Drange's argument from nonbelief

Originally posted by JS357
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 e ...[text shortened]... 'd argue for universal reconciliation but that's probably considered un-Biblical by many.

flawed in my opinion

the cookie crumbles when it assumes god must "bring about a situation in which a certain human must believe in god".

faith is paramount. and to reach faith one must choose it through his own free will.


it wouldn't work anyway. there are people who see jesus on toasts and there are people who won't accept a god unless he stands before them and perhaps even then they would assume it is just a very powerful being. in order for any kind of person to absolutely believe in god, i think god would have to go as far as mess with free will.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
flawed in my opinion

the cookie crumbles when it assumes god must "bring about a situation in which a certain human must believe in god".

faith is paramount. and to reach faith one must choose it through his own free will.


it wouldn't work anyway. there are people who see jesus on toasts and there are people who won't accept a god unless h ...[text shortened]... on to absolutely believe in god, i think god would have to go as far as mess with free will.

Not at all. God does not need everyone to believe in Him. When He gets
to the magic number He can end it all.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why would God need to make more than one universe? This one is too
big for us to measure and scientist think it is expanding perhaps faster
than the speed of light as it is.

This universe (or at the very least the bit we are in) had a beginning.

Regardless of how long ago it was, if god has existed forever, then god has been around
infinitely longer than the universe (or our part thereof) has existed.

If god is intelligent, then he has not been sitting on his behind for eternity going insane from
boredom before hitting on the idea of making a universe.
If god has existed forever then he has been making universes forever, if for no other reason
than to keep himself occupied.

The universes not being for our benefit, but his, to give him something to do/watch/play with.

Also, claiming scientific evidence you don't believe in as evidence is hypocritical.

Originally posted by josephw
You don't think it means what I think it means?

The preposition, "if God exists", is presumptuous because it presumes there is no God. It's a no brainer contextual error in logic and reason. Drange's whole argument is predicated on a false premise designed to prove a negative. The entire argument is irrational.

You don't understand the argument.

Also 'if god exists' does not presume their is no god, it says that 'if there is a god then...'

The point is (and I don't think the argument works but not because it's irrational because it isn't)
that if you start with god exists, and then make a series of logical arguments that follow from this
premise, and it turns out that the series of logical arguments ends up with a contradiction, then
either your premise or logical arguments are flawed.
If your logical arguments are not flawed then one or more of your premises (axioms) are false.

Also you don't understand the burden of proof.
If you make a positive claim, then you need positive evidence to back it up.

Claiming to believe god exists (or claiming to know god exists) is a positive claim.
You thus have a positive burden of proof to back this claim up.
If you don't have this evidence then you are presuming gods existence.

However not believing god exists doesn't have any burden of proof, and is assuming nothing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is probably a little of both.

And this is where he fishes out his magic decoder ring to tell which is which.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]When Adam and Eve sinned he withdrew himself from mankind. To not do so would be a violation of free will.

I don't get it. Presumably Adam and Eve's free will was not impaired before. Why should the fall make God's epiphanies a violation of free will?[/b]

Their free will was a bit different than yours or mine. They were making choices but from an entirely different perspective because they did not have a sin nature.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is probably a little of both.

And Adam and Eve? (Is there no possibility that Adam and Eve were representative of 2 groups who came together?)

(Oh, well, that's some progress-at least you answered one of my questions this time)

Originally posted by whodey
Their free will was a bit different than yours or mine. They were making choices but from an entirely different perspective because they did not have a sin nature.

Doesn't it make more sense that if a person has a sinful nature, God ought to reveal himself so that such a person can make informed moral choices? For example, if a person has a predisposition to drug-abuse and is seeking to be rehabilitated, treatment does not involve periods of doubt and anguish in which the counsellor disappears. Anyway, I still don't get how this has anything to do with free will.

Originally posted by JS357
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 e ...[text shortened]... 'd argue for universal reconciliation but that's probably considered un-Biblical by many.

When a person is sick and has jaundice......... and when they eat something sweet it taste bitter to them in their sick condition - and unless they become well they will continue to believe sweet things are bitter in their sick condition.

We all know that sugar is sweet - but this man with jaundice is believing sugar is bitter.

We do not accept what this sick man is saying because he is sick and cannot experience the true reality.

Mankind is sick because he is in illusion and bewildered - and in this sick condition he believes God does not exist.

Until he becomes well and removes his sick condition of illusion and bewilderment and conditioned mind.............then he will continue to believe God does not exist.

His sick condition can be cured by following true region and he will then realize God does exist.

God cannot be held accountable if man does not embrace the cure of the Vedic teachings to remove his sickness.

Foolish man from in his sick condition will continue to say God does not exist - and unless he embraces the cure of Vedic teachings he will continue to be sick.

Man has free will and God cannot force man to embrace the cure.

Silly man..............he does not believe he is sick and therefore does not seek the cure.

He is a fool.

Originally posted by Dasa
When a person is sick and has jaundice......... and when they eat something sweet it taste bitter to them in their sick condition - and unless they become well they will continue to believe sweet things are bitter in their sick condition.

We all know that sugar is sweet - but this man with jaundice is believing sugar is bitter.

We do not accept what this ...[text shortened]... ...........he does not believe he is sick and therefore does not seek the cure.

He is a fool.

Welcome back Dasa, RJHinds has been eating meat...go get him >:]

Originally posted by googlefudge
You don't understand the argument.

Also 'if god exists' does not presume their is no god, it says that 'if there is a god then...'

The point is (and I don't think the argument works but not because it's irrational because it isn't)
that if you start with god exists, and then make a series of logical arguments that follow from this
premise, and ...[text shortened]... r not believing god exists doesn't have any burden of proof, and is assuming nothing.

OK. If there is a God, then why don't you believe in Him?

Follow the logic of Drange's argument. If there is a God, then He wants you to believe in Him. Why don't you?

The onus is on you, and everyone else, to believe in God if He exists. Why then don't you believe? Is it because you don't believe there is a God? But if God exists, then you must choose to believe.

Originally posted by josephw
OK. If there is a God, then why don't you believe in Him?

Follow the logic of Drange's argument. If there is a God, then He wants you to believe in Him. Why don't you?

The onus is on you, and everyone else, to believe in God if He exists. Why then don't you believe? Is it because you don't believe there is a God? But if God exists, then you must choose to believe.

Oh! good grief.

http://blogs.mycentraljersey.com/mets/files/2009/05/charlie_brown.jpg

Originally posted by Dasa
God cannot be held accountable if man does not embrace the cure of the Vedic teachings to remove his sickness.

Foolish man from in his sick condition will continue to say God does not exist - and unless he embraces the cure of Vedic teachings he will continue to be sick.

This was a post with much truth, until you ruined it with these two lies.

Not that these entire statements are lies, but they both contain a lie, which is your style. Throw in a tiny lie in with a bunch of facts, and people who aren't paying attention might swallow the whole thing. Pathetic.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This was a post with much truth, until you ruined it with these two lies.

Not that these entire statements are lies, but they both contain a lie, which is your style. Throw in a tiny lie in with a bunch of facts, and people who aren't paying attention might swallow the whole thing. Pathetic.

Dear Suzanne.

You have a religion that says the cosmos was created 6500 years ago.

You have a religion that says man is only that old.

You have a religion that created a doctrine only about 4000 years ago.

Clearly this is all nonsense and definitely a fabrication.

But however the Vedas are millions of years old and the Vedic civilisation was thriving back then - and these perfect spiritual teachings were given to mankind in the most advanced language in the world - Sanskrit....... and giving complete knowledge of all aspects of the spiritual life.

You also have a religion that does not respect the sanctity of life and kills Gods creatures in abundance.

The Vedas teach the students to respect all of life - and care for the lower creatures (Gods wonderful creatures) and be conscious of their welfare because they are less intelligent and need our care.

Mother cow gives us milk and father bull works the land (they should be cared for with respect) and not slaughtered.

You have much to consider.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Doesn't it make more sense that if a person has a sinful nature, God ought to reveal himself so that such a person can make informed moral choices? For example, if a person has a predisposition to drug-abuse and is seeking to be rehabilitated, treatment does not involve periods of doubt and anguish in which the counsellor disappears. Anyway, I still don't get how this has anything to do with free will.

We are active participants in this thing we call life. If we are unwilling to participate then God goes bye, bye.

After all, Christ did not write about himself, he had others do it for him. Christ did not evangelize the world, he had other people do it for him etc.

All I can tell you is that free will is the key here. Faith is merely agreeing with God, nothing else. In addition, to have a positive interaction with this God, we will at times need to place our faith in him. The only alternative is to do what we think is best instead. After all, if God is really all knowing, we will run into things that we don't understand because we are not all knowing. I suppose the key to faith then becomes believing God is all knowing, and perhaps most important, that he is benevolent. Without these two keys to faith we will tend to do our own thing I suppose.