ambiguous cloud patterns, no comets -- clear and direct communication only. Is it really too much to expect from an omnipotent god that He communicate at least as clearly and directly with his followers as do his followers with each other?

To this, you and Elisha counter only with the tepid assertion that "clear and direct communication" is subjective when clearly this is untrue. Reasonable people who think rationally about the subject will be in substantial agreement about what constitutes clear and direct communication and what does not. It's simply not that difficult of a problem.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #59 on:** February 26, 2006, 11:59:36 PM »

"Again, it's not that God has failed to communicate clearly and directly with his followers in this way or in that way, at this time or at that time. It is that God has not communicated clearly and directly with his followers in any manner at any time."

Huh. So, becoming a human at one point in history to speak clearly and directly with his followers is not a 'manner' and is not in any 'time' ? You don't think incarnating is a clear and direct means for God to communicate?

Author Topic: Arg 3 for Atheism: Divine Silence (Read 16876 times)