The problem of divine hiddenness, also called the problem of reasonable nonbelief, is an argument that has been discussed for a short period of time, but has been thought of for years. “How long, O LORD? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me?” Not only has divine hiddenness been brought up in the bible, but also be earlier philosophers such as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. There is no simple way of completely describing the problem from reasonable nonbelief. However, the way Schellenberg first introduces his argument is as follows:
If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
Reasonable nonbelief occurs.
No perfectly loving God exists.
There is no God.
Schellenberg states in Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason that there are two ways in which his argument could be successfully rebutted. First, if it is shown Conclusively that an offsetting good necessitating the permission of reasonable nonbelief exists, or second, if it is shown to be plausible that an outweighing good requiring the permission of reasonable nonbelief exists. Before looking at the argument, Schellenberg claims six different assumptions that must be looked at and considered equal to the argument
…show more content…
However, this does not mean that the foundations of the argument are sound. There are three traditional ways of approaching the argument from reasonable nonbelief. They are the freedom response, which states that “God hides in order to enable people to freely love, trust, and obey God.” The proper-motivation response, which simply put states that “God hides in order to discourage a human response based on improper motives.” And the Divine Purposes Reply, “God restrains divine manifestations, at least for a time, to at least some humans to enhance satisfaction of God’s own diverse morally serious and loving purposes regarding
Roger White presents an interesting argument for why God must exist. In his argument, White states that everything in the world is finely tuned to live its life accordingly. In order for this to be possible, God must have finely tuned all beings so that they were well fit for life. In depth, this argument is, “If a fact stands in need of an explanation, and a hypothesis explains this fact better than anything else, then they support each other. Our universe being so perfect for life is a fact in need of explanation. The hypothesis that God has finely tuned everything to be where all living beings can exist in this universe is an explanation to this fact. No other hypothesis compares to such a standard as this one. Therefore, the fact that our
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
Throughout the world, most people believe in some type of god or gods, and the majority of them understand God as all-good, all-knowing (omniscient), and all-powerful (omnipotent). However, there is a major objection to the latter belief: the “problem of evil” (P.O.E.) argument. According to this theory, God’s existence is unlikely, if not illogical, because a good, omniscient, and omnipotent being would not allow unnecessary suffering, of which there are enormous amounts.
In today’s culture, the idea of there is perfect and divine designer that made the earth and everything that entails with it, really pushes people away. Not only has this idea been conflicted about in today’s culture. It has been especially trivial in past decades, an example of this is seen by H.J. McCloskey. McCloskey wrote an article about it called “On Being an Atheist”, which attempts to defeat the notion that there is a God. McCloskey first addresses the reader of the article and says these arguments he is about to address are only “proofs”, which should not be trusted by any theist. He then goes and unpacks the two arguments that he believes can actually be addressed, the cosmological and teleological argument. McCloskey also addresses the problem of evil, free will, and why atheism is more comforting than theism.
Whether god exists or not has been in discussion for thousands of years, and an important discussion. Whether it is rational to believe in god or not is another story, like believing in god itself, this topic has brought many discussions. It is one thing to discuss whether god is real or not and it is a complete other to discuss whether it is rational to believe in god or not. I believe that while there may not be any convincing evidence or arguments that God does exist, I do still believe that it is still rational to believe that god does exist. I think this because, believing in God is not simply just believing that he exists, but believing that it can bring good to our lives, we otherwise would not have. It teaches us to have a moral responsibility not only to others, but ourselves. It is obvious that many people do believe in god, but many of us choose to do so for reasons other than just believing in God. I do believe that just because there is no evidence, that does not mean God doesn’t exist. Like I said, God brings more to our lives than just a belief, but an ability to achieve a better one. And even if God is just an imaginary figure, he is an imaginary figure that brings hope and goodness to our lives, which we can never discount.
Assessment of the View that it is Rational to Believe that there is a God
forgiven, so there is no need to ‘force’ yourself to believe. This argument is far from proving the existence of God, it argues more for. the purpose of believing in him rather than whether he actually exists. The.. In conclusion, all the arguments bar one that have been covered have. been strongly criticised, questioning their validity.
There are often many mixed views when discussing God’s existence. In Anselm’s works “The Proslogion” and “Anselm’s Reply to Gaunilo” and Gaunilo’s work the “Reply on Behalf of the Fool”, both of their philosophies on the matter are imparted. Anselm’s logic regarding God is correct as he sustains his argument even when it confronted with criticisms and it is comprehensible.
My goal is to not disprove God’s existence, or to disprove that humankind can live in Union with God. My hope is to argue that our will which wills what it ought not to will is limited. I believe that every day we have the equal opportunity to make choices, both good and evil, and we are able to do this because of our free will. I am not arguing that our defective free wills do not exist, I want to argue that they are restricted.
The existence of god has been relentlessly debated with many strong arguments. This essay will primarily discuss the most prevalent arguments for and against the existence of a higher being. Although there are many strong arguments for both atheism and theism, ultimately the theist point of view is greater justified morally and logically.
Skepticism about religion is just as old as religion itself. There always have been, and always will be doubters. Over time, some have felt the need to solidify their faith, and champion God. This was John Milton’s quest when he sought out to write Paradise Lost. He thought the time had come that he did his church a service. He found his opportunity when it came time for a question to be answered: If there is a god, why is there evil? According to Josepha Morbey, “Milton believes that God is all-powerful, all-seeing, and entirely good, and yet there is evil in the world. For Milton, this is a problem.” Indeed it is a problem, because many people disagreed with this. In order to answer the question of evil in God’s presence, Milton wrote Paradise Lost. John Milton’s Paradise Lost will be critiqued for its content, execution, and impact in relation to theodicy.
...ail to reach it's end in a manner acceptable against Descartes' initial standards for justified true knowledge. In short, we can never know beyond any doubt that there exists a supremely good God, and consequently we can never know beyond any doubt whether or not we are somehow deceived about anything beyond the most simple intuitions.
We cannot over simplify human behavior and the power of belief. Belief being the structure humans have created to understand one’s existence. Equally important, beliefs reassure a sense of balance and control in a world where we may feel powerless or helpless despite scientific developments. Nevertheless, science is the reality tested. Bultmann, points out blind acceptance of the New Testament’s written word would be irrational, and “a sacrifice of the intellect which could have only one result – a curious form of schizophrenia and insincerity” . Nevertheless, there remains a confusion that pervades modern ideas of the universe and our existence. Bultmann did acknowledge the truths a shallow enlightenment had failed to perceive are later rediscovered in ancient myths. Therefore, the task of dissecting the written words and structure of the New Testament is important for clarification and
In today’s modern western society, it has become increasingly popular to not identify with any religion, namely Christianity. The outlook that people have today on the existence of God and the role that He plays in our world has changed drastically since the Enlightenment Period. Many look solely to the concept of reason, or the phenomenon that allows human beings to use their senses to draw conclusions about the world around them, to try and understand the environment that they live in. However, there are some that look to faith, or the concept of believing in a higher power as the reason for our existence. Being that this is a fundamental issue for humanity, there have been many attempts to explain what role each concept plays. It is my belief that faith and reason are both needed to gain knowledge for three reasons: first, both concepts coexist with one another; second, each deals with separate realms of reality, and third, one without the other can lead to cases of extremism.
In many aspects of our lives, the use of faith as a basis for knowledge can be found. Whether it is faith in the advice of your teacher, faith in a God or faith in a scientific theory, it is present. But what is faith? A definition of faith in a theory of knowledge context is the confident belief or trust in a knowledge claim by a knower, without the knower having conclusive evidence. This is because if a knowledge claim is backed up by evidence, then we would use reason rather than faith as a basis for knowledge . If we define knowledge as ‘justified true belief’, it can be seen that faith, being without justification, can never fulfill this definition, and so cannot be used as a reliable basis for knowledge. However, the question arises, what if a certain knowledge claim lies outside of the realm of reason? What if a knowledge claim cannot be justified by empirical evidence and reasoning alone, such as a religious knowledge claim? It is then that faith allows the knower to decide what is knowledge and what is not, when something cannot be definitively proved through the use of evidence. When assessing faith as a basis for knowledge in the natural sciences, the fact arises that without faith in the research done before us, it is impossible to develop further knowledge on top of it. Yet at the same time, if we have unwavering faith in existing theories, they would never be challenged, and so our progress of knowledge in the natural sciences would come to a standstill. Although I intend to approach this essay in a balanced manner, this essay may be subject to a small degree of bias, due to my own non-religious viewpoint.