11 Sep '05 01:24>
i have been reading a debate between WL Craig (christian) and W Sinnott-Armstrong (strong atheist) in which the following argument is put forth by Sinnott-Armstrong. as far as i know, it is a very old argument:
1. If there were an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God who could act in time, then we would have strong evidence for the existence of this God.
2. We do not have strong evidence for the existence of this God.
3. Hence, there is no all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God who can act in time.
the argument is clearly valid (3 follows from 1 and 2), so those who wish to steer clear of strong atheism with respect to this God need to refute Premise 1 or Premise 2. i would be interested in hearing cases against (or for) either of these premises.
the following background is influenced by my readings of the book GOD?: A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist:
Premise 1 is often called the "strong evidence principle" and is based on the thinking that if such a God did exist, he would make it easier for us to recognize his existence and to know him. there are good reasons to think that such a God would give us stronger evidence to go on than what we have (which i think is basically nothing). first, strong evidence would relieve many of the doubt that plague their minds (indeed, it could replace such doubt with assurance) and it would put an end to the otherwise wasted time spent debating his existence. second, it would no doubt cause more people to believe in him and worship him. this does not mean that all those who come to believe in his existence would also adopt strong faith in him, but belief in his existence does seem to be a necessary condition for the type of faith he wants. moreover, an all-powerful God could supply the evidence in such a way that all current believers would keep believing in him to the same or greater degree, and in such a way that it would not undermine their faith -- so by supplying stronger evidence, his number of devoted followers could only rise. third, stronger evidence for his existence would also mean stronger evidence for the realization of his threats of punishment; thus, more people would be dissuaded from committing crimes against fellow men -- that is of course good for the would-be victims. it is not clear to me how best he would supply this evidence or what said evidence would be. but, suffice it to say, an all-knowing God would know what to do; and all-powerful God could do it; and an all-good God would do it.
concerning Premise 2: the bible says that the believer should not hide his light, but should "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Mat 5:16). thus, we are supposed to see evidence for God in the good deeds of our fellow men. however, this is not "strong evidence." far from it, it is at best ambiguous evidence since i see no reason why men cannot also carry out good deeds in the absence of God's existence. other believers claim that the mere existence, wonders, and complexity of earth and man give us evidence for God's existence. again, clearly this evidence is not "strong" because there are hords of people who dispute creationism, teleological arguments, and cosmological arguments. other believers say that the evidence for God's existence can be directly known (ie, belief in God is a properly basic belief). then why in the world would we even be debating his existence in the first place? the mere fact that so many are quick to debate and doubt God's existence demonstrates that whatever evidence is readily available is not as strong and direct as it could be. other believers, as evidence for God, point to the bible as God's word. this hardly even deserves a response because they are begging the question. another standard response seems to be that God does provide strong evidence for his existence, but it is only available to those who seek it out. but then that only begs the question why would God do that? the whole point of the strong evidence principle is that God need not play hide and seek with his evidence, and that it would be more efficient and beneficial for strong evidence to be made clearly available to ALL; thus, an all-whatnot God would not hide his evidence in such ways.
i am not sure if there is any evidence at all to support the belief in such a God, but i am pretty sure that whatever evidence there is, it is not "strong evidence."
1. If there were an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God who could act in time, then we would have strong evidence for the existence of this God.
2. We do not have strong evidence for the existence of this God.
3. Hence, there is no all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God who can act in time.
the argument is clearly valid (3 follows from 1 and 2), so those who wish to steer clear of strong atheism with respect to this God need to refute Premise 1 or Premise 2. i would be interested in hearing cases against (or for) either of these premises.
the following background is influenced by my readings of the book GOD?: A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist:
Premise 1 is often called the "strong evidence principle" and is based on the thinking that if such a God did exist, he would make it easier for us to recognize his existence and to know him. there are good reasons to think that such a God would give us stronger evidence to go on than what we have (which i think is basically nothing). first, strong evidence would relieve many of the doubt that plague their minds (indeed, it could replace such doubt with assurance) and it would put an end to the otherwise wasted time spent debating his existence. second, it would no doubt cause more people to believe in him and worship him. this does not mean that all those who come to believe in his existence would also adopt strong faith in him, but belief in his existence does seem to be a necessary condition for the type of faith he wants. moreover, an all-powerful God could supply the evidence in such a way that all current believers would keep believing in him to the same or greater degree, and in such a way that it would not undermine their faith -- so by supplying stronger evidence, his number of devoted followers could only rise. third, stronger evidence for his existence would also mean stronger evidence for the realization of his threats of punishment; thus, more people would be dissuaded from committing crimes against fellow men -- that is of course good for the would-be victims. it is not clear to me how best he would supply this evidence or what said evidence would be. but, suffice it to say, an all-knowing God would know what to do; and all-powerful God could do it; and an all-good God would do it.
concerning Premise 2: the bible says that the believer should not hide his light, but should "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Mat 5:16). thus, we are supposed to see evidence for God in the good deeds of our fellow men. however, this is not "strong evidence." far from it, it is at best ambiguous evidence since i see no reason why men cannot also carry out good deeds in the absence of God's existence. other believers claim that the mere existence, wonders, and complexity of earth and man give us evidence for God's existence. again, clearly this evidence is not "strong" because there are hords of people who dispute creationism, teleological arguments, and cosmological arguments. other believers say that the evidence for God's existence can be directly known (ie, belief in God is a properly basic belief). then why in the world would we even be debating his existence in the first place? the mere fact that so many are quick to debate and doubt God's existence demonstrates that whatever evidence is readily available is not as strong and direct as it could be. other believers, as evidence for God, point to the bible as God's word. this hardly even deserves a response because they are begging the question. another standard response seems to be that God does provide strong evidence for his existence, but it is only available to those who seek it out. but then that only begs the question why would God do that? the whole point of the strong evidence principle is that God need not play hide and seek with his evidence, and that it would be more efficient and beneficial for strong evidence to be made clearly available to ALL; thus, an all-whatnot God would not hide his evidence in such ways.
i am not sure if there is any evidence at all to support the belief in such a God, but i am pretty sure that whatever evidence there is, it is not "strong evidence."