-cricket- 
What did you all think of the argument pushed in the first video?
Theistic Argument Against Apologetics (the lulzy name is patterned after Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism):
His argument boils down to that so long as theists answer the problem of divine hiddenness with an appeal to the preservation of freewill, they necessarily cannot establish God's existence because in the process it would do the very thing God is supposed to be avoiding. Even an inference to the best explanation is beyond them with that response.
What did you all think of the argument pushed in the first video?
Theistic Argument Against Apologetics (the lulzy name is patterned after Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism):
CheekyVimto08 Wrote:P1) If God exists, he remains hidden.
1a) One could assert that we all know God exists deep down, but this seems too hard a line to take. And if we all know, why the apparent hiddenness?
P2) God hides because he does not want us to be forced to accept his existence on pain of irrationality, in order to preserve human freewill and moral autonomy.
P3) Giventhat God is omniscient and omnipotent, there can be no argument which forces a nonbeliever to accept God's existence on pain of irrationality.
C) There can be no conclusive proof of God's existence.
His argument boils down to that so long as theists answer the problem of divine hiddenness with an appeal to the preservation of freewill, they necessarily cannot establish God's existence because in the process it would do the very thing God is supposed to be avoiding. Even an inference to the best explanation is beyond them with that response.
