Jamie_L

There seem to have been an influx of new theists to the board (welcome and YEA! How boring would this forum be without you?). So, I thought I would throw out an old idea in a new thread to get some new responses.

The Arguement from Non-Belief (ANB) is one of my favorite atheological arguements against the Christian god. My favorite formulation of ANB is given as part of this article in the II Library.

In a much simplified form, it goes something like this:

Given these premises:
1) God exists
2) God is omnipotent.
3) God wants, more than anything else, for everyone to believe in Him and love Him.

One concludes the following:
A) If 2 and 3 were true, everyone would believe in God and love him.
B) Everyone does not believe in God and love him.
C) Therefore, 2 and/or 3 are not true.
D) Since God is 2 and 3 would be true if God existed, God does not exist.

But Drange says it much better in the article.

So, who's ready to take the first shot?

Jamie

lazcatluc

I'll try to answer. What you have posted here is not quite what Drange wrote in his essay (Drange doesn't say "everyone", he says "everyone, or almost everyone"). But, no matter. I accept your modified version (you should check this feedback link too, http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=46415 ).

You claim that, given God's omnipotence, he would be able to prove us that he exists. Omnipotence, the way it is understood by theists and nontheists alike is "The ability to perform any task that is logically possible". So, if I were to prove that it is logically impossible that all people believe in God than your argument would be incorrect.

So, let us assume that your argument is correct =>
Let us consider X and Y (2 nontheists). I will show that it is impossible for X to become a theist before Y:
While Y is a nontheist, than ANB still works. And we assumed ANB is correct => there is no God (at least that's what X thinks) => X can not become a theist before Y does.
In the same way, I can show that Y will remain a nontheist as long as X is one. Therfore, it is logically impossible for X and Y to become theists.

Conclusion: Either your argument is incorrect or it is logically impossible for everybody to believe in God (in which case your argument is again incorrect) => your argument is incorrect

diana

Jamie,

I'm not buying D. Just because they would be true if God existed doesn't mean their lack of truth automatically implies God doesn't exist at all. It would merely mean that he didn't exist with those characteristics. He could very well exist without omnipotence and that crippling self-esteem problem.

d

Magus55

I would conclude it more as:

2 and 3 exist, but since God gave people the choice to believe and love him or not, just because he wants everyone to love him more than anything doesn't mean everyone will. So you can't rule out number 1 based on those 2 premises.

philechat

The typical apologist will say that God wants people to freely choose to love him or not. A love that is enforced by God's own ability will be based on coercion rather than love. But again, the problem remains: If God wanted us to freely love him or not, why would he create Hell for unbelievers?

Jamie_L

Yes, I modified Drange's actual arguement - more to make the post short than to present a different version.

lazcatluc:
Your arguement about X and Y doesn't seem to make sense to me. Are you saying X can't become accept belief as long as Y's non-belief makes ANB appear true? This makes a gross assumption that ANB is the only thing effecting X's non-belief, which is incorrect. It does not at all seem to be logically impossible for all (or almost all - as Drange better states it) people to believe in God.

diana:
You are correct. I am essentially implying what you state. That is D implies "God, as defined by Christians, does not exist". Certainly ANB does not preclude the existence of a God who doesn't care if we believe, or a non-omnipotent (impotent?) God. However, such Gods are completely outside the teachings of Christianity, and, as I said in the OP, ANB really only attacks Christianity (and religions with similar god concepts).

Magus55:
Drange hits on this. He has two main points. First, Free Will does not necessarily preclude God obtaining belief and love from everyone (or near everyone). This assertion needs to be argued. Even if successfully argued (a separate thread entirely), this would then be essentially deniying 3. And, when dealing with Christianity, there is significant scriptural support for 3, while there is virtually no scriptural support for the idea that Free Will/Choice is more important to God than people believing in him.

Jamie

Ganymede

This is an interesting point. Can anyone point us to some biblical passages that do support the FWD?

Cheers,

G

diana

I can work with that. Thanks for the clarification.



d

(Also, what Ganymede said. I've heard this before, but his focus on it provoked a similar focus with me, methinks. The idea of free will is a concept created by Xns in order to explain evil, isn't it? Would they consider it a "necessary inference" of the text, then?)

SRB

First of all, ANB does not logically imply that God does not exist. It is an evidential argument, so it logically implies that God probably does not exist. A person who experienced verified miracles and religious experiences might well consider that stronger evidence that God exists than the evidence from ANB that God does not exist. Since your argument assumes that ANB is a logical argument, what you wrote is unsound.

Second, what you write above falsely assumes that God cannot cause people to be unaware of how much nonbelief exists in the world. That is most dubious.

Finally, as you grant, ANB does not assume that everyone would believe God exists if he really did exist, only that almost everyone would.

SRB

Silent Dave

Assuming that Y is a nontheist and ANB is a sound argument, here are some ways that X could become a theist before Y does.

* X has never met Y, or has never heard ANB, and is convinced when he hears arguments for God's existence.

* X hears arguments that he considers superior to ANB which argue for God's existence, and converts based on those arguments.

* X has a naturalistic emotional experience which is so powerful, and so inexplicable (to him), that he attributes it to God and converts, ANB notwithstanding.

* X is kidnapped by the church (under new management?) and brainwashed into belief.

* X was a Christian his entire life, then lost his memory in a terrible accident, thus forgetting his belief that God exists and becoming a temporary nontheist. He may hear ANB, but recovers his memories and regains his devout faith before having a chance to seriously consider it.


Also, regarding what you said to Dr. Drange in the feedback thread:

Dr. Drange's analogy was nothing at all like you make it out to be, except that it involved a white car, a black car, and a guy named John. Everything else is your own invention, and your new analogy breaks down with respect to ANB:

* John is not able to buy a black car because he cannot afford it. God, if he existed, would suffer no such limitations. The whole business with X and Y does not show this to be otherwise, for if God exists then obviously ANB is unsound and your hypothetical example does not apply.

* John is not willing to buy a white car, even though he can't afford the black one. God, if he existed, would presumably be willing to bring about belief in almost all of humankind, if for some reason it WAS logically impossible for him to bring about belief in ALL of humankind.

* There is nothing in your hypothetical example about John not wanting anything that would conflict with his ability to bring about situation S as badly as he wants it, or about John being rational. These attributes apply to God. Thus, in order for your analogy to work, you would need to explain how it is possible that John's situation S would not obtain if, in addition to his being able and willing to bring it about, he had no overriding desires that would preclude situation S and was perfectly rational (in Drange's sense of the word).


Dave