Quote:If God exists, it would be a favor if humanity knew he existed beyond doubt.

Starts here, you've chosen to use the operator of "if", and the argument structure of an mt at line 4.

For the premise to be used the antecedent must be a necessary or sufficient condition for the claim made in the consequent. That is the requirement made by use of the "if" clause, and this "if" condition must be met for an mt to be reliable.

The existence of a god is neither necessary or sufficient reason for his revealing himself to be a favor to us, beyond a doubt or otherwise.

(September 29, 2014 at 2:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

Quote:If God exists, it would be a favor if humanity knew he existed beyond doubt.

Starts here, you've chosen to use the operator of "if", and the argument structure of an mt at line 4.

For the premise to be used the antecedent must be a necessary or sufficient condition for the claim made in the consequent. That is the requirement made by use of the "if" clause, and this "if" condition must be met for an mt to be reliable.

The existence of a god is neither necessary or sufficient reason for his revealing himself to be a favor to us, beyond a doubt or otherwise.

If statements can be about something not true.

You can say.

If I walked to school, I would be tired.
I am not tired.
Therefore I didn't want to school.

In this case, we had a series of statements, but mainly that God would have made himself known if he exists due to his attributes and due it being a favor to humanity to make himself known beyond doubt. As that is not done, we can deny what follows the first if, "if God exists". That is if the argument is sound.

(September 29, 2014 at 1:49 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Experience on AF has taught me that Premise 2 is false. There seems to be nothing at all that could persuade an ideological atheist.

Then your supposed God is pretty pathetic if it can't manage that.

(September 29, 2014 at 2:10 pm)rasetsu Wrote: This argument is otherwise known as the argument from Divine Hiddenness.

Quote:1993 was a watershed year in the philosophy of religion generally and for atheological arguments specifically. In that year, Cornell University Press published J.L. Schellenberg's now classic book, Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason. Schellenberg's book contained the first book-length analysis and defense of the idea that the weakness of evidence for theism is itself evidence against it. At the heart of Schellenberg's argument is the idea that inculpable or reasonable nonbelief actually occurs; he labels his argument "the argument from reasonable nonbelief" for this very reason. In other words, there are people who do not believe in God whose nonbelief is not the result of culpable actions or omissions on the part of the subject. According to Schellenberg, a perfectly loving God would desire a personal relationship between himself and every human being, or at least every human being capable of it. Belief in God's existence is a logically necessary condition for such a relationship. Hence reasonable nonbelief is evidence for atheism.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/nonth...elief.html

What are the rebuttals out there?

(September 29, 2014 at 2:40 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: What are the rebuttals out there?

Theist: Blah Blah Blah Free Will

(September 29, 2014 at 1:49 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Experience on AF has taught me that Premise 2 is false. There seems to be nothing at all that could persuade an ideological atheist.

You seem to conclude that based on having seen us not be convinced by weak arguments and weaker evidence. It's almost like there's no connection between your observations and your conclusion at all.

(September 29, 2014 at 2:22 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: If statements can be about something not true.

Sure, but that's not the issue of contention. You could engineer an "if" statement that is not "true" - but would satisfy both sufficient and necessary reason. -That's- when it becomes an issue of what is or is not sound. The conditions must be met Mystic, period, or else the argument cannot be relied upon -even if the conclusion is "true" in some other sense not related to the conditions - even if the components of the premise are "true". Validity is very often more than what most are comfortable with accepting -as valid-. This is the minutea of logic that seems to be lost on such propositions but which is entirely prescient to me - due to what I use logic for, by and large. Handling a large number of statements concurrently the problem becomes pronounced because there are many, many ways to get a "false positive" when you're trying to handle a few thousand statements a second (and being able to rely upon the conclusions determines whether or not your assembly -even works-).

The measure of validity is that which (if it is sound) will lead to truth. It's a mechanic. Your argument fails to meet these conditions, not -because- it isn;t sound, but because the nature of the premise cannot allow a valid argument (or statement) structure. Even if such a showing -would- be a favor, it still does not satisfy the conditions. We can get a false positive (or negative) if we follow this line of reasoning. It is unreliable with regards to yielding truth regardless of whether or not either part is sound.

(September 29, 2014 at 2:22 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: If statements can be about something not true.

You can say.

If I walked to school, I would be tired.
I am not tired.
Therefore I didn't want to school.

In this case, we had a series of statements, but mainly that God would have made himself known if he exists due to his attributes and due it being a favor to humanity to make himself known beyond doubt. As that is not done, we can deny what follows the first if, "if God exists". That is if the argument is sound.

That is valid:

If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P.

Maybe:

1. If God, then universal awareness of God.
2. Awareness of God is not universal.
3. Therefore, no God.

If the premise is true, the argument is sound. But it won't work on anyone who doesn't also grant that premise, which is not self-evident and therefore must itself be supported.

For instance, if God doesn't mete out eternal rewards and punishments for our finite actions and thoughts; revealing himself becomes somewhat irrelevant; so at least you would want to specifiy what specific God you're referring to; such as Yahweh as depicted in the Bible as read by a literalist.

(September 29, 2014 at 2:56 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(September 29, 2014 at 2:22 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: If statements can be about something not true.

You can say.

If I walked to school, I would be tired.
I am not tired.
Therefore I didn't want to school.

In this case, we had a series of statements, but mainly that God would have made himself known if he exists due to his attributes and due it being a favor to humanity to make himself known beyond doubt. As that is not done, we can deny what follows the first if, "if God exists". That is if the argument is sound.

That is valid:

If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P.

Maybe:

1. If God, then universal awareness of God.
2. Awareness of God is not universal.
3. Therefore, no God.

If the premise is true, the argument is sound. But it won't work on anyone who doesn't also grant that premise, which is not self-evident and therefore must itself be supported.

For instance, if God doesn't mete out eternal rewards and punishments for our finite actions and thoughts; revealing himself becomes somewhat irrelevant; so at least you would want to specifiy what specific God you're referring to; such as Yahweh as depicted in the Bible as read by a literalist.

You are right. It needs some additional argument to why it would be a favor to humanity if all knew he existed beyond doubt. I will go into that next week probably as I'm returning to the hospital for now.

(September 29, 2014 at 2:58 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: You are right. It needs some additional argument to why it would be a favor to humanity if all knew he existed beyond doubt. I will go into that next week probably as I'm returning to the hospital for now.

I hope that's because you work there and not that you are suffering from an illness.