Drange's argument from nonbelief

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"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)." -Theodore Drange/JS357

Interesting propositions; all three flawed by the same omission: God has the same self awareness, self determination and volition format He's g ...[text shortened]... uldn't (despite the unimaginable horror of the alternative eternal address). He patiently waits.

What kind of God would coerce relationship with Himself?

The argument has nothing to do with coercion. For one to be in a position to freely accept/reject a relationship with X, one needs to have the belief that X exists in the first place; one needs to take it to be the case that a relationship with X is a live option in the first place. The argument is about this underlying belief that X exists or is a live option in the first place. This implies nothing about coercion: one can hold this belief and yet still be as free as free can be when it comes to the further decision regarding a relationship.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
not only is this reasoning flawed because it hinges on the necessity of belief in god for salvation (which would mean heaven would be a place filled with let's say faithful racist wife beaters but not righteous atheist doctors) but also it diminishes the significance of belief. if all would believe at one point or another, god would either have to mess wi ...[text shortened]... "i believe" into an "i know".


there is no big deal in believing the obvious. it is a given.

if all would believe at one point or another, god would either have to mess with free will, or to present each with proof of his existence, which would turn the "i believe" into an "i know".

This comment is absurd on multiple levels. First, providing sufficient evidence to elicit from S the belief that X exists does not imply anything about "messing" with S's free will. Second, there would presumably be other ways of bringing about the belief in God's existence absent the presentation of "proof" (perhaps God can simply infix or implant this belief transparently in His creatures). And lastly, so what if you do have "proof" or very strong evidential basis and it turns into "I know"? Supposing you are married, is your relationship with your spouse somehow compromised by your having evidence sufficient to know your spouse exists? Would you prefer having sh@tty evidence to go on for figuring out whether or not your spouse exists? Would you rather just have wonky faith that your spouse exists? Would that make the relationship better or more genuine? 🙄

Originally posted by twhitehead
I feel compelled to point out that logic is rarely a problem for a the theist. Most theists just ignore it altogether, or the more sophisticated theists, simply plead ignorance ie they recognise that there may be logical issues that contradict their beliefs but rather than give up their beliefs they have faith that the arguments are mistaken and God knows the answers.

Oh, but there's always the catch-all rebuttal, trotted out whenever all else fails: "God works in mysterious ways."

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Please see "God's Patience" Thread 156758

Why? Are you giving out free hats over there or something?

Originally posted by Soothfast
Why? Are you giving out free hats over there or something?

Reply's addressed to wolfgang59; 'free hats' only for those residing in climates with bitterly cold evenings.

Originally posted by LemonJello

if all would believe at one point or another, god would either have to mess with free will, or to present each with proof of his existence, which would turn the "i believe" into an "i know".

This comment is absurd on multiple levels. First, providing sufficient evidence to elicit from S the belief that X exists does not imply anything ...[text shortened]... nky faith that your spouse exists? Would that make the relationship better or more genuine? 🙄

"This comment is absurd on multiple levels. First, providing sufficient evidence"
that, oh aggressive one, is part number two of my argument. EVIDENCE would remove the need for faith, which seems to be important to god.

"God can simply infix or implant this belief "
that is what denies free will.


"so what if you do have "proof" or very strong evidential basis and it turns into "I know"?"
it makes life more interesting. maybe there isn't an afterlife, and i should live my life to the fullest. maybe there is no god and i shouldn't rely on him to catch me if i fall. this life is separate of the next. live it.

"Would you prefer having sh@tty evidence to go on for figuring out whether or not your spouse exists?"
some divorce such a spouse. some continue believing that evidence.


"Would that make the relationship better or more genuine?"
better implies choice. god already chose not to reveal himself except through jesus and whatever other religious myths exist. maybe he gave enough proof he would be comfortable with. he triggered christianity, islam, judaism, budhism, etc. just because you want HIM to show himself to you, right now, because you're awesome, might not be in his best interest. or he might simply not find you, particularly, very interesting to talk to.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"This comment is absurd on multiple levels. First, providing sufficient evidence"
that, oh aggressive one, is part number two of my argument. EVIDENCE would remove the need for faith, which seems to be important to god.

"God can simply infix or implant this belief "
that is what denies free will.


"so what if you do have "proof" or very strong ...[text shortened]... his best interest. or he might simply not find you, particularly, very interesting to talk to.

EVIDENCE would remove the need for faith, which seems to be important to god.

Unfortunately, there seems nothing generally to be valued about the sort of 'faith' you are talking about (which appears to just be belief that P in the absence of evidence that would justifiy belief that P). So, if this is important to god, that would indicate that his proiorities are lacking or impaired, especially to the extent that he values his creatures being in a position of responsibly accepting or rejecting a relationship with him.

"God can simply infix or implant this belief "
that is what denies free will.

How does that deny free will? Suppose, for example, that the (true) belief that God exists is simply implanted by God into the noetic structures of his creatures. How does that have anything whatsoever to do with the freedom of these creatures? Is your personal autonomy somehow compromised by having another true belief thrown into your head? Or, suppose the belief arises through an innate sense, like sensus divinitatis. Again, how would that compromise freedom?

it makes life more interesting. maybe there isn't an afterlife, and i should live my life to the fullest. maybe there is no god and i shouldn't rely on him to catch me if i fall. this life is separate of the next. live it.

Not sure what point you are trying to make, or how it would be relevant to the argument at issue. We can live our lives to the fullest regardless if we have knowledge on the question of God's existence or not.

better implies choice. god already chose not to reveal himself except through jesus and whatever other religious myths exist. maybe he gave enough proof he would be comfortable with. he triggered christianity, islam, judaism, budhism, etc. just because you want HIM to show himself to you, right now, because you're awesome, might not be in his best interest. or he might simply not find you, particularly, very interesting to talk to.

This response tells me that you're not actually paying attention to the argument at issue. You've also failed to actually address my question.

Originally posted by LemonJello

EVIDENCE would remove the need for faith, which seems to be important to god.

Unfortunately, there seems nothing generally to be valued about the sort of 'faith' you are talking about (which appears to just be belief that P in the absence of evidence that would justifiy belief that P). So, if this is important to god, that would indicat ...[text shortened]... paying attention to the argument at issue. You've also failed to actually address my question.

" that would indicate that his proiorities are lacking or impaired, especially to the extent that he values his creatures being in a position of responsibly accepting or rejecting a relationship with him."
he wants us to accept or reject him of our own free will. if he shows up in front of you and asks you whether you choose to believe in him or not, what choice is that?

you don't think belief that you didn't choose to have, but was implanted contradicts free will? do you believe people with severe ocd choose to repeat an action?

" We can live our lives to the fullest regardless if we have knowledge on the question of God's existence or not."
so why is knowing god's existence important then?


"This response tells me that you're not actually paying attention to the argument at issue. You've also failed to actually address my question."
oh yes, the unsupported statement. nice debating bro. very nice.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
" that would indicate that his proiorities are lacking or impaired, especially to the extent that he values his creatures being in a position of responsibly accepting or rejecting a relationship with him."
he wants us to accept or reject him of our own free will. if he shows up in front of you and asks you whether you choose to believe in him or not, wha ...[text shortened]... tually address my question."
oh yes, the unsupported statement. nice debating bro. very nice.

What your god is asking for is not belief...

What your god is asking for is worship.

Now worship generally requires belief, but belief is not worship.


There are those that think "The Universe" is god.
And I (and hope we all) believe the universe exists. [I don't think it's a god though]
But I/we don't worship the universe as a god.

A god could prove it's existence to me, and I would believe it existed.
I wouldn't worship it.

THAT is the 'freewill' choice. The one that matters.

To worship or not to worship, that is the question.

Not to believe or not to believe.

Originally posted by googlefudge
What your god is asking for is not belief...

What your god is asking for is worship.

Now worship generally requires belief, but belief is not worship.


There are those that think "The Universe" is god.
And I (and hope we all) believe the universe exists. [I don't think it's a god though]
But I/we don't worship the universe as a god.

A god ...[text shortened]... ers.

To worship or not to worship, that is the question.

Not to believe or not to believe.

"To worship or not to worship, that is the question."

why?
would you require worship from your son or daughter? or would you rather have him/her live their own life? why must the concept of god adhere to the christian god?

Originally posted by JS357
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 unhelpful in the argument, arguing instead that the mere existence of nonbelief is evidence against the existence of God. A semi-formal presentation of the argument is a ...[text shortened]... example, denying "But not all humans believe God exists before they die," leads to universalism.

So his belief is that if he can say he does not accept, believe, or has
some version of non-belief he can say there isn't a God. Okay, I submit
that if he has to argue the point, then that alone shows there is one.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, I submit that if he has to argue the
point, then that alone shows there is one.
Kelly

You can submit that idea but it's a stupid one and without any justification.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"This comment is absurd on multiple levels. First, providing sufficient evidence"
that, oh aggressive one, is part number two of my argument. EVIDENCE would remove the need for faith, which seems to be important to god.

"God can simply infix or implant this belief "
that is what denies free will.


"so what if you do have "proof" or very strong ...[text shortened]... his best interest. or he might simply not find you, particularly, very interesting to talk to.

I believe you may have come upon the reason. God does not find them very interesting to talk to.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe you may have come upon the reason. [b]God does not find them very interesting to talk to.[/b]

i said maybe. you i am certain he doesn't find interesting.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
" that would indicate that his proiorities are lacking or impaired, especially to the extent that he values his creatures being in a position of responsibly accepting or rejecting a relationship with him."
he wants us to accept or reject him of our own free will. if he shows up in front of you and asks you whether you choose to believe in him or not, wha ...[text shortened]... tually address my question."
oh yes, the unsupported statement. nice debating bro. very nice.

he wants us to accept or reject him of our own free will. if he shows up in front of you and asks you whether you choose to believe in him or not, what choice is that?

The mere belief that He exists (which is predominantly NOT within the active control of the believer) is but a precursor to the actual volitional decision regarding whether or not to relate with Him. The argument supposes that it is God's design intention that these creatures be in a position to freely decide whether or not to relate with Him. But that requires that these creatures hold the aforementioned belief that He exists in the first place. If this belief were simply implanted in the creature (or were simply there through whatever trajectory), that would not compromise their freedom regarding whether or not to then relate with Him. Just like your belief that your spouse exists (which is clearly not something you CHOSE to hold) does not compromise your freedom to relate with your spouse. Your suggesting otherwise is patently absurd.

you don't think belief that you didn't choose to have, but was implanted contradicts free will? do you believe people with severe ocd choose to repeat an action?

Belief formation is predominantly not a matter of choice on the part of the believer. Perhaps this is the source of your confusion.