I don't believe that there is a God, but I would like to be convinced that I am wrong. (The inverse of minkymurph's thread.)

[Bradski]

First, there are several kinds of prayer, Mr. Bradski. There’s pretty solid documentation of the positive effects of prayer for the one doing the praying. So swap that over-broad brush of yours for one more suitably narrow.

Next, I’d see the problem if intercession made-up a large portion of someone’s faith. But like the Calvinist’s I came from, I still think God was “awake at the wheel” when you got your cancer.

Intercession seems to be so rare that I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it.

I’m pretty certain that if I truly believed that sacrificing a goat and dancing around a pumpkin in my underwear would be of some benefit in helping with some of life’s problems, then the fact that I believed it was going to work would have some positive influences on my mental state.

Now you and I (and the goat) know all this is a waste of time. But if I had a positive outcome to a problem, guess what I would attribute it to…

 

[Bradski]

Point 1 - Presented in a manner designed to be persuasive to an atheist in accordance with minkymurph’s personal philosophy

Humankind has searched for something ‘greater than themselves’ from the dawn of time. Why should this have been the case? In primitive societies, would we exist simply because we do, we are here because we here and everything that is here has always been here not have been sufficient? Is it possible the believe there is ‘something greater than ourselves’ because it is true?

The cosmic energy of the universe that has power beyond are comprehension, the capacity to generate new life forms that in turn have their own creative is in a sense what believers call ‘God,’ and can it said we are all in some sense connected to this power?

Can this power personify, possess certain characteristics we define in terms of emotions? I watched a fascinating documentary about animals recently that demonstrated they are capable of intellect, making friends, love, grief, communicating with each other. Some even kept pets. Natural predators protecting each other. Is this because all life is generated from one source of ‘power’ that has possession of these qualities? Is it possible to generate life that possesses these qualities via a source of power that does not possess them in any sense? That is completely impersonal? Perhaps this is not impossible, but can it be argued to be improbable?

Disclaimer - minkymurph accepts no responsibility for how this post may be interpreted by others nor actions taken of behalf of others as a consequence of reading it.

I’ve got some copies of Deist Monthly somewhere. I can send them to you if you like.

 

[minkymurph]

I’ve got some copies of Deist Monthly somewhere. I can send them to you if you like.

Had a quick gander at this online. ‘God gave us reason not religion’ interests me. Yeah send them to me.

 

[minkymurph]

I’m pretty certain that if I truly believed that sacrificing a goat and dancing around a pumpkin in my underwear would be of some benefit in helping with some of life’s problems, then the fact that I believed it was going to work would have some positive influences on my mental state.

Now you and I (and the goat) know all this is a waste of time. But if I had a positive outcome to a problem, guess what I would attribute it to…

I have built a certain image in my mind of what you look like. I am now imagining you dancing around a pumpkin in your underwear.

:hypno:

 

[minkymurph]

I don’t think so. Many times I found out that a good argument convinced me that my previous concept was incorrect, and I discarded it.

Just one example. I subscribed to the idea that “extraordinary claims requite extraordinary proofs (or evidence)”. Someone pointed out that that this is an incorrect requirement. All claims require the same amount of evidence… however, for mundane, irrelevant claims we forego this requirement and accept the claim on flimsy evidence (like unsupported personal testimonials).

Entrenched positions are those we have deep commitment to. It is not impossible to overturn them but difficult.

Don’t be too quick to categorize unsupported personal testimony as flimsy evidence. Depends on what is being said and who is saying it.

 

[Bradski]

Had a quick gander at this online. ‘God gave us reason not religion’ interests me. Yeah send them to me.

Ye gods, there IS a Deists Monthly? My flabber is suitably gasted.

 

[Thom18]

Or religious before they found out that prayer didn’t work…

If they didn’t “work”, they didn’t align with God’s will. Even if what we’re praying for seems to be (from our perspective) what God would want, our prayer being answered the way we want it to could interfere with future events.

The film Frequency comes to mind. You do something you believe is good, only for something much worse to happen.

 

[Bradski]

If they didn’t “work”, they didn’t align with God’s will. Even if what we’re praying for seems to be (from our perspective) what God would want, our prayer being answered the way we want it to could interfere with future events.

The film Frequency comes to mind. You do something you believe is good, only for something much worse to happen.

I see. So you are saying that God’s will is the deciding factor. Seems reasonable.

But if your prayer aligns with God’s will, it’s going to happen anyway and if it doesn’t, then you are wasting your time praying.

 

[minkymurph]

Ye gods, there IS a Deists Monthly? My flabber is suitably gasted.

deism.com/thinkonline.htm

There is a down side to the use of sarcasm.

 

[skeptical_dan]

Ok, I wonder what you’ll think of this argument:

Argument from nonbelief-J. L. Schellenberg

1.If no perfectly loving God exists, then God does not exist.
2.If a perfectly loving God exists, then there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person.
3.If there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
4.If a perfectly loving God exists, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists (from 2 and 3).
5.Some human persons are non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
6.No perfectly loving God exists (from 4 and 5).
7.God does not exist (from 1 and 6).

This is one of the better arguments for atheism I think (Atheism in this case meaning that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being does not exist), although there might be some ways to counter this.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I see. So you are saying that God’s will is the deciding factor. Seems reasonable.

But if your prayer aligns with God’s will, it’s going to happen anyway and if it doesn’t, then you are wasting your time praying.

If your prayer aligns with God, you are praying right. Yes. If you are praying for a undeserved riches or revenge, it probably ain’t going to happen! And I f you don’t pray, doesn’t mean it’s going to happen either - Ha! Just to be on the safe side, you better pray.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Ok, I wonder what you’ll think of this argument:

Argument from nonbelief-J. L. Schellenberg

1.If no perfectly loving God exists, then God does not exist.
2.If a perfectly loving God exists, then there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person.
3.If there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
4.If a perfectly loving God exists, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists (from 2 and 3).
5.Some human persons are non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
6.No perfectly loving God exists (from 4 and 5).
7.God does not exist (from 1 and 6).

This is one of the better arguments for atheism I think (Atheism in this case meaning that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being does not exist), although there might be some ways to counter this.

Personally, I find it rather goofy.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Entrenched positions are those we have deep commitment to. It is not impossible to overturn them but difficult.

That is what I said. It is not impossible for me to accept that my atheism is incorrect. It would not be impossible for a believer to become atheist. (Both happened before). There is one important factor to consider. I have no emotional attachment to my worldview. As far as I can judge, for believers their “connection” to God is very important, not a cold, emotionally unattached, pure intellectual belief. They have much more “riding” on their belief, and that is why it is more difficult to go from belief to atheism, than the other way 'round. As I heard, many people lose their faith due to some traumatic event. Of course this is just anecdotal evidence, but seems to be true.

Don’t be too quick to categorize unsupported personal testimony as flimsy evidence. Depends on what is being said and who is saying it.

Not really. It is equally “flimsy” no matter who says it and what is being said. But we are more likely to be permissive when the topic is “ho-hum”, the “who cares” type of proposition, and when the person who “says it”, is trusted. But objectively, there is no difference.

 

[Thom18]

I see. So you are saying that God’s will is the deciding factor. Seems reasonable.

But if your prayer aligns with God’s will, it’s going to happen anyway and if it doesn’t, then you are wasting your time praying.

God knows more than we do. He knows the consequences every action will have and which actions are best better than we do. So, he will “answer” prayers that help fulfill His plan. Thomas Aquinas said that God “not only plans what effects will happen but also what causes will cause them to happen and how.” He then says that human actions can be such causes. They don’t change God’s arrangements, but achieve them.

“We don’t pray in order to change God’s arrangements but in order to obtain effects that God has arranged will be achieved through prayer”.

 

[minkymurph]

Ok, I wonder what you’ll think of this argument:

Argument from nonbelief-J. L. Schellenberg

1.If no perfectly loving God exists, then God does not exist.
2.If a perfectly loving God exists, then there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person.
3.If there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
4.If a perfectly loving God exists, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists (from 2 and 3).
5.Some human persons are non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
6.No perfectly loving God exists (from 4 and 5).
7.God does not exist (from 1 and 6).

This is one of the better arguments for atheism I think (Atheism in this case meaning that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being does not exist), although there might be some ways to counter this.

I would call this a ‘word play’ argument.

1. It cannot be said if God is not loving He does not exist. A God that is not loving can still exist.
2. Only if perfect love constitutes love of each and every human. Why would not loving each and every human make love imperfect?
3. Individual humans can non-resistantly be aware God exists yet actively resist he desires to enter into a relationship with them.
4. A person can non-resistantly be aware God exits yet actively resist the belief he is loving.
5. This line of reasoning cannot apply to ‘all humans.’ It can only applied
   to humans who have reached an age of reason and are not incapacitated in any way.
   If we are dealing with humans who have reached the age of reason and are not incapacitated in any way, being non-resistantly unaware of the existence of God in terms of being told something of the existence of God would be a rarity. They can actively resist anything they are told.

Thus, it cannot be stated conclusively God is not loving and does not exist for any of the reasons stated.

 

[Thom18]

Ok, I wonder what you’ll think of this argument:

Argument from nonbelief-J. L. Schellenberg

1.If no perfectly loving God exists, then God does not exist.
2.If a perfectly loving God exists, then there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person.
3.If there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
4.If a perfectly loving God exists, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists (from 2 and 3).
5.Some human persons are non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
6.No perfectly loving God exists (from 4 and 5).
7.God does not exist (from 1 and 6).

This is one of the better arguments for atheism I think (Atheism in this case meaning that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being does not exist), although there might be some ways to counter this.

One such way this would be countered is to point out a few things. Firstly, being “all loving” isn’t a requirement a god needs. A god could hate their creation and the fact that they do so wouldn’t disprove their existence.

Secondly, the fact that not all people know (or believe) that God exists doesn’t mean that God isn’t all loving. An all loving god could exist that hasn’t made itself apparent to its creation.

This is a really weak argument.

 

[minkymurph]

That is what I said. It is not impossible for me to accept that my atheism is incorrect. It would not be impossible for a believer to become atheist. (Both happened before). There is one important factor to consider. I have no emotional attachment to my worldview. As far as I can judge, for believers their “connection” to God is very important, not a cold, emotionally unattached, pure intellectual belief. They have much more “riding” on their belief, and that is why it is more difficult to go from belief to atheism, than the other way 'round. As I heard, many people lose their faith due to some traumatic event. Of course this is just anecdotal evidence, but seems to be true.

That’s pretty accurate. A lot rides on belief. It’s not a matter of accepting a collection of facts, and there is commonly a trigger in terms of loosing faith.

Not really. It is equally “flimsy” no matter who says it and what is being said. But we are more likely to be permissive when the topic is “ho-hum”, the “who cares” type of proposition, and when the person who “says it”, is trusted. But objectively, there is no difference.

Can’t say I could agree with this one. Where we don’t care what the answer is then yes, I take your point - but even if it is something flimsy we have a greater inclination to run with the opinions of someone who in our view is the more reliable - particularly if it’s in our interests to agree with them.

 

[skeptical_dan]

I would call this a ‘word play’ argument.

1. It cannot be said if God is not loving He does not exist. A God that is not loving can still exist.
2. Only if perfect love constitutes love of each and every human. Why would not loving each and every human make love imperfect?
3. Individual humans can non-resistantly be aware God exists yet actively resist he desires to enter into a relationship with them.
4. A person can non-resistantly be aware God exits yet actively resist the belief he is loving.
5. This line of reasoning cannot apply to ‘all humans.’ It can only applied
   to humans who have reached an age of reason and are not incapacitated in any way.
   If we are dealing with humans who have reached the age of reason and are not incapacitated in any way, being non-resistantly unaware of the existence of God in terms of being told something of the existence of God would be a rarity. They can actively resist anything they are told.

Thus, it cannot be stated conclusively God is not loving and does not exist for any of the reasons stated.

1. This is true, but Schellenberg is concerned with the tri-omni God here, which is supposed to be omnibenevolent.
2. Well the Christian God is supposed to love each and every person. If you are going to say that he might not, then you are deviating from the typical Christian view on this.
   3.This is true, but that doesn’t address the argument.
   4.Same as 3.
3. This misses the point. Just because people have heard the claim that God exists doesn’t mean that they have knowledge that God exists.

 

[skeptical_dan]

One such way this would be countered is to point out a few things. Firstly, being “all loving” isn’t a requirement a god needs. A god could hate their creation and the fact that they do so wouldn’t disprove their existence.

Secondly, the fact that not all people know (or believe) that God exists doesn’t mean that God isn’t all loving. An all loving god could exist that hasn’t made itself apparent to its creation.

This is a really weak argument.

Yes, a God could exist that isn’t omnibenevolent. But we are talking about the tri-omni Abrahamic God here. I’m not why Schellenberg felt the need to state the first premise in that way.

Explain why you think that an all loving God could exist that hasn’t made himself apparent to its creation.

 

[Bradski]

One such way this would be countered is to point out a few things. Firstly, being “all loving” isn’t a requirement a god needs. A god could hate their creation and the fact that they do so wouldn’t disprove their existence.

Well said. Good to know that some Christians actually understand this.