Interesting argument for the non-existence of the Christian God

[ccmnxc]

There’s an argument that’s been troubling me a little bit, and while I wouldn’t consider it airtight, I also don’t think it is easy to simply refute and brush aside. Here’s the basic gist:

1. If the Christian God existed, we would have cognitive faculties that didn’t moderately or strongly impair acceptance of truth.
2. We don’t have cognitive faculties that don’t moderately or strongly impair acceptance of truth.
3. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

So far as I can tell, the argument is valid, so here is a brief defense of the premises.
I will go with 2 first since it strikes me as slightly less controversial and difficult to defend. My primary example would be the problem of confirmation bias. We humans are extremely disposed to filtering the facts so that we find what supports our position but reject what does not support our position. We also tend to seek out people who agree with us for answers moreso than facing difficult questions and honestly scrutinizing our beliefs.

As far as 1 goes, it seems like God would provide us with such cognitive faculties since, if He existed, he would be the locus of Truth. It strikes me as counter-intuitive that He would allow people to be put into a position in which they did not believe or follow Him (being born into a different culture, religion, etc) and give them cognitive faculties that would make it quite difficult to change toward believing in and following Him.

This is a very brief sketch, and I haven’t thought too much about it, but it strikes me as one of the more troubling issues regarding God’s existence.

Thoughts appreciated.

 

[Della]

Neither premise is valid because we did have those facilities when God created us, that is Adam and Eve did. But we lost them in the Fall. Our nature was corrupted so that our inclination is to sin, our intellects darkened so our minds do not comprehend truth as they should, and our will weakened so we do not do the good we know we should do. If modern Catholics were taught these simple precepts, no Catholic could be confused about the matter.

 

[JackVk]

First, the argument is a non sequitur, as the poster before me mentioned. Second, God doesn’t hold invincible ignorance against someone. Saying He would do such a thing is denying His goodness and mercy, something intrinsic to the Christian God. If anything, the person putting forth this argument is proving the non-existence of a straw God.

 

[ccmnxc]

Neither premise is valid because we did have those facilities when God created us, that is Adam and Eve did. But we lost them in the Fall. Our nature was corrupted so that our inclination is to sin, our intellects darkened so our minds do not comprehend truth as they should, and our will weakened so we do not do the good we know we should do. If modern Catholics were taught these simple precepts, no Catholic could be confused about the matter.

Yeah, so far, this has seemed to me to be the most valid way to go about it. It might raise some interesting questions about the Fall and salvation as such, especially for a skeptic, but it still strikes me as a valid answer to the immediate problem. However, it seems’s you’re really only disputing premise one, since it seems you affirm the second premise insofar that we lost the faculties that would objectively allow us to accept truth. Would this be correct?

First, the argument is a non sequitur, as the poster before me mentioned. Second, God doesn’t hold invincible ignorance against someone. Saying He would do such a thing is denying His goodness and mercy, something intrinsic to the Christian God. If anything, the person putting forth this argument is proving the non-existence of a straw God.

Are you sure it’s a non-sequitur? I’ll grant that it could be unsound, but it seems to me to follow the valid modus tollens format of denying the consequent. Further, I’m not sure that it would be invincible ignorance, since they would certainly have heard the truth; they just would have been predisposed to rejecting it.

 

[tonyrey]

There’s an argument that’s been troubling me a little bit, and while I wouldn’t consider it airtight, I also don’t think it is easy to simply refute and brush aside. Here’s the basic gist:

1. If the Christian God existed, we would have cognitive faculties that didn’t moderately or strongly impair acceptance of truth.
2. We don’t have cognitive faculties that don’t moderately or strongly impair acceptance of truth.
3. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

So far as I can tell, the argument is valid, so here is a brief defense of the premises.
I will go with 2 first since it strikes me as slightly less controversial and difficult to defend. My primary example would be the problem of confirmation bias. We humans are extremely disposed to filtering the facts so that we find what supports our position but reject what does not support our position. We also tend to seek out people who agree with us for answers moreso than facing difficult questions and honestly scrutinizing our beliefs.

As far as 1 goes, it seems like God would provide us with such cognitive faculties since, if He existed, he would be the locus of Truth. It strikes me as counter-intuitive that He would allow people to be put into a position in which they did not believe or follow Him (being born into a different culture, religion, etc) and give them cognitive faculties that would make it quite difficult to change toward believing in and following Him.

This is a very brief sketch, and I haven’t thought too much about it, but it strikes me as one of the more troubling issues regarding God’s existence.

Thoughts appreciated.

If everyone were compelled to believe in God we wouldn’t be responsible for choosing what to believe, how to live and whether to love God and others more than ourselves. It would defeat the purpose of creating us as independent persons rather than servile sycophants…

 

[oldcelt]

Neither premise is valid because we did have those facilities when God created us, that is Adam and Eve did. But we lost them in the Fall. Our nature was corrupted so that our inclination is to sin, our intellects darkened so our minds do not comprehend truth as they should, and our will weakened so we do not do the good we know we should do. If modern Catholics were taught these simple precepts, no Catholic could be confused about the matter.

Since this is a thread on philosophy, I would like to know how we know that Adam and Eve possessed these abilities? The biblical story does not seem to show them sensing God, but communicating directly with the Almighty. When one is doing that, it is rather easy to accept that being’s existence as being true.

Has God made it too difficult for many?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Neither premise is valid because we did have those facilities when God created us, that is Adam and Eve did. But we lost them in the Fall. Our nature was corrupted so that our inclination is to sin, our intellects darkened so our minds do not comprehend truth as they should, and our will weakened so we do not do the good we know we should do. If modern Catholics were taught these simple precepts, no Catholic could be confused about the matter.

Exactly!

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Since this is a thread on philosophy, I would like to know how we know that Adam and Eve possessed these abilities?

If it is consistent with Christianity to believe they did, then the first premise is false, and the argument fails. If you want to discuss another topic, then make a new thread.

 

[polytropos]

If it is consistent with Christianity to believe they did, then the first premise is false, and the argument fails. If you want to discuss another topic, then make a new thread.

I was thinking the same. Whether or not Adam and Eve existed is not relevant to the argument, but the fact that they might have, and that their existence is consistent with Christianity, shows the first premise to be false.

 

[tdgesq]

Since this is a thread on philosophy, I would like to know how we know that Adam and Eve possessed these abilities?

To the question: “whether the first man knew all things.” Aquinas replies “yes.” newadvent.org/summa/1094.htm#article3

To the question: “whether man in his first state could be deceived.” Aquinas replies “no.” newadvent.org/summa/1094.htm#article4

The Catholic Church has generally taught that our first parents were endowed with certain preternatural gifts, which include the freedom from irregular desire (concupiscence) and knowledge of natural and supernatural truths.

The biblical story does not seem to show them sensing God, but communicating directly with the Almighty.

Only at times. The Genesis story indicates that God was not present at the time of the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, nor at the time they sewed fig leafs together as clothing. It was only later that they heard God walking in the garden.

When one is doing that, it is rather easy to accept that being’s existence as being true.

It doesn’t appear that Adam and Eve ever doubted God’s existence, just like many of us here don’t doubt God’s existence. It was a willing refusal to obey God’s word where they ran into trouble.

Has God made it too difficult for many?

That is the problem of evil, but a difficult argument to make in relation to our first parents; at least according to traditional Catholic teaching.

 

[ccmnxc]

I think I’ve fallen victim to philosophizing without doing much to take into account of the theology at play here. If I had done so, premise one would have probably come across a less threatening. Thanks, all.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

This doesn’t make sense so much.
If Adam and Eve did indeed have the “cognitive faculties that didn’t moderately or strongly impair acceptance of truth” before the fall…then they would have known the truth and not eaten from the Tree of Knowledge.

.

What makes you think they did not know 'the truth"? In fact, that is precisely why the sin is so horrendous. This isn’t a case of somebody being tricked into something that he (or she) would NOT have done had he (or she) been 'fully informed. Eve --and Adam–knew the truth, but they preferred to listen to somebody tell them a lie so that they could then make the choice of doing something wrong from a ‘lofty motive’.

Which is exactly what we do when we try to twist things around, or claim that ‘situations make something acceptable’, or otherwise try to justify doing wrong.

 

[JRKH]

I’m no philosopher - and I did not even think of Adam and Eve when reading the OP…but the question that came me was…

How does one make the assertion contained in number one?
What part or teaching or principle of Christianity is this assertion founded on?

Just curious

Peace
James

 

[Della]

The argument didn’t say we’d all be compelled to believe in God…it said if the Christian God existed, we’d have “cognitive faculties that didn’t impair acceptance of” this Christian God.

But we do have cognitive faculties that lead many to not accept a belief in this God.
Most Atheists and Agnostics are using these cognitive faculties when they say they don’t think a God exists.
And, concurrently, people who believe in “another” God/religion other than Christian would be using these cognitive faculties as well.

.

This is why the premise itself is wrong. If one starts out with a faulty premise its faultiness can be quickly sorted out.

 

[Simca]

There’s an argument that’s been troubling me a little bit, and while I wouldn’t consider it airtight, I also don’t think it is easy to simply refute and brush aside. Here’s the basic gist:

1. If the Christian God existed, we would have cognitive faculties that didn’t moderately or strongly impair acceptance of truth.
2. We don’t have cognitive faculties that don’t moderately or strongly impair acceptance of truth.
3. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

So far as I can tell, the argument is valid, so here is a brief defense of the premises.
I will go with 2 first since it strikes me as slightly less controversial and difficult to defend. My primary example would be the problem of confirmation bias. We humans are extremely disposed to filtering the facts so that we find what supports our position but reject what does not support our position. We also tend to seek out people who agree with us for answers moreso than facing difficult questions and honestly scrutinizing our beliefs.

As far as 1 goes, it seems like God would provide us with such cognitive faculties since, if He existed, he would be the locus of Truth. It strikes me as counter-intuitive that He would allow people to be put into a position in which they did not believe or follow Him (being born into a different culture, religion, etc) and give them cognitive faculties that would make it quite difficult to change toward believing in and following Him.

This is a very brief sketch, and I haven’t thought too much about it, but it strikes me as one of the more troubling issues regarding God’s existence.

Thoughts appreciated.

The first scripture that entered my mind when I read your post is Romans chapter one, which says that God’s existence has been made plain to mankind through creation itself. Like it says in the Psalms: ‘’The heavens declare the glory of God and the earth shows forth His handiwork’’. So, getting back to Romans again, ‘’For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made.’

But here is where mankind’s choice comes into effect: ‘’As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks’’. All of Romans chapter 1 discusses man’s choice to disbelieve and disobey God, and thus the consequences of these decisions. It says nothing of Adam’s and Eve’s original sin, but seems to suggest that mankind, collectively, has with full knowledge turned away from God. So God has already given man all he needs to believe, but by his own choice and pride, he has decided to disbelieve—mainly, I think, because man does not want to obey God, but wants, as Satan wanted, to be a God unto himself.

So what advantages does being born into a Christian community/family have? Has God intentionally favoured some, while making it harder on others? On the surface it may seem so, but I don’t know. Jesus told the Jewish people not to assume they had an advantage just because they were sons of Abraham. (Matthew 3:9) In other words, they were not to assume that salvation was naturally theirs because of their heritage. And likewise, just because someone is born into a Christian (Catholic or Protestant) community, salvation is not naturally theirs. But each individual must make a conscientious choice to follow and obey God. Is it harder for those who weren’t raised in a Christian community? Jesus said that he would draw every person unto himself, so when a person is drawn, they have a choice of seeking God or deciding not to. God has promised that if people truly seek after him with all their heart, then they will find him. (Deuteronomy 4:29)

In Jesus’ parable, God told the wealthy man who had died and was suffering in Hades, that even if someone appeared from the dead and preached, that many people would still not believe. I think it again comes down to choice: even if you believe in God (like the demons also do), the choice has to be made to obey or disobey.

I think that God has done all he can do to get people to believe in Him—and according to Romans, he has given us the intellect to do so. But God not only draws people by their intellect, but by the spirit he has placed within us, and also by our emotions. I have met many people who have ‘felt’ called by God. Some have decided to follow him-others have decided not to. It all comes down to choice.

 

[tonyrey]

The argument didn’t say we’d all be compelled to believe in God…it said if the Christian God existed, we’d have “cognitive faculties that didn’t impair acceptance of” this Christian God.

But we do have cognitive faculties that lead many to not accept a belief in this God.
Most Atheists and Agnostics are using these cognitive faculties when they say they don’t think a God exists.
And, concurrently, people who believe in “another” God/religion other than Christian would be using these cognitive faculties as well.

The key words are “if the Christian God existed we’d have cognitive faculties”. Our very possession of those faculties implies that God exists. There is no other adequate explanation of our power - and freedom - to make a **rational **decision…

 

[Peter_Plato]

There’s an argument that’s been troubling me a little bit, and while I wouldn’t consider it airtight, I also don’t think it is easy to simply refute and brush aside. Here’s the basic gist:

1. If the Christian God existed, we would have cognitive faculties that didn’t moderately or strongly impair acceptance of truth.
2. We don’t have cognitive faculties that don’t moderately or strongly impair acceptance of truth.
3. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

…
Thoughts appreciated.

My thought here is that “acceptance of the truth” may be a function not merely of knowledge but of something like “goodness.” The reason I suspect this is because God’s essence and existence are one. So coming to know God (Truth Itself as the nature of Being) is not merely a matter of knowing but of being. We must become worthy of communion with God (apprehending Him - Being and Truth - as He is.)

We can apprehend many lesser essences (as in know the truth about them,) but to fully come to know God (fullness of Being) we must be worthy of such.

The other aspect of this “worthiness” is perhaps best called “trustworthiness.” Can we be trusted with the fullness of truth? If we can’t be, why would God allow truth, in a complete sense, to be available to those who cannot be trusted to know? A concrete example of this would be Nazi access to knowledge required to build an atomic bomb.

This does move the discussion into why God allows evil beings any knowledge whatsoever, but, I suspect, that can be argued on its own merits.

Complete access to truth does, it would seem, mean access to God Himself, and there is no reason to think such a privilege merely attains to anyone capable of knowledge without regard for worthiness.

 

[Sochi]

1. If the Christian God existed, we would have cognitive faculties that didn’t moderately or strongly impair acceptance of truth.

How in the name of the alleged God does that follow?

1. We don’t have cognitive faculties that don’t moderately or strongly impair acceptance of truth.

If my understanding of this is correct, that our cognitive abilities are not up to seeing truth without great distortion, I would say A) the statement fails to distinguish between potential and general mean ability or the ability of a few; B) as the mind is designed to accept nearly anything as truth at a hypnotic level before age 7 and it takes a lot of work, discipline and practice to overcome that and grow coherently even in one area of activity; and C) the mind is designed to make itself right under nearly any circumstances.

1. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

Again, by what stretch, though I agree with the conclusion, does that follow? We do understand, don’t we, that our Nation has gone from first to 17th on an international scale of social progress in about 25 years? This kind of attempt at syllogism may be offered as proof of that.

The three points in sum are a non-argument.

 

[oldcelt]

How in the name of the alleged God does that follow?
If my understanding of this is correct, that our cognitive abilities are not up to seeing truth without great distortion, I would say A) the statement fails to distinguish between potential and general mean ability or the ability of a few; B) as the mind is designed to accept nearly anything as truth at a hypnotic level before age 7 and it takes a lot of work, discipline and practice to overcome that and grow coherently even in one area of activity; and C) the mind is designed to make itself right under nearly any circumstances.
**Again, by what stretch, though I agree with the conclusion, does that follow? We do understand, don’t we, that our Nation has gone from first to 17th on an international scale of social progress in about 25 years? This kind of attempt at syllogism may be offered as proof of that.
**
The three points in sum are a non-argument.

That darkened area is tragic. I remember a man from Lynchburg, Va starting into politics about 35 years ago. Maybe that has something to do with it.

 

[fred_conty]

There’s an argument that’s been troubling me a little bit, and while I wouldn’t consider it airtight, I also don’t think it is easy to simply refute and brush aside. Here’s the basic gist:

1. If the Christian God existed, we would have cognitive faculties that didn’t moderately or strongly impair acceptance of truth.
2. We don’t have cognitive faculties that don’t moderately or strongly impair acceptance of truth.
3. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

So far as I can tell, the argument is valid, so here is a brief defense of the premises.
I will go with 2 first since it strikes me as slightly less controversial and difficult to defend. My primary example would be the problem of confirmation bias. We humans are extremely disposed to filtering the facts so that we find what supports our position but reject what does not support our position. We also tend to seek out people who agree with us for answers moreso than facing difficult questions and honestly scrutinizing our beliefs.

As far as 1 goes, it seems like God would provide us with such cognitive faculties since, if He existed, he would be the locus of Truth. It strikes me as counter-intuitive that He would allow people to be put into a position in which they did not believe or follow Him (being born into a different culture, religion, etc) and give them cognitive faculties that would make it quite difficult to change toward believing in and following Him.

This is a very brief sketch, and I haven’t thought too much about it, but it strikes me as one of the more troubling issues regarding God’s existence.

Thoughts appreciated.

The question rephrased is:
If there is a just God which the Christians believe in, then he would have to give us what we need. Since we don’t have what we need, there is no Christian God.

But he does give us what we need thru grace, his special help.
And just because it is difficult for us to see the existance of grace, does not mean he does not give it sufficiently to overcome whatever problem we are facing.
And he gives enough grace to all men tho many men ignore it or chose to throw it away because of their hard hearts.

So the Christian God is just and caring, and does exist, tho men may chose to ignore him of all races, creeds, colors, nations, ages. He is good to all, and to some gooder, and to others gooderer, and to even more goodererer, but good to all.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.