11 Nov '11 22:59>1 edit
Let's pick this one apart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief
quote:
Drange's argument from nonbelief
Theodore Drange proposed a version of the nonbelief argument in 1996. He considers the distinction between culpable and inculpable nonbelief to be completely irrelevant, and tries to argue that the mere existence of nonbelief is evidence against the existence of God. A semi-formal presentation of the argument is as follows:[16]
If God exists, God:
1. wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
2. can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
3. does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
4. always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die (from 1).
But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
Therefore, God does not exist (from 2 and 3).
[JS add: Note that #3 includes the implication that moral free will and the resulting actions from moral free will do not conflict with, and are not more important than, God's desire that all humans believe before they die.]
unquote
The footnote is [16] ^ Drange, Theodore (1996). "The Arguments From Evil and Nonbelief".
This makes me wonder why it is that God would bother to create any humans that do not come to believe before they die. After all, he knows the outcome beforehand. Simple enough to skip over them. There can still be plenty of moral mischief before people come to God.
If I were arguing the theistic case, I'd argue for universal reconciliation but that's probably considered un-Biblical by many.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief
quote:
Drange's argument from nonbelief
Theodore Drange proposed a version of the nonbelief argument in 1996. He considers the distinction between culpable and inculpable nonbelief to be completely irrelevant, and tries to argue that the mere existence of nonbelief is evidence against the existence of God. A semi-formal presentation of the argument is as follows:[16]
If God exists, God:
1. wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
2. can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
3. does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
4. always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die (from 1).
But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
Therefore, God does not exist (from 2 and 3).
[JS add: Note that #3 includes the implication that moral free will and the resulting actions from moral free will do not conflict with, and are not more important than, God's desire that all humans believe before they die.]
unquote
The footnote is [16] ^ Drange, Theodore (1996). "The Arguments From Evil and Nonbelief".
This makes me wonder why it is that God would bother to create any humans that do not come to believe before they die. After all, he knows the outcome beforehand. Simple enough to skip over them. There can still be plenty of moral mischief before people come to God.
If I were arguing the theistic case, I'd argue for universal reconciliation but that's probably considered un-Biblical by many.