Problem of Divine Hiddenness

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]This claim needs empirical support. But it is as irrelevant as would be a parallel argument about the tooth fairy.
A couple thoughts on this musing.

The tooth fairy can be traced to (at earliest) around 1894, call it for Spain.
Man's belief in God?
Challenge you to find even the earliest writings of man which doesn't include it.

A handy ...[text shortened]... 'm not inclined to connect the dots for anyone who does not see this.
Well, then.
Be gone.[/b]

You mean, if someone does not believe in your analysis they are all asssholes?

Originally posted by KellyJay
1. If there is a perfectly loving God, all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God are in a position to participate in such relationships--i.e., able to do so just by trying to.

No one is able to just by trying, believing is not enough.


2. No one can be in a posi ...[text shortened]... believe in God but rejected by in the end
due to their love of sin over God and others.
Kelly

So you have the same, singular objection against all premises of the argument? 🙄

It appears to me that your objection only purports to bear some relevance to premise (1). But, even so, it's not particularly clear what the relevance is. Your insistence that "believing is not enough" is frankly just a head-scratcher, since nowhere at all (let alone anywhere in premise 1) does the argument assert that believing is enough, or sufficient, for [enter anything here]. So, it seems very doubtful to me that you have understood what premise (1) asserts.

What premise (1) basically asserts is that if a perfectly loving God exists, then all creatures who are both (a) capable of meaningful relationship with this God and (b) still open to meaningful relationship with this God, are able to participate in a relationship with God if they try to do so. Now, you'll notice that the subject of 'belief' explicitly comes up precisely nowhere in this premise; and, so, it should be patently obvious that premise (1) is not asserting that belief is enough for anything. The subject of belief only explicitly emerges later, when the argument asserts that a creature's believing that such a God exists is necessary (not sufficient) for this creature's being in a position to participate in such a relationship.

So, your objection, as is, really does not make any sense. Hopefully this clarification of premise (1) can help you to revise your objection. Also, have you read Schellenberg's abbreviated clarification and defense of premise (1) in the link I provided? Since it will also help at least clarify what premise (1) asserts, I will reproduce this section of the link below for you (numerous instances of emphasis through italics on the part of Schellenberg were not preserved in this quote):

"Readers will notice, first of all, a link being forged between perfect divine love and the availability of relationship with God. (Hereafter I will not always explicitly use the words 'explicit and positively meaningful,' but remember that they are there!) Some creatures in the world are capable of relationship with God (they have the equipment required to believe that God exists and trust in God and feel God's presence, for example), and what I am suggesting is that there is something remarkably odd about the idea that, supposing there really is a God whose love is unsurpassably perfect, such creatures should ever be unable to exercise their capacity for relationship with God--at least so long as they have not got themselves into that position through resisting the divine in the manner earlier indicated. What sense can we make of the idea that capable creatures should be open to relationship with a perfectly loving God, not resisting it at all, perhaps even longing for it, and yet not in a place where they can have such a relationship, if there really is a perfectly loving God? I suggest that if we look carefully at the matter, we will not be able to make any sense of that at all. A perfectly loving God--if those words mean anything--would, like the best human lover, ensure that meaningful contact with herself was always possible for those she loved.

Notice how our everyday use of the language of love pushes us in this direction. The perfectly loving mother or husband or brother or friend will see to it that nothing he or she does ever puts relationship out of reach for the loved one. That is just part of love. A perfectly loving human being might, to be sure, occasionally stand to one side and let the loved one take some responsibility for the relationship's development, and would want to avoid suffocating the loved one with attention, and now and then might even withdraw for a time to make a point. But it is important to notice that these are important moments within a love relationship. We might also reluctantly accept the fact that our loved one is (at least for the moment) unwilling to participate in relationship or has deliberately taken steps that (at least until his attitudes change) put it out of reach for him, respecting his decision. But insofar as we are truly loving parents or spouses or siblings or friends, we will never take such steps ourselves, and thus, if the object of our love takes no such steps, he will always (insofar as we are able to ensure it) be in a position to interact with us. As we might also put it, the possibility of some form of meaningful contact will always be there for him. Surely this is overwhelmingly plausible. What loving mother or husband or brother or friend would ever, for any length of time, allow this possibility to be taken completely away, if he or she could help it? And to this we must surely add, given that God's love for us would have to be far more unremitting and indefectible than the best human love (and given that 'if she can help it' has no application to the divine): What perfectly loving God would ever allow this possibility to be taken completely away?

Now perhaps many of us are not accustomed to thinking of God this way due to features of our environment and of the religious teaching to which we have been exposed, all of which make it easy for us to go along with the idea of a God who is more detached and aloof. There are indeed many factors which may cause us to underestimate the force of love-based arguments like the one I have given. We have, for example, a tendency to think of God as male and father, and of males and fathers as forgivably distant. Perhaps more important, we have been influenced by the many attempts of theology to make God fit the actual world. Theology starts off by accepting that God exists and so has to make God fit the world: in a way, that is its job. But our job as philosophers, faced with the present topic, is to fight free from the distractions of local and historical contingency, to let the voice of authority grow dim in our ears, and to think for ourselves about what a truly ultimate reality that was fully personal and really was perfectly loving would be like. And I am suggesting that if we do so, a somewhat different picture of God from the one we are used to will emerge. When we think about the idea of God, we cannot assume that probably God's nature is in accord with what the actual world is like, and so we cannot take as our guide a picture of God fashioned by theology over the centuries on that assumption. We must be open to the possibility that the world would be completely different if there were a God. For the properties we ascribe to God have implications, and these place constraints on what the world could be like if there were a being with those properties. If we recognize all this, perhaps what I have said about divine love and the availability of relationship, though quite foreign to the actual world, will come to seem perfectly natural and appropriate to us.

So much for a clarification and initial defense of premise 1 of the hiddenness argument. (Notice that if what I have said about it is right, then it expresses a conceptual truth about divine love and thus is necessarily true.)…."

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Well, now. That's some very sloppy thinking and phrasing right there.

Here, you key on my alleged "spectacularly false" claims without the benefit of reading what I actually claimed.
Here it is again:
[quote]There isn't a man on the face of the planet who holds to the idea of a non-existent God who didn't first believe such a being exists.[/qu ...[text shortened]... ess exercise.
I might.
Or I might just learn from ya.
Hard to say, really, at this point.[/b]

You are changing your story as you go. Your initial objection was clearly against premise (4). Now, you are claiming that your objection is against premise (2), which you now claim is the crux of the argument. Ok, let's take a look at what you have against premise (2)....

Bottom line: man knows God exists, even if he doesn't know the particulars (i.e., whether or not He wants a relationship with man, is amenable to such propositions, etc.) so the crux of the argument found in premise two, that belief in God's existence is a necessary ingredient--- while true--- begs the question.

Ok, so your objection against premise (2) is not that (2) is false: in fact, you just seemed to state that premise (2) is true. Your objection is that premise (2) begs the question. Clearly, you have absolutely no idea what it means for a premise to beg the question. For a premise to beg the question, the premise has to implicitly or explicitly assume the truth of the argument's conclusion; or it would have to be that the justification offered in support of the premise assumes the truth of the argument's conclusion. The argument's conclusion, in this case, is that there exists no perfectly loving God. It's obvious to anyone who can read that premise (2) does not assume this, either explicitly or implicitly; nor is this assumption in any way needed in justification of premise (2). So it clearly doesn't beg the question. So what on earth are you talking about? Premise (2) just basically asserts a conceptual truth that one cannot be in a position to relate with X if one does not think X has some actual referent in the first place. And you've already agreed that this is true, it seems. So much for premise (2) being the crux of the argument....

What else do you have? What is your story for the crux of the argument going to be next time?

Regarding all your notional confusion on belief formation, what does it matter for our purposes here if you now think premise (2) is the crux? If you want to rejoin your objections against premise (4), then I may revisit.

Originally posted by LemonJello
So you have the same, singular objection against all premises of the argument? 🙄

It appears to me that your objection only purports to bear some relevance to premise (1). But, even so, it's not particularly clear what the relevance is. Your insistence that "believing is not enough" is frankly just a head-scratcher, since nowhere at all (let alone an ...[text shortened]... then it expresses a conceptual truth about divine love and thus is necessarily true.)…."[/quote]

I'll read your response *book*, but right now I just woke up and I have a
headache. I'll bottom line for you than come back later and read your post.

Believing in God is not enough! The vast majority of those that claim to
believe in God are going to hell. Only a small number of people are going to
be right with God, because they answer God's call through Jesus Christ.

The way has been opened for everyone to be saved, that does not mean
that everyone will be, because the way required has been rejected by them.
If God calls and people reject Him, than they reject Him.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'll read your response *book*, but right now I just woke up and I have a
headache. I'll bottom line for you than come back later and read your post.

Believing in God is not enough! The vast majority of those that claim to
believe in God are going to hell. Only a small number of people are going to
be right with God, because they answer God's call thr ...[text shortened]... red has been rejected by them.
If God calls and people reject Him, than they reject Him.
Kelly

Believing in God is not enough!

So you have said several times. But how is this observation relevant?!? Nowhere does the argument suggest otherwise.

Again, the only things the argument explicitly claims about (non)belief is just that it is necessary that a creature believe that God exists in order to be in a position to participate in relationships with God; and that nonresistant nonbelief exists. Those are both rather a far cry from the claim that "belief is enough for...", don't you think?!?

Originally posted by sonhouse
You mean, if someone does not believe in your analysis they are all asssholes?

I'd have to classify myself in that same category at some point: invariably we all veer off the center.
I do consider my analysis on the topics I chose to weigh in on as closer to the truth than that of the atheist; doesn't make them dash holes per se... that's up to them how they wish to conduct themselves in the disagreement.

Originally posted by LemonJello

Believing in God is not enough!

So you have said several times. But how is this observation relevant?!? Nowhere does the argument suggest otherwise.

Again, the only things the argument explicitly claims about (non)belief is just that it is necessary that a creature believe that God exists in order to be in a position to participate i ...[text shortened]... hose are both rather a far cry from the claim that "belief is enough for...", don't you think?!?

You know, I think I have to give you that. I'll think about it a little more.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
You are changing your story as you go. Your initial objection was clearly against premise (4). Now, you are claiming that your objection is against premise (2), which you now claim is the crux of the argument. Ok, let's take a look at what you have against premise (2)....

[quote]Bottom line: man knows God exists, even if he doesn't know the particul ...[text shortened]... (2) is the crux? If you want to rejoin your objections against premise (4), then I may revisit.

You are changing your story as you go. Your initial objection was clearly against premise (4). Now, you are claiming that your objection is against premise (2), which you now claim is the crux of the argument.
I, um, what?
Nowhere in this discourse do I object to premise four.
You ascribe the same to me prior to making an amended argument and I agree to the amended argument, but I don't agree to your assessment of my objection to premise four.
From the beginning, I started with and centered on the basic fallacious premise of man's default atheism.

Clearly, you have absolutely no idea what it means for a premise to beg the question. For a premise to beg the question, the premise has to implicitly or explicitly assume the truth of the argument's conclusion; or it would have to be that the justification offered in support of the premise assumes the truth of the argument's conclusion.
Well, that's entirely possible that I have no clue what 'begging the question' is, either exactly or approximately.
Let's examine your claim of my ignorance.
You know: just for s's-and-g's.

1. "Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself.
2. "Premise" is a statement that is assumed to be true for the purpose of an argument from which a conclusion is drawn.

The premise to which I objected--- premise two--- qualifies as a statement.
Premise two is a statement which offers no support for its veracity other than itself.
While the premise is intended to support the argument, all by itself it qualifies as question begging by virtue of its assumption that there exists a person who doesn't believe in God.
In essence, it could have just as easily said "No one can be in a position to participate in such relationships without first existing."
That sounds nonsensical and it is, but it's just as nonsensical as its unspoken assumption that it is possible to be a human being and not believe that God exists.

And you've already agreed that this is true, it seems. So much for premise (2) being the crux of the argument....
Guess I missed where I agreed to "this."

What else do you have? What is your story for the crux of the argument going to be next time?
There's no shift.

Regarding all your notional confusion on belief formation...
Rich.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Since the theists here have been oh so gracious and responsive to discussion regarding my recent original argument submission ( Thread 158639 ) as well as a submission from the literature ( Thread 158939 )...ahem...here is another offering for debate from the literature. It is an argument by John Schellenberg. I think it ough ...[text shortened]... ents, etc. So, it is a good way to get background perspectives from both sides of the argument.

I disagree with 2, since I don't believe anyone is cut off from God.
They would have to flip out of that state, but being there does not end
it for them.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The vast majority of those that claim to believe in God are going to hell.

By the phrase 'claim to' are you implying that they do not believe, or some of them do not believe? If so, such people are not relevant as your statement was 'belief in God is not enough' not 'claiming to believe in God is not enough'.
Further, can it truly be called belief if someone rejects God? Clearly such a rejection suggests that the God they believe in is not the one you believe in, or they do not fully understand the consequences of their actions ie the universe they believe is not the one you believe in, or they are insane (thus explaining such a foolish decision ) .

Originally posted by twhitehead
By the phrase 'claim to' are you implying that they do not believe, or some of them do not believe? If so, such people are not relevant as your statement was 'belief in God is not enough' not 'claiming to believe in God is not enough'.
Further, can it truly be called belief if someone rejects God? Clearly such a rejection suggests that the God they belie ...[text shortened]... e is not the one you believe in, or they are insane (thus explaining such a foolish decision ) .

This 'unbelievers and infidels or whatever are going to hell' is one of the most despicable aspects of religion, that along with the concept of original sin makes that kind of religion project intolerance and much more interested in controlling populations and building a religious political system than in ANYTHING really spiritual. If indeed there is ANYTHING spiritual about the universe or humans.

This kind of thinking does not engender maturity growth in humans but instead ties them down to thousands of years of fear.

Fear is the WORSE way to control people, even though it works like a charm.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Fear is the WORSE way to control people, even though it works like a charm.

That would make it somewhat above the WORSE way, wouldn't it?

I can think of many worse ways to control people. 🙂

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]You are changing your story as you go. Your initial objection was clearly against premise (4). Now, you are claiming that your objection is against premise (2), which you now claim is the crux of the argument.
I, um, what?
Nowhere in this discourse do I object to premise four.
You ascribe the same to me prior to making an amended argument and I ...[text shortened]...
There's no shift.

Regarding all your notional confusion on belief formation...
Rich.[/b]

Goo. 🙄

First off, you seemed to agree with my formulation of your initial counter-argument (FCA), which you said was "pretty close to an accurate statement". Well, how close to an accurate statement could it have been, given that "nowhere in this discourse do [you] object to premise four" and given that FCA works explicitly to the conclusion that premise (4) is false? Whatever, Freaky, whatever....

Moving along, so you're still sticking to the idea that premise (2) begs the question. Really? Seriously?

Here's premise (2), just to jog your memory:

2. No one can be in a position to participate in such relationships without believing that God exists.

all by itself it qualifies as question begging by virtue of its assumption that there exists a person who doesn't believe in God.

WTF are you talking about, Freaky? Can you not read? Premise (2) clearly does not assume or imply "that there exists a person who doesn't believe in God". It just claims that believing in God is necessary for one's being in a position to participate in relationships with God. But, even if it did assume what you claim it assumes, how exactly would that be question-begging? Again, you obviously just do not understand what it means for a premise to be question-begging. A premise is only question-begging if it assumes, or requires for its justification, the truth of the argument's conclusion. In case you have simply forgotten, the conclusion of the argument is that a perfectly loving God does not exist. The conclusion is NOT "that there exists a person who doesn't believe in God". Seriously, you need to get with the frickin' program, man.

just as nonsensical as its unspoken assumption that it is possible to be a human being and not believe that God exists.

Premise (2) does not assume that, either, genius. Premise (2) in fact could still hold even if it were impossible both to be human and to not believe that God exists. That's just irrelevant. Again, get with the frickin' program: premise (2) simply states that it is a necessary condition that one believes God exists in order for one to be in position to participate in relationships with God.

Anyway, the idea that it is possible for one to be human and yet not believe in God sounds nonsensical only if one is entrenched in a profoundly and rigorously provincial theistic view. I feel sorry for you on this count.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I disagree with 2, since I don't believe anyone is cut off from God.
They would have to flip out of that state, but being there does not end
it for them.
Kelly

Again, premise (2) only states that it is necessary for one to believe God exists in order for one to be in a position to participate in relationships with God. This seems obviously, and just conceptually, true. For instance, consider the interpersonal relationships in which you participate in your life. Are they not all with persons that you believe exist? What exactly would an interpersonal relationship between you and some other person in which both (a) you actively participate in this interpersonal relationship and (b) yet you do not hold the belief that this other person exists, look like? Can you please give me an example of such a relationship? I, for one, cannot because I think it sounds incoherent. To actively participate in a meaningful interpersonal relationship requires intentionality on your part wherein you take the other person and their interests and affairs, etc, as objects. That requires that you hold the belief that this person exists in the first place. Premise (2) is a no-brainer.

I disagree with 2, since I don't believe anyone is cut off from God.
They would have to flip out of that state, but being there does not end
it for them

I also just do not understand your reasoning here. Your first statement seems to imply that you think even those who do not believe God exists are not cut off from participating in relationship with God. But you then go on to say that those persons "would have to flip out of that state" (which I take it means they would have to start to believe God exists) in order for their being in such a position. So, this sounds like nothing more than contradiction on your part. I do not understand. Could you please clarify?