Why do people claim that proving God's non-existence is proving a negative?

[ethereality]

I am dismayed to see that the following hasn’t been mentioned yet: St. Thomas Aquinas argues convincingly in his Summa Theologica that the existence of God is not obvious. It’s one of his first points on the question of God’s existence, well before his “Five Ways” (which are more of identifying God, rather than proving God’s existence).

All of you arguing that “God’s existence is obvious” are directly contradicting St. Thomas Aquinas, and would do well to read what he has to say about it. The Summa Theologica is freely available, e.g. a free download from amazon.com.

In short, people cannot deny what is obvious. That people deny the existence of God demonstrates that God’s existence is not obvious.

 

[polytropos]

I don’t think that’s the point. The point is to get people to understand how atheists view their particular god. It’s a way of illustrating the position, not proving it.

Understood. That is what it says. In its popular variation, though, it rhetorically aims to conflate rejection of Yahweh with rejection of Zeus and Baal. In a sense, yes, they are all gods to reject if one’s stance is to be tenable. The implication is that belief in the Christian God is absurd as belief in the gods of mythology - which one might argue, but then, how many atheists are on forums debating about the existence of Zeus?

It is a trivial statement to make. Yes, we all don’t believe in the gods we don’t believe in.

 

[ngill09]

I am dismayed to see that the following hasn’t been mentioned yet: St. Thomas Aquinas argues convincingly in his Summa Theologica that the existence of God is not obvious. It’s one of his first points on the question of God’s existence, well before his “Five Ways” (which are more of identifying God, rather than proving God’s existence).

All of you arguing that “God’s existence is obvious” are directly contradicting St. Thomas Aquinas, and would do well to read what he has to say about it. The Summa Theologica is freely available, e.g. a free download from amazon.com.

In short, people cannot deny what is obvious. That people deny the existence of God demonstrates that God’s existence is not obvious.

At one point I thought about pointing out that if God’s existence was obvious, the entire project of apologetics would be pointless.

Understood. That is what it says. In its popular variation, though, it rhetorically aims to conflate rejection of Yahweh with rejection of Zeus and Baal. In a sense, yes, they are all gods to reject if one’s stance is to be tenable. The implication is that belief in the Christian God is absurd as belief in the gods of mythology - which one might argue, but then, how many atheists are on forums debating about the existence of Zeus?

It is a trivial statement to make. Yes, we all don’t believe in the gods we don’t believe in.

The stock answer about debating Zeus is that nobody seriously proposes that Zeus exists, so there’s no point arguing about it. I don’t think that Yahweh, particularly as portrayed in the older Biblical texts, is much different than Zeus or Baal. However, a more general “God” is a different proposition altogether. I also think Dinesh D’Souza’s counter to this argument is very good. He compares monotheism to monogamy - pointing out that being in a monogamous relationship is very different from being in no relationship at all, even though being in no relationship is being in “just one less” than the monogamous person.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

which one might argue, but then, how many atheists are on forums debating about the existence of Zeus?

The discussion is reactionary to the claims presented by others. Until you find a substantial number of people that argue for the existence of Zeus and make decisions for their community based on the Zeus concept there wont be much motivation to argue against it. For example, reference to the Hindu deities sometimes comes up in discussions with my Hindu friends. These seem to be viewed as only interesting cultural attributes among my non-Hindu associates and an interesting topic of discussion but note a source of debate. I had a hindu roommate over a decade ago that wanted me to no longer eat beef and start making visits to the temple. While I’m not much inclined to argue against the existence of a deity the situation was enough to motivate me to explain that I did not evaluate the Hinduism as true and that my conformance to some of the request was contingent on evaluating it as true. (I did decide not to bring beef into our shared space though).

 

[Portofino]

Why would He mention them if they don’t exist and are ridiculously numerous? Not to mention that the prohibition is meant to engender a variety of things that are not deities, strictly speaking: mammon, the self, power, etc. So the First Commandment can’t quite be conflated with the truth claim/philosophic stance that there exists one Christian God - because it’s not just a requirement that you hold a particular metaphysical belief, and those who hold the correct metaphysical belief can still transgress it.

The wording of the first commandment is curious, although I don’t have access to the original Hebrew. The statement “you shall have no other gods but me” does not make it clear whether no other gods exist, or whether – though other gods exist – sole worship should be given to Yahweh. By some accounts, the ancient Hebrews were henotheists, before they were monotheists.

reiterate, if someone were to prove that the Christian God exists, then it would logically follow that any other deities do not exist. For that reason, Catholics are not functionally equivalent to hard atheists because they have a qualitatively distinct way of rejecting other deities: other deities logically cannot coexist with their God. Positively proving the existence of the Catholic God is logically equivalent to disproving the existence of other gods.

It’s been years since I’ve done a study of formal logic, but this sounds somewhat tautological to me, perhaps like saying, “Christianity posits that no other gods exist; therefore, if you are Christian, it is logical to believe that no other gods exist.”

Even there, there is more complexity to it – you have Satan which, in my assessment of things, adds a bit of clutter to the whole picture! Satan is surprisingly powerful, really no less powerful than a figure like Baal, I would presume. Baal is not a creator god; but, then again, neither is Satan. I suppose there is the related question of whether one cannot be called a god, without being a creator. The majority of pagan gods were not creators, which – if I really wanted to push the argument – I could say does not disqualify their existence, in a Christian universe.

But the irony is that Satan either has the power either that no other angel has, or rather that every other angel has, but chooses not to exercise. Let’s just say that Satan is much more powerful than I would expect him to be, and I’m not sure why the other angels – who outnumber him – aren’t keeping him well in check, or why god hasn’t just bound him in chains at this point. Satan is conceived of by Christians as having rather god-like qualities, albeit malevolent ones.

The concept of the Trinity also complicates matters; or, at least, it certainly does from the perspective of other monotheistic religions such as Judaism and Islam. A plausibility of a religion is in the eye of the beholder, and – from a Jewish perspective – Christianity looks like an amalgam of monotheism and polytheistic elements of the Greek pagan world (including God becoming a human being, which was implausible to the traditional Hebrew mind, but plausible to the polytheistic Greeks).

Dawkins soundbite is that everyone rejects Zeus and Baal, and he just rejects Yahweh too. That, I would actually consider to be a position of intellectual dishonesty. The fact that there are an abundance of putatively “competing” theistic claims (although it may be fair to say that belief in Zeus and Baal are no longer in the race), all but at least one of which must be wrong, does not imply that all of them are wrong.

I think Dawkins is arguing from plausibility. The fact is that Christians, when they talk about Zeus, tend to find the whole thing just kind of silly. They don’t seriously consider that Zeus exists, not only because of their Christian faith, but because they find this to be a child-like form of belief. Zeus’ many infidelities are often pointed out, as evidence of his implausibility; one would expect a God to be morally perfect or at least “mature”, not like a pouting child.

But, as I think Thinking Sapien has noted, many non-believers find the God of the Old Testament, in particular, to lack maturity; all this talk about “God smiting his enemies”; “God being a jealous God”; “God getting angry”; also, God repenting of his creation and sending a flood, and then comforting Noah by saying, “I’ll never send a flood again. Fire, on the other hand…” Eternal damnation and hell; the need to sacrifice his son; lack of belief as incurring damnation; plausibility is in the eye of the beholder, and most Christians I grew up with were comfortable in not believing in Zeus because, independently of the first commandment and of the fact that the God of Christianity logically excluded Greek pantheon, they find the whole thing not only risibly implausible, but find the gods to have an all-too-human temperament.

For me, personally, I find the notion of eternal damnation to be all-too-human. I tell myself, “only a human being could have come up with such a concept; it has human cruelty written all over it.” At the time the concept of hell was conceived (it existed in Zoroastrianism, as well) the criminal justice system of human beings routinely involved what we would call “cruel and unusual punishment.” Eternal torture was just a logical extension of the way human beings were already thinking about justice, in a world in which they did not love their enemies; take the punishment that human beings deserved on earth, and multiply it by infinity.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

…
I reiterate, if someone were to prove that the Christian God exists, then it would logically follow that any other deities do not exist. For that reason, Catholics are not functionally equivalent to hard atheists because they have a qualitatively distinct way of rejecting other deities: other deities logically cannot coexist with their God. Positively proving the existence of the Catholic God is logically equivalent to disproving the existence of other gods.

These are two distinct beliefs:

1. Our God exists
2. Ours is the only god that exists

You can believe in God (the Creator, the Father, Son,and Spirit) and believe that Satan is also a god.
You can believe in God and believe that there are other worlds with other gods.

You can easily believe in God without believing that there are other gods. What Chrisitans, Jews, Muslims, JW’s all do, is to add an extra “singular” or “true” to the definition of their God. It is an unnecessary addition.

If you prove that the Catholic God exists, then yes, you would logically eliminate the possibility of there being any other gods.

However, the only way to prove the Catholic God exists is to disprove the existence of all the others.

…

The fact that there are an abundance of putatively “competing” theistic claims … all but at least one of which must be wrong, does not imply that all of them are wrong.

That’s true. That’s one of the reasons it is so hard demonstrate that the concept of a god fails the test. People are constantly changing definitions. I’ve debated hundreds of people who will present their “proof of God”. When I demolish it, they will seamlessly move on to another definition without the slightest pause.

Catholics do not just reject all other deities because the First Commandment tells them to; they reject them because it would be logically incoherent to believe in any God other than the true God, whose proposed qualities dictate that He is the only God.

The only quality of “the true God” that dictate that He is the only god, is the the quality “true”.

 

[tdgesq]

These are two distinct beliefs:

1. Our God exists
2. Ours is the only god that exists

It just depends. Theists usually don’t attempt to prove proposition (2) in a debate with a non-theist. It wouldn’t make much sense considering that if proposition (1) is proven, then the non-theist’s position has been disproven. They generally don’t posit that other gods besides the theist’s God may exist.

On the other hand, I rarely see (competent) non-theists claim that no god of any kind exists. They may make the positive claim that your God with attributes x,y &z does not exist, and this is usually done through a purported showing of internal contradiction in the theist’s position. Assuming that an internal contradiction can be shown, then it hardly makes sense for the theist to claim that you have only disproven “my God” as opposed to other possible gods.

Both theists and non-theists in practice limit the scope of their claims in these types of debates, and both have beliefs (not positively asserted, but understood to be held) that exclude the ability to run to the “other gods” explanation.

 

[Semangelof]

And yet this self-evident thing has no good evidence for it. You don’t need to resort to fallacious philosophical explanations to prove that the sky is blue. In order for you to prove god all you need is for god to appear.

When it comes to evidence for God there is a paradox for some. I like to call it the “Daniel Paradox”.

The Daniel Paradox goes like this. “The prophecies in the book of Daniel are so accurate that they must have been written after the events.” How do you prove that God exists with that kind of exclusive logic?

If God appeared to you right now they would say you were hallucinating because “God cannot exist”. If he appeared to you and thousands of people at once it would be called “mass hysteria” because “God cannot exist”.

God is excluded from possibility before any evidence is used. Therefore we sit in an unfortunate paradox where no amount of evidence will do it. In fact any evidence of God is immediately accepted as evidence of something else because at the first we say “God cannot exist”.

So you see “Making God Appear” will do nothing for some. No amount of evidence can do it so long as the first thought is “God cannot exist therefore it must be x”.

 

[polytropos]

The discussion is reactionary to the claims presented by others. Until you find a substantial number of people that argue for the existence of Zeus and make decisions for their community based on the Zeus concept there wont be much motivation to argue against it. For example, reference to the Hindu deities sometimes comes up in discussions with my Hindu friends. These seem to be viewed as only interesting cultural attributes among my non-Hindu associates and an interesting topic of discussion but note a source of debate. I had a hindu roommate over a decade ago that wanted me to no longer eat beef and start making visits to the temple. While I’m not much inclined to argue against the existence of a deity the situation was enough to motivate me to explain that I did not evaluate the Hinduism as true and that my conformance to some of the request was contingent on evaluating it as true. (I did decide not to bring beef into our shared space though).

I agree, but that’s not exactly my point. There is not a substantial philosophical tradition that argues for the existence of Zeus, so it is fairly straightforward to argue against his existence. It’s not just a matter of “no one believes in Zeus, so it never comes up.” If it were to come up, I imagine that the refutation would require a little bit less energy and commitment than that of the rejection of the Christian God. But the point of constructing an argument that lets you mention Yahweh alongside Zeus and Baal is the imply that rejecting each one of them is a similar exercise.

 

[polytropos]

The wording of the first commandment is curious, although I don’t have access to the original Hebrew. The statement “you shall have no other gods but me” does not make it clear whether no other gods exist, or whether – though other gods exist – sole worship should be given to Yahweh. By some accounts, the ancient Hebrews were henotheists, before they were monotheists.

I agree. There is a philosophical basis in Judaism and Christianity for the nonexistence of other deities. It was Bradski who, being facetious, said that the First Commandment should have mentioned the other gods who are not to be worshiped.

It’s been years since I’ve done a study of formal logic, but this sounds somewhat tautological to me, perhaps like saying, “Christianity posits that no other gods exist; therefore, if you are Christian, it is logical to believe that no other gods exist.”

That’s not what I meant. If someone were to demonstrate the existence of the Christian God, then (in doing so) they would have had to demonstrate His various qualities… particularly having a singular, unchangeable will and being omnipotent. Which would make the proof for the nonexistence of other gods rather simple.

I think Dawkins is arguing from plausibility. The fact is that Christians, when they talk about Zeus, tend to find the whole thing just kind of silly. They don’t seriously consider that Zeus exists, not only because of their Christian faith, but because they find this to be a child-like form of belief. Zeus’ many infidelities are often pointed out, as evidence of his implausibility; one would expect a God to be morally perfect or at least “mature”, not like a pouting child.

But, as I think Thinking Sapien has noted, many non-believers find the God of the Old Testament, in particular, to lack maturity; all this talk about “God smiting his enemies”; “God being a jealous God”; “God getting angry”; also, God repenting of his creation and sending a flood, and then comforting Noah by saying, “I’ll never send a flood again. Fire, on the other hand…” Eternal damnation and hell; the need to sacrifice his son; lack of belief as incurring damnation; plausibility is in the eye of the beholder, and most Christians I grew up with were comfortable in not believing in Zeus because, independently of the first commandment and of the fact that the God of Christianity logically excluded Greek pantheon, they find the whole thing not only risibly implausible, but find the gods to have an all-too-human temperament.

Plausibility is certainly in the eye of the beholder in some sense, because if plausibility were equally agreed upon, then I presume there would be much more agreement as to whether one should believe or not.

Of course, we can always find exceptions to trends. Christianity is generally more plausible because more people are convinced by it. Some of your friends thought Christianity was risible, yet many more people convert to Christianity than to worship of the Greek pantheon. This is not random; it occurs because Christianity is accompanied by a more rigorous philosophical tradition, which Dawkins tacitly acknowledges through the fact that he has become distinguished by refuting said philosophical tradition.

I’m not making an argument for Christianity by popularity; I am, however, arguing that Christianity is demonstrably more convincing and has a more extensive philosophical tradition, so it is dishonest to conflate rejection of it with rejection of Zeus and Baal, as the Dawkins soundbite attempts to do.

 

[polytropos]

These are two distinct beliefs:

1. Our God exists
2. Ours is the only god that exists

You can believe in God (the Creator, the Father, Son,and Spirit) and believe that Satan is also a god.
You can believe in God and believe that there are other worlds with other gods.

You can easily believe in God without believing that there are other gods. What Chrisitans, Jews, Muslims, JW’s all do, is to add an extra “singular” or “true” to the definition of their God. It is an unnecessary addition.

If you prove that the Catholic God exists, then yes, you would logically eliminate the possibility of there being any other gods.

However, the only way to prove the Catholic God exists is to disprove the existence of all the others.

If someone were to demonstrate the existence of the Christian God, then (in doing so) they would have had to demonstrate His various qualities… particularly having a singular, unchangeable will and being omnipotent. Which would make the proof for the nonexistence of other gods rather simple.

One does have to disprove the existence of the others, it is just much easier to do. That is really not the “hard part” of proving the Catholic worldview, while it is the only part of proving the hard atheist worldview (and hard atheists logically must go about it in a different way). The hard part is proving that there is an omnipotent God with one will (which is not what I am doing - I am just making claims about the qualities of claims that both sides would have to make).

 

[polytropos]

On the other hand, I rarely see (competent) non-theists claim that no god of any kind exists. They may make the positive claim that your God with attributes x,y &z does not exist, and this is usually done through a purported showing of internal contradiction in the theist’s position. Assuming that an internal contradiction can be shown, then it hardly makes sense for the theist to claim that you have only disproven “my God” as opposed to other possible gods.

I mean, I would not expect them to make such a claim in the context of a debate about a God with attributes x, y, and z. They can’t prove a negative, and there’s not much point in arguing against an arbitrary number of negatives. What they can do is respond to theistic claims.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

One does have to disprove the existence of the others, it is just much easier to do. That is really not the “hard part” of proving the Catholic worldview, while it is the only part of proving the hard atheist worldview (and hard atheists logically must go about it in a different way). The hard part is proving that there is an omnipotent God with one will (which is not what I am doing - I am just making claims about the qualities of claims that both sides would have to make).

Two things:

The first is that I understand what you are saying. If there are a number of mutually exclusive possibilities, and one of them is right, you’ve proven all the others wrong. I also agree that isn’t the same as stating that they are all wrong from the start. We agree that far.

That’s not what a “Hard Catholic” is doing. They are attempting to prove one god-like trait and saying that they have proven that God exists. People will try to prove a law-giver, a creator, an omnipotent being, a first cause, a maximally perfect being, etc. They assume these are all the same thing… they aren’t. A creator doesn’t need to be perfect or omnipotent. An omnipotent being isn’t necessarily a law-giver. None of those have to be benevolent.

When a person says that their god is the right one, and all other gods are false, they are taking a very similar stand to the hard atheist, unless they have proved all the aspects of their exclusive god or disproved the others.

I don’t expect people to argue the exclusivity of their god with me because, as you say, if you prove that there is any god, then I’ll be wrong. That is also why I can’t be a hard atheist. It is impossible to disprove every notion of god that there is. For instance, your primary description of God is “an omnipotent being with one will”. The OP has suggested that God is “a Creator Being who is love, morality, and goodness itself.” Two distinct notions of God that are neither equivalent nor mutually exclusive.

 

[polytropos]

That’s not what a “Hard Catholic” is doing. They are attempting to prove one god-like trait and saying that they have proven that God exists. People will try to prove a law-giver, a creator, an omnipotent being, a first cause, a maximally perfect being, etc. They assume these are all the same thing… they aren’t. A creator doesn’t need to be perfect or omnipotent. An omnipotent being isn’t necessarily a law-giver. None of those have to be benevolent.

We are in agreement. I would not consider such a person to have proven the Catholic position.

I don’t expect people to argue the exclusivity of their god with me because, as you say, if you prove that there is any god, then I’ll be wrong. That is also why I can’t be a hard atheist. It is impossible to disprove every notion of god that there is. For instance, your primary description of God is “an omnipotent being with one will”. The OP has suggested that God is “a Creator Being who is love, morality, and goodness itself.” Two distinct notions of God that are neither equivalent nor mutually exclusive.

I agree. “An omnipotent being with one will” is not my definition of God, but those are qualities of the Christian God (not all of the qualities of the Christian God) which I was claiming would make the proof that other gods do not exist rather straightforward. Those two qualities (among the various other qualities of the Christian God) would have to be proven prior to disproving the existence of any other gods.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

It just depends. Theists usually don’t attempt to prove proposition (2) in a debate with a non-theist. It wouldn’t make much sense considering that if proposition (1) is proven, then the non-theist’s position has been disproven. They generally don’t posit that other gods besides the theist’s God may exist.

It’'s true that theists don’t generally go that route, but I have had people debate that I didn’t have to believe in their god, but I had to accept that there was a god. (I think they saw this as a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down.)

I’ve also seen Behe and Craig say it.

On the other hand, I rarely see (competent) non-theists claim that no god of any kind exists.

Yes, most “competent” non-theists don’t. [RANT] How do you become a competent non-theist? Am I one? I never really thought to question whether I was truly adept at non-belief! Is there a test I can take? [/RANT].

They may make the positive claim that your God with attributes x,y &z does not exist, and this is usually done through a purported showing of internal contradiction in the theist’s position. Assuming that an internal contradiction can be shown, then it hardly makes sense for the theist to claim that you have only disproven “my God” as opposed to other possible gods.

I haven’t seen people claim that, but I have seen them change the definition of their god on a dime. He goes from being “logically necessary” to “unprovable” in the blink of an eye.

Both theists and non-theists in practice limit the scope of their claims in these types of debates, and both have beliefs (not positively asserted, but understood to be held) that exclude the ability to run to the “other gods” explanation.

My point was just that believing in one god isn’t that dissimilar to believing that there are no gods… unless you can show that your god and the others are mutually exclusive.

It’s not really that important a point in the grand scheme of things.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

We are in agreement. I would not consider such a person to have proven the Catholic position.

I agree. “An omnipotent being with one will” is not my definition of God, but those are qualities of the Christian God (not all of the qualities of the Christian God) which I was claiming would make the proof that other gods do not exist rather straightforward. Those two qualities (among the various other qualities of the Christian God) would have to be proven prior to disproving the existence of any other gods.

I think we agree enough that we don’t need to continue debating this point. I agree that if you prove a proposition, then you have as a consequence,defeated all propositions that run contrary to it. I disagree that “an omnipotent being with one will” is as exclusive a proposition as you think it is, but that is an entirely different debate.

 

[Portofino]

We are in agreement. I would not consider such a person to have proven the Catholic position.

I agree. “An omnipotent being with one will” is not my definition of God, but those are qualities of the Christian God (not all of the qualities of the Christian God) which I was claiming would make the proof that other gods do not exist rather straightforward. Those two qualities (among the various other qualities of the Christian God) would have to be proven prior to disproving the existence of any other gods.

“An omnipotent being with one will” would not, presumably, disprove either the Allah of Islam or the Yahweh of Judaism.

That Christians philosophers – such as Aquinas – are the ones who furnished the proofs would not entail, in my mind, that the one God that they claim to have proven is any more likely to be the Triune God of Christianity.

It’s also interesting to me that the “one will” aspect of the Godhead is, in some ways, rendered less plausible by the existence of suffering. Christianity posits two origins of suffering – the first being Satan, who has surprisingly god-like powers (we capitalize the name, speaking of “God versus Satan”); the second being human free will, which ultimately means that – although God has omnipotent power of his creation – He does not avail himself of it, as far as human agency is concerned.

Failing these corollaries, it would be much more plausible for me, personally, to believe that:

–God is not omnipotent in the sense of a being with infinite power, but is doing the best He can, “under the circumstances”

–God does not have one will, but – indeed – there are two very powerful entities – a good God and an evil God, say – who are fighting it out for supremacy, like when Jung says, “the world in which which we live is full of beauty and wonder, but can also be magnificently cruel”

As it is, the second – which sounds very Gnostic, I acknowledge – is retained in this notion of a “battle between God and Satan.” In the book of Job, very surprisingly, God and Satan are even on a conversational basis with each other, cutting deals, and almost respecting each other as equals.​

 

[aux1]

As it is, the second – which sounds very Gnostic, I acknowledge – is retained in this notion of a “battle between God and Satan.” In the book of Job, very surprisingly, God and Satan are even on a conversational basis with each other, cutting deals, and almost respecting each other as equals.​

Not suprising at all… In Judaism, Ha-Satan does not refer to an entity. It’s a job title of an angel.

The concept of The Satan, or the job description, is radically different from that of the devil. For Christians, who erroneously use the two terms as if they are synonymous, the devil has power and authority in and of himself. However, in the Bible, The Satan only has power granted by Gd, and has no authority in and of himself. For the devil to have power and authority is to have more than one Gd, as we saw above concerning the Greeks and the Romans.

The Satan is described in only a few places in the Hebrew Scriptures. In every instance, he is an angel who works FOR Gd, not against Gd, and must get permission from Gd for everything that he does. Chronicles, Job, Psalms, and Zechariah are the only places where The Satan is mentioned. In each instance, the job description of The Satan is to act like what we now call a Prosecuting Attorney, or District Attorney, and accuse and show evidence against the defendant. Furthermore, like a D.A., The Satan must obtain permission from Gd, the Judge, to begin a sting operation.

whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation7.html

Satan as an evil principle, an anti-God of underground, is a pagan concept.

 

[polytropos]

“An omnipotent being with one will” would not, presumably, disprove either the Allah of Islam or the Yahweh of Judaism.

That Christians philosophers – such as Aquinas – are the ones who furnished the proofs would not entail, in my mind, that the one God that they claim to have proven is any more likely to be the Triune God of Christianity.

Fair enough. Suffice it to say that a Christian would not go about arguing against the existence of other gods in the same way that a “hard atheist” would.

It’s also interesting to me that the “one will” aspect of the Godhead is, in some ways, rendered less plausible by the existence of suffering. Christianity posits two origins of suffering – the first being Satan, who has surprisingly god-like powers (we capitalize the name, speaking of “God versus Satan”); the second being human free will, which ultimately means that – although God has omnipotent power of his creation – He does not avail himself of it, as far as human agency is concerned.

We capitalize Satan’s name because we capitalize all names. But we don’t capitalize the pronouns used for which Satan is antecedent. His “god-like” power is to tempt people; he does not have the powers of the Christian God (ie. creation, forgiveness, etc.).

I will admit the problem of evil is probably the greatest obstacle to my faith. I would only say that if God prevents humans from doing evil in all possible worlds, then they are by definition not free. If God’s will is good, then humans would have free will only if they can do not-good.

–God is not omnipotent in the sense of a being with infinite power, but is doing the best He can, “under the circumstances”

I think God does do the best that He can, under the circumstances that He created. He made human beings with free will, ie. humans with wills that are free to not be His, which is good. This is logically equivalent to the ability to choose evil. You may reply that God, then, created beings capable of evil - but He did so because only beings capable of evil are capable of love. Omnipotence does not allow God to do the logically impossible - to create beings that can love but not commit evil.

 

[tdgesq]

It’'s true that theists don’t generally go that route, but I have had people debate that I didn’t have to believe in their god, but I had to accept that there was a god. (I think they saw this as a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down.)

Sure. That is legitimate so long as they only assert premises that lead to a god with attributes x. Theists can argue that even if they believe that God has attributes y and z as well. Non-theists frequently do the same thing. Totally legitimate to limit the assertion to “A god with attribute x cannot exist.”

I’ve also seen Behe and Craig say it.

That surprises me a little bit about Behe. Then again, I’ve only reviewed one of his works concerning intelligent design. For what it’s worth, I’m not a big fan.

With Craig it doesn’t surprise me at all. I’ve seen him argue only the first two premises of Kalam and the necessity of the conclusion. I don’t perceive a problem with that.

Yes, most “competent” non-theists don’t. [RANT] How do you become a competent non-theist? Am I one? I never really thought to question whether I was truly adept at non-belief! Is there a test I can take? [/RANT].

Lol. Well, I don’t know - are you? I haven’t seen you claim that you can prove that god, under any definition, does not exist; which is one of my tests.

I haven’t seen people claim that, but I have seen them change the definition of their god on a dime. He goes from being “logically necessary” to “unprovable” in the blink of an eye.

Then point out to them that they lost the debate. That’s what I do when atheists/agnostics change their premises or conclusions.

My point was just that believing in one god isn’t that dissimilar to believing that there are no gods… unless you can show that your god and the others are mutually exclusive.

Christianity does generally assert this, but almost never in debates with non-theists. I guess polytheists don’t have this problem, but you rarely ever see them in debate.

It’s not really that important a point in the grand scheme of things.

Right, and that is my point. This thread doesn’t offer any solution to what non-theists actually assert in debate on these subjects.