Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jamie_L · 10-08-2002, 08:48 AM

Premises:
1) God exists.
2) God is omnipotent
3) God wants me to believe in God.

Conclusion:
From 2 and 3, it follows that I should believe in God.

Obervation:
I do not believe in God.

Now, the observation invalidates the conclusion, indicating that one of the three premises is wrong. Now, it could be that 2 or 3 are wrong, but if so, that seems to mean at least that most Christians have got it wrong.

Of course, the traditional response is: Free Will! Free Will!

Okay, add premise #4:
4) God gave humans free will.

Conclusion:
From 3 and 4, we can conclude that god will not force me to believe, but will try to convince me. Instead, he must try to convince me.

Well, from 2, one would expect God can convince anybody. Yet, it is observed that I still don't believe.

Not a particularly rigorous or useful arguement, but just something I've been carrying around with me for a while.

Jamie

ManM · 10-08-2002, 09:08 AM

You might want to check out <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html" target="_blank">this article</a>. It parallels much of what you said.

The AntiChris · 10-08-2002, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jamie_L:
<strong>Obervation:
I do not believe in God.

Now, the observation invalidates the conclusion, indicating that one of the three premises is wrong. </strong>

Nope. It just means that your God antennae are malfunctioning.

Chris

K · 10-08-2002, 02:38 PM

Jamie:

I think it goes something like this:

1) God exists.
2) God is omnipotent
3) God wants me to believe in God.

4) I'm an atheist and don't believe in God.
5) We all know atheists are wrong.
6) Therefore, God exists.

There are several pages of these in the humor area. They get a little weak after awhile. But I thought I was going to split my side for the first couple of pages.

luvluv · 10-08-2002, 10:49 PM

Quote:

From 3 and 4, we can conclude that god will not force me to believe, but will try to convince me. Instead, he must try to convince me.

Well, from 2, one would expect God can convince anybody. Yet, it is observed that I still don't believe.

Is it possible that providing overwhelming evidence of a proposition amounts to forcing someone to believe it is true?

I don't see how there can be moral freedom, that is, a real ability to make an uncoerced decision to serve God or to not serve God, if his existence were evidentially proven.

Doubting Didymus · 10-08-2002, 10:54 PM

Quote:

I don't see how there can be moral freedom, that is, a real ability to make an uncoerced decision to serve God or to not serve God, if his existence were evidentially proven.

Why not? I can make an uncoerced desicion to serve or not serve a king even if the man himself is right before my eyes.

HRG · 10-08-2002, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:

Is it possible that providing overwhelming evidence of a proposition amounts to forcing someone to believe it is true?

I don't see how there can be moral freedom, that is, a real ability to make an uncoerced decision to serve God or to not serve God, if his existence were evidentially proven.

On the contrary. Any decision to serve or not to serve God requires that his existence is evidentially proven. I cannot decide to serve or not to serve some entity whose existence I do not believe.

And imagine the great moral freedom involved in not following the commands of a powerful god, if they are incompatible with one's firm moral convictions. The action of a conscientious objector who refused to commit genocide on Amalekites, although he has been ordered to do so by his God, would have been moral beyond belief.

IOW, the argument that God has to stay somewhat hidden in order to assure moral freedom doesn't hold water.

Regards,
HRG.

Jamie_L · 10-09-2002, 06:03 AM

ManM,

Thanks for the link. I should really read more in the SecWeb library.

To others,
I could go into more detail, but after reading the link ManM posted, I should just direct everyone else there as well. The author says in much more detail what I was thinking when I wrote the post.

Just goes to show: just about any idea that one person can up with is an idea someone else can come up with, and probably has already.

Jamie

ManM · 10-09-2002, 06:15 AM

Jamie_L,
You are quite welcome. The argument from nonbelief makes it quite obvious that lip service in this life could not possibly be what God desires.

Keith Russell · 10-09-2002, 06:40 AM

HRG said:
On the contrary. Any decision to serve or not to serve God requires that his existence is evidentially proven.

Keith: I disagree. Any rational decision vis a vis requires proof of the existence of God. But, human rationality is neither automatic, nor guaranteed.

HRG: I cannot decide to serve or not to serve some entity whose existence I do not believe.

Keith: Well, you can--if you aren't rational.

HRG: And imagine the great moral freedom involved in not following the commands of a powerful god, if they are incompatible with one's firm moral convictions. The action of a conscientious objector who refused to commit genocide on Amalekites, although he has been ordered to do so by his God, would have been moral beyond belief.

Keith: Agreed. If 'God' is going to punish most of humanity in hell for eternity, then it's high time that human beings realize that 'God' is not on our side!

HRG: IOW, the argument that God has to stay somewhat hidden in order to assure moral freedom doesn't hold water.

Keith: It does--if you aren't rational.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

10-08-2002, 08:48 AM	#1
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Arguement from Atheism Premises: 1) God exists. 2) God is omnipotent 3) God wants me to believe in God. Conclusion: From 2 and 3, it follows that I should believe in God. Obervation: I do not believe in God. Now, the observation invalidates the conclusion, indicating that one of the three premises is wrong. Now, it could be that 2 or 3 are wrong, but if so, that seems to mean at least that most Christians have got it wrong. Of course, the traditional response is: Free Will! Free Will! Okay, add premise #4: 4) God gave humans free will. Conclusion: From 3 and 4, we can conclude that god will not force me to believe, but will try to convince me. Instead, he must try to convince me. Well, from 2, one would expect God can convince anybody. Yet, it is observed that I still don't believe. Not a particularly rigorous or useful arguement, but just something I've been carrying around with me for a while. Jamie

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-08-2002, 09:08 AM	#2
ManM Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: NW Florida, USA Posts: 1,279	You might want to check out <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html" target="_blank">this article</a>. It parallels much of what you said.

10-08-2002, 02:38 PM	#4
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	Jamie: I think it goes something like this: 1) God exists. 2) God is omnipotent 3) God wants me to believe in God. 4) I'm an atheist and don't believe in God. 5) We all know atheists are wrong. 6) Therefore, God exists. There are several pages of these in the humor area. They get a little weak after awhile. But I thought I was going to split my side for the first couple of pages.

10-09-2002, 06:03 AM	#8
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	ManM, Thanks for the link. I should really read more in the SecWeb library. To others, I could go into more detail, but after reading the link ManM posted, I should just direct everyone else there as well. The author says in much more detail what I was thinking when I wrote the post. Just goes to show: just about any idea that one person can up with is an idea someone else can come up with, and probably has already. Jamie

10-09-2002, 06:15 AM	#9
ManM Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: NW Florida, USA Posts: 1,279	Jamie_L, You are quite welcome. The argument from nonbelief makes it quite obvious that lip service in this life could not possibly be what God desires.

10-09-2002, 06:40 AM	#10
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	HRG said: On the contrary. Any decision to serve or not to serve God requires that his existence is evidentially proven. *Keith: I disagree. Any rational* decision vis a vis requires proof of the existence of God. But, human rationality is neither automatic, nor guaranteed. HRG: I cannot decide to serve or not to serve some entity whose existence I do not believe. Keith: Well, you can--if you aren't rational. HRG: And imagine the great moral freedom involved in not following the commands of a powerful god, if they are incompatible with one's firm moral convictions. The action of a conscientious objector who refused to commit genocide on Amalekites, although he has been ordered to do so by his God, would have been moral beyond belief. Keith: Agreed. If 'God' is going to punish most of humanity in hell for eternity, then it's high time that human beings realize that 'God' is not on our side! HRG: IOW, the argument that God has to stay somewhat hidden in order to assure moral freedom doesn't hold water. Keith: It does--if you aren't rational.** [ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.