Thinking Christian Comments
Original Post: Divine Hiddenness: Course Correction
"the existence of non-belief or agnosticism is strong evidence that no God exists at all"
That's not true.How can it be evidence for God's nonexistence?I can speak only for myself,and for myself I formulated attitude to Big Questions this way: "The Zone of Total Uncertainity" or "One Big Mistery".And I live with that.Because,even if I assume that Creator DOES exist,I cannot know,what form is He,what He want from us etc...Or,He MAY exist,but that doesn't follow that ANY monoteictic religion IS true(position held ,say,by Thomas Edison).So I have to live with this uncertainity(have no choice),and be ready that these answers(at least big part of them) will always remain unanswered
Tom--
This may turn out to be a pretty interesting discussion.
Some commenters on this series are saying that the burden of proof in this discussion belongs to theists. They are saying that, to rebut or refute the argument, we must prove there is sufficient evidence to believe in God.
I'm not sure who you're alluding to here (I must admit I haven't read all the comments on the thread; I'm mostly interested in picking your particular brain on these topics) but if this is a reference to my posts, then I must retort. I'm saying that whoever makes a claim bears the burden of proof, and you are challenging me to believe your God is real. That means you bear the burden of proof.
So the question I put to you is: "You say you're in contact with God. Will your God answer questions if I ask him thru you?"
If you can, I and others want to talk to him (while we're still alive, thatyewverymuch). If you can't, then you must join all those other religions that can't do it either.
Once I know you can't put God on the line for a chat, you'll have your work cut out getting me to wake up bright and early Sun. morning. to attend mass; I guess that's all I'm saying.
(1) There are unbelievers in the world, which fact is inconsistent with the existence of a God who desires people to believe in him; therefore there is no God.
(2) "I don't know why I should believe in God, since evidence for his existence seems ambiguous at best."
I don't know where you got (1) from, but that's nowhere near my position on the subject. It appears at first blush (and rightfully so, I suspect) to be false on its face.
(2) is closer, but still quite wide of the mark.
My way of presenting the accusation against the idea of God is interesting, IMHO. It doesn't claim to be definitive proof, and yet...
"Why is it that nobody's God can actually talk? Not Tom's or anybody else's?"
It's a fair question. Why can't just one of them "come out from the background noise", as another commenter said?
Any relationship you experience with God right now, Tom, would be enhanced a great deal if an actual dialog with God was added in to what you already have, don't you agree?
And the beauty of it is that's it's so obvious and simple--He Just Isn't There.
It's all "The Wizard of Oz"--every one of them.
Sorry; kinda stark when you say it that way.
Ron, as to burden of proof, you have to pay attention to the claim that is under discussion. The Argument from Divine Hiddenness is a claim made by atheists. The claim (to repeat it again) is that fact that there are agnostics is an argument or proof that there must not be a God. You are correct,
I'm saying that whoever makes a claim bears the burden of proof
And the atheists have made this claim. They bear the burden of proof.
Now, you go on right after that and say,
you are challenging me to believe your God is real. That means you bear the burden of proof.
Well, I have done that on many occasions, but I've found it's really important to remember when you're talking about one thing and when you're talking about something else. When I'm talking about the Divine Hiddenness argument, rightly understood (for there is a right way and a wrong way to understand it), I'm not trying to get you to believe in God. I'm trying to defend against a certain argument made against God. Please try to stick with me on this.
Number (1) is in fact the Argument from Divine Hiddenness as it is stated by its promulgators. If it's not your position, fine; you don't have to take a stand on it. Paul referred me to an article and asked us to talk about it, and that's what I'm doing.
I think you and possibly others here have an idea in mind of what this argument is, not realizing it has a technical formulation that is different.
Your requests for signs or evidences from God is the same thing we've been working on here for the whole time I've been blogging. There is a different twist coming up now in the variation of this argument that you, Paul, and dl seem to be stating: "Why should I believe in God when he (if he exists) doesn't seem to care enough to make his existence more obvious?"
I said in my first post in this series I would get to that. But I'm not going to try to cover everything at once.
Ron, as to burden of proof, you have to pay attention to the claim that is under discussion. The Argument from Divine Hiddenness is a claim made by atheists. The claim (to repeat it again) is that fact that there are agnostics is an argument or proof that there must not be a God. You are correct,
I'm saying that whoever makes a claim bears the burden of proof
And the atheists have made this claim. They bear the burden of proof.
According to your initial comments on this topic, it was my remarks that helped launch this whole series, and my comments bear no resemblance to "The Argument from Divine Hiddenness" above, that's for sure:
Rather than insist that He exists and try to come up with some kind of mental gymnastics to ascertain why he chooses not to reveal himself directly, I prefer to go with the obvious. The Christian God doesn't directly reveal himself for the same reason Allah doesn't, or Zeus doesn't, etc. None of them are actually there. It seems like a reasonable conclusion.
Ron | 04.24.07 - 6:33 am | #
...to which you replied:
This is fine, Ron. Paul has been wanting us for a long time to take up the divine hiddenness issue. We've done it as a side discussion before, but I ought to make it a blog entry item someday.
You seem to have turned my "reasonable conclusion" into something completely unrecognizable.
Well, I'm glad we're clarifying the question. I think I'll spend a bit more time on the technical argument. Since I started on it I'd like to carry it through. Then I'll try to focus on the one you intended for us. Sorry for the confusion.
Fair enough. Thanks, Tom.
Sure thing.
In fact, in order to prevent this kind of confusion on the next pass, maybe you, Paul, dl and others can work on a way to frame the question so that we know exactly what we're working on. A lot of ideas have gone by--and maybe it's already been stated clearly enough, and I'm just not sure where to go to find that statement--anyway, a restatement would help me if you don't mind.
Thanks.
Tom, I'd say that the argument from divine hiddenness says that
1. God, as a being, is absent (compared to all other beings we confirm exist); and
2. God's absence is an indication that he doesn't exist.
I haven't said whether this indication that he doesn't exist is sufficient to conclude that he doesn't exist. Perhaps this is the weak argument from divine hiddenness
Ron,
"Why is it that nobody's God can actually talk? Not Tom's or anybody else's?"
This may be off subject in light of the discussion that followed. However, to answer your question. There are numerous incidents of our God "talking". The OT is full of examples of God speaking directly to certain individuals: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Job, Isaiah, etc. Jesus also spoke in depth, at length for three years while on this earth and after the resurrection.
I have heard God speak to me on two occasions when I knew, without a doubt, it was God speaking and not my own thoughts. Others hear God more often. God is not physical; He is spiritual. So, obviously, we cannot sit down and have a conversation with him like we do with our friends, spouse, etc. He has done that in the past, but with only select individuals.
Let me ask you. When you're out for a walk with no electronic devices around, do you hear music or talk? No, I don't either. Does that mean that the music and talk are not there? No. The fact is that music and talk are all around us constantly. We just don't have the ability to hear it without the aid of a radio. You've got to have the correct equipment to hear it. Do you have the correct equipment to hear God?
Michael, how do you know it was God that you heard? I think it's because he said so, which doesn't sound like much of a reason when it's put like that.
No, He didn't say "Hey, this is God speaking. Listen up." He didn't make any reference to His identity.
I knew it was God speaking because it was totally different from the 99.999% of the thoughts in my head when I think in words, like we all do. This was crystal clear and did not seem to come from my mind, although it did not come through my ears either. It did not have the same "sound" that my own thoughts produce. It spoke truth in a way that produced life. One time it occurred while I was praying. The other time I wasn't even thinking about God.
I've had a couple such occurrences as well. The earliest and most unlikely to have been just a natural occurrence was when I was in college. I scheduled a set of classes that seemed to me to be the best, to allow me the best progress toward my degree while also learning something along the way.
I had a very strong impression that I knew was from God, that I should change that schedule. I did. It wasn't until about 18 months to two years later that I discovered what would have happened had I continued with that original plan: some course schedules changed, I would have missed one or two classes for graduation, and I would have had to stay on campus another year just to make them up.
I've had other experiences like that, though usually God's voice comes through his word to me and to all believers.
I had a very strong impression...
There it is. There's the problem.
You're talking about impressions. I'm talking about conversations. Actual, audible conversations. If I walked into the room I'd hear God actually talking to you. I rather doubt you've had one of those. Thing like that would draw a lot of attention.
Michael--
God is not physical; He is spiritual. So, obviously, we cannot sit down and have a conversation with him like we do with our friends, spouse, etc. He has done that in the past, but with only select individuals.
So you're saying He was physical then and spiritual now?
You've got to have the correct equipment to hear it. Do you have the correct equipment to hear God?
Remember, if I don't have the correct equipment, then for all practical purposes He doesn't exist anyway.
I presume you do have the correct equipment. Mind if I ask him a few questions? The first one is a request for the lab procedure needed to produce a universal cure for AIDS.
Tom--
As to the restatement you asked for:
The majority of atheists, if asked why they did not believe in God, would probably respond that it is because they see no credible evidence for the existence of such a being. The argument from divine hiddenness is merely a formalized version of that stance. In brief, it states that the lack of obvious manifestations of God is better explained by assuming that God does not exist than by assuming that God does exist but chooses to remain hidden
Seems to say it fairly well. (From Paul's original article).
Whilst I have no doubt that people can be completely convinced from their experience of God that he exists, this doesn't provide a rational basis for another person to be convinced. But then, neither does the fact that a person can't see any credible evidence of the existence of God permit the conclusion that God doesn't exist.
There are various more substantive philosophical bases for belief in God - for example, the fact that everything we observe in the universe seems to be contingent, so this would suggest the requirement for a non-contingent first cause; the fact that person-hood is not an obvious consequence of impersonal nature plus time plus chance. However, from a Christian point of view, God says that the evidence of the existence of God is obvious, and people who deny that God is there are repressing the truth.
Commenting by HaloScan
