The God's hiddenness argument and Quran.

[Link]

I wish to talk about the Atheistic argument of God's hiddenness and the Quranic response in detail.  Before I do, I want see if I'm allowed or am I going to be told I'm crazy and need time off if I do. 

And the other reason, before I get into it, people can do the small talk, "how you been, etc" and what not, since I've been gone for months.  Hope no one hurt anyone while I was gone,   I know some of you need to take your anger and frustrations on life on me .

[Dānu]

I can't speak officially, as I'm not a member of staff, but I have no objection. That being said, I don't tend to participate in discussions of this type much, so might not be very involved. That, and I'm not knowledgable about the divine hiddenness argument in general like I am about some other common theological arguments.

[no one]

Hiding, and not existing are not really the same.

[Minimalist]

Hi, Link.  Good to see that you are still with us.  It has been a shitty year.

[adey67]

I wish to talk about the Atheistic argument of God's hiddenness and the Quranic response in detail.  Before I do, I want see if I'm allowed or am I going to be told I'm crazy and need time off if I do. 

And the other reason, before I get into it, people can do the small talk, "how you been, etc" and what not, since I've been gone for months.  Hope no one hurt anyone while I was gone,   I know some of you need to take your anger and frustrations on life on me .

Mate, seriously? The only anger and frustrations people take out on you are the ones you've given them, I've never seen anyone give you a hard time just because they are having a bad day, it's always been a response to some theological BS you happen to have come out with that you fail to provide good reasoning for, having said that I wish you well and hope you're happy and that your mental health is good.

[Deesse23]

Before I do, I want see if I'm allowed or am I going to be told I'm crazy and need time off if I do. 

It depends on if you are going to say crazy stuff. Its really that simple. You dont have to agree with me, but you better be reasonable....somewhat.  

Last time you were here i said you need to get help. I hope you got some, seriously.  

[Dom]

I wish to talk about the Atheistic argument of God's hiddenness and the Quranic response in detail.  Before I do, I want see if I'm allowed or am I going to be told I'm crazy and need time off if I do. 

And the other reason, before I get into it, people can do the small talk, "how you been, etc" and what not, since I've been gone for months.  Hope no one hurt anyone while I was gone,   I know some of you need to take your anger and frustrations on life on me .

Let's see what happens. How have you been? Have you been to a doc since you left? What is going on in your life? I hope you are well.

[Inkubus]

<Much snipped for focus>
I wish to talk about the Atheistic argument of God's hiddenness and the Quranic response in detail.

Regarding the highlight. If by 'Quranic response' you intend to post your usual Chopra-esk drivel, then don't bother.

Ultimately, wisdom seeks what lasts forever, and the soul should be distressed if it doesn't know it will last forever, because the goal in what is perpetual is worlds apart from what ends up passing away and disappearing quickly.

As the man said, if you can't explain something simply; you don't understand it.

[Bucky Ball]

You're back with the same ignorance you left with.
No one cares about your Quranic bullshit. Until you prove who wrote it, that it was inspired, and that Allah and old Mo are or were real.

The fact is your OP starts off with a falsehood ... a theological and factual falsehood.
There is no "athesistic argument for the hiddenness of god".
You really should take Religion 101.

In fact, what it actually is, is a Christian argument for the existence of God.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/...ang=en&amp;
So in fact, you have it ALL wrong, totally backward, and utterly false.
You have no clue what you're talking about. The Hiddenness Of God is a famous, much discussed Christian topic.
No atheist claims there is a hidden god.

The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing, and expect a different result.
How in hell could people who hold that no god EXISTS, have an argument about it being "hidden" ?
LOL
What we observe here on this planet is exactly what one expects to see, if there were no gods.
What you see is what you get.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Hello Link.

Just a question.  How is a diety's hidden-ness, or supposed lack thereof, a non-theists' problem?

 Surely the shoe is on the foot of the theist to wrestle with their diety's seeming lack of interaction with the world?

  Cheers.

[Dancefortwo]

Hiding, and not existing are not really the same.

It's interesting that a god who is undetectable is exactly the same as a god who doesn't exist.

[mordant]

Hiding, and not existing are not really the same.

It's interesting that a god who is undetectable is exactly the same as a god who doesn't exist.

Yes. How would you even tell the difference between any of the following:

* A god who is hidden
* A god who is absent
* A god who is not

They all behave, look, taste, smell, and sound precisely the same.

I don't know much about Islamic lore, but I'm put in mind of the Old Testament tale of Elijah taunting the prophets of Ba'al that their prayers went unanswered. "Maybe Ba'al is covering himself [taking a dump]?" And the whole point of that was that Yaweh REVEALED himself by sending fire from the heavens to consume Elijah's offering, after Ba'al had done nothing for his follower's offerings.

Weirdly however, it's bad form to expect god to REVEAL himself in the present day. Now he behaves just like Ba'al. Wonder what ever could possibly explain that?

[jerry mcmasters]

I have no interest in the issue, which is sophistry as "Magical Invisible Condom" can be substituted at every turn for "Allah," but I do hope you are doing well.

[SYZ]

I wish to talk about the Atheistic argument of God's hiddenness and the Quranic response in detail.  Before I do, I want see if I'm allowed or am I going to be told I'm crazy and need time off if I do. 

And the other reason, before I get into it, people can do the small talk, "how you been, etc" and what not, since I've been gone for months.  Hope no one hurt anyone while I was gone,   I know some of you need to take your anger and frustrations on life on me.

I for one can't find any reason to "welcome" you back mate.  And I certainly do not want to see any of
your absurd Islamic bullshit and distorted viewpoints of the real world.  In your previous existence here
you were a deliberately inflammatory influence, overly-belligerent, and constantly argumentative. You showed
time and time again that you weren't genuinely interested in anybody else's opinions about your reprehensible
religion—good, bad, or indifferent.  You spent most of your time trying to convince us that Islam had some value
to us, and everybody else on the planet, when in actuality it was thinly-disguised proselytising.

I called you an ignorant cunt way back then, and considering the subject of this, your first "new" thread, I see no
reason to change that opinion.  You display all of the arrogant, rabid, overzealous Muslim beliefs I despise, and I
see no point in the administrators of this forum allowing you to rejoin in order to spew the same vile rubbish as
you did previously.

And, unlike you, I don't need to take out my "anger and frustrations" on scumbags like you.  I have too many
other fine, intelligent, articulate people to socialise with—here and in the real world—in a genuine manner of
dialogue, shared interests, and joint respect.

Please do us all a favour and just piss off—for good this time.      

[Dom]

Some of you enjoy the banter, some don't. Maybe the ones who don't can just ignore the thread? Just saying....

[Link]

The argument goes something like this:

(1) God is a benevolent being who would interact with humans.
(2) God would manifest himself in a clear way to all humans if he wished to interact with them.
(3) God is not manifest to all humans and doesn't make himself clearly known.


The conclusion if you combine is then God doesn't exist, because if he did, he would interact with humans, and if he would, he would make himself to all humans and not just a particular amount of them.

A lot of Atheist Philosophers consider this a stronger argument then the argument of evil. In fact, my Atheist professor doesn't think the argument of evil is very strong and thinks theodicy arguments in reply by Theists are stronger.  However, this argument, in his view, is very strong, if not the strongest argument against Theism.

Each of the 3 premises can be elaborated on in detail. But this is just to get you the gist of the argument.

[Reltzik]

You and I have never had much interaction outside discussing your apologetics, Link, so I'll leave that to the others who know you better.

But before you go ahead and post your business on the hiddenness issue, let me ask you something.  How carefully and critically have you thought this through?  Have you checked and rechecked to see if it's a good argument?  Have you run it by a few skeptics in a tone of humility ("do you see any holes in this?") rather than proselytizing?

Remember that presenting a flawed argument will reinforce the strong trend of believing for poor reasons.  It leaves us thinking (with increasing confidence from every example) that most and perhaps all religious belief is exactly that sort of nonsense. It causes us to extrapolate from the problems with modern religious belief that the early believers (such as the people who first put the words down into text, or persecuted those who didn't believe in their version until their version was the only one we have a record of today) had all the same problems and were just as unreliable in knowing how to discerning truth from myth.  In short, flawed arguments have consequences, and if you present a flawed argument, you'll be doing your cause more harm than good.

So how carefully and cautiously have you checked to make sure this argument isn't flawed?

[Reltzik]

The argument goes something like this:

(1) God is a benevolent being who would interact with humans.
(2) God would manifest himself in a clear way to all humans if he wished to interact with them.
(3) God is not manifest to all humans and doesn't make himself clearly known.


The conclusion if you combine is then God doesn't exist, because if he did, he would interact with humans, and if he would, he would make himself to all humans and not just a particular amount of them.

A lot of Atheist Philosophers consider this a stronger argument then the argument of evil. In fact, my Atheist professor doesn't think the argument of evil is very strong and thinks theodicy arguments in reply by Theists are stronger.  However, this argument, in his view, is very strong, if not the strongest argument against Theism.

Each of the 3 premises can be elaborated on in detail. But this is just to get you the gist of the argument.

And you posted while I was typing.

I'd modify the conclusion as you presented it: God as defined in the first premise (benevolent, desires interaction, maybe add in enough divine power and knowledge to make the ability to manifest a foregone conclusion) doesn't exist.  The argument against divine hiddenness doesn't argue against, say, a deistic God, but does make a decent case from a more Abrahamic type of god.

MOST arguments against a god argue against a particular notion of god.  How good any argument against a god is will usually vary based on what type of god is being argued against.

[Cheerful Charlie]

I can't speak officially, as I'm not a member of staff, but I have no objection.  That being said, I don't tend to participate in discussions of this type much, so might not be very involved.  That, and I'm not knowledgable about the divine hiddenness argument in general like I am about some other common theological arguments.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/

However, “divine hiddenness” refers to something else in recent philosophical literature, especially since the publication of J.L. Schellenberg’s landmark book, Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason (1993). In this context, it refers to alleged facts about the absence of belief of God, .....

Basically, this is about Schellenberg's argument for atheism.

Ezekiel 36:26-8
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within
you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will
give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my
statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye
shall be my people, and I will be your God.

Isaiah 59:20-21
20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from
transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord.
21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit
that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not
depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the
mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.
 
See also:
Ezekiel 36:26-8, Isaiah 59:20-21, Jeremiah 24:6-7,
Jeremiah 31:33-34, Ezekiel 11:19, 1 Samuel 10:9,
2 Corinthians 1:21-22

God seems to be laying down on the job.  Or to not exist at all.

[mordant]

The argument goes something like this:

(1) God is a benevolent being who would interact with humans.
(2) God would manifest himself in a clear way to all humans if he wished to interact with them.
(3) God is not manifest to all humans and doesn't make himself clearly known.


The conclusion if you combine is then God doesn't exist, because if he did, he would interact with humans, and if he would, he would make himself to all humans and not just a particular amount of them.

A lot of Atheist Philosophers consider this a stronger argument then the argument of evil. In fact, my Atheist professor doesn't think the argument of evil is very strong and thinks theodicy arguments in reply by Theists are stronger.  However, this argument, in his view, is very strong, if not the strongest argument against Theism.

Each of the 3 premises can be elaborated on in detail. But this is just to get you the gist of the argument.

And you posted while I was typing.

I'd modify the conclusion as you presented it: God as defined in the first premise (benevolent, desires interaction, maybe add in enough divine power and knowledge to make the ability to manifest a foregone conclusion) doesn't exist.  The argument against divine hiddenness doesn't argue against, say, a deistic God, but does make a decent case from a more Abrahamic type of god.

MOST arguments against a god argue against a particular notion of god.  How good any argument against a god is will usually vary based on what type of god is being argued against.

Just so ... this is an argument against the Abrahamic god. Deism assumes god is hidden / absent. Islam / Judaism / Christianity do not.

The more detailed and specific a god-concept is, the easier it is to debunk. The god of Deists is shrouded in mystery and antiquity, and today we see only the after-effects of his existence. Personal gods are supposed to DO things, and generally, supposed to interact with people. It's a much harder burden from there to explain the "apparent" lack of interaction, than if you assume a non-interactive deity to begin with.

To me, this very fact, that gods who are supposed to bless / punish / command are easier to refute, is an argument against any useful, falsifiable definition of god currently in circulation. The Deist god is simply semantic sugar on top of atheism, since claims for the behavior of an absent god are precisely the same as the expected behavior of a non-existent god. Deism is for people who can't tolerate what they see as the stigma of atheism, who do not want to let go of god as an explanation for anything, even if not a current, active explanation.

[Dānu]

I can't speak officially, as I'm not a member of staff, but I have no objection.  That being said, I don't tend to participate in discussions of this type much, so might not be very involved.  That, and I'm not knowledgable about the divine hiddenness argument in general like I am about some other common theological arguments.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/

However, “divine hiddenness” refers to something else in recent philosophical literature, especially since the publication of J.L. Schellenberg’s landmark book, Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason (1993). In this context, it refers to alleged facts about the absence of belief of God, .....

Basically, this is about Schellenberg's argument for atheism....

That appears to be the argument that Link is referring to here. Bucky appears acquainted with some other argument with which I'm not familiar.

[Bucky Ball]

The argument goes something like this:

(1) God is a benevolent being who would interact with humans.
(2) God would manifest himself in a clear way to all humans if he wished to interact with them.
(3) God is not manifest to all humans and doesn't make himself clearly known.


The conclusion if you combine is then God doesn't exist, because if he did, he would interact with humans, and if he would, he would make himself to all humans and not just a particular amount of them.

A lot of Atheist Philosophers consider this a stronger argument then the argument of evil. In fact, my Atheist professor doesn't think the argument of evil is very strong and thinks theodicy arguments in reply by Theists are stronger.  However, this argument, in his view, is very strong, if not the strongest argument against Theism.

Each of the 3 premises can be elaborated on in detail. But this is just to get you the gist of the argument.

Post your references concerning this argument, and list this "lot" of atheist philosophers. About 10 will do. 

There is not one shred of evidence for any of the gods, (including whatever one you happen to buy into), 
your professor's opinions not withstanding, therefore there is no need at all for any argument, whatsoever. 

Is there a need for you to waste your life cooking up arguments against the Pink Sparkly Unicorn. 
Wake up dude. 
We are now in the "post-theistic" era. 
Belief in the gods is declining especially in countries where education is increasing. 
Your views are those of a dinosaur ... an old fossil. 
No one cares anymore about this theism bullshit.

Any argument and its validity for any one person is only a matter of personal opinion, and totally dependent on the system of logic you're using, (have you named yours? ) and the premises it's built on.
You have absolutely no way of verifying or validating ANY of your argument's premises about any of the gods. None. The enterprise of arguing about gods is a total waste of time. Given that you cannot verify your premises, any argument about any god (including yours) is meaningless. Also according to YOUR Quran, what you're doing is a waste of time: Quran 24:40 "Or [they are] like darknesses within an unfathomable sea which is covered by waves, upon which are waves, over which are clouds - darknesses, some of them upon others. When one puts out his hand [therein], he can hardly see it. And he to whom Allah has not granted light - for him there is no light."

Some of the Christian mystics understood that, as well as agnostic atheism, and Chinese Tao mysticism. See John of the Cross, (Dark Night of the Soul) the medieval "Cloud of Unknowing", various Cistercian mystics, some of the "Desert Fathers", Teresa of Avila (The Interior Castle). That all get that one ends up in the same place, as a practical matter.

Apparently you are going to use some sort or CIRCULAR argument, as you stated in your OP, you would be referencing the Quran.
Don't even go there. Unless one accepts the Quran, it's no better than a book about Mikey Mouse. We don't give a shit about the Quran and your ancient desert cult.
You are a presuppositionalist ... we are not. FIRST you have to justify the authority of your reference. Good luck with that.

[Bucky Ball]

I can't speak officially, as I'm not a member of staff, but I have no objection.  That being said, I don't tend to participate in discussions of this type much, so might not be very involved.  That, and I'm not knowledgable about the divine hiddenness argument in general like I am about some other common theological arguments.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/

However, “divine hiddenness” refers to something else in recent philosophical literature, especially since the publication of J.L. Schellenberg’s landmark book, Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason (1993). In this context, it refers to alleged facts about the absence of belief of God, .....

Basically, this is about Schellenberg's argument for atheism....

That appears to be the argument that Link is referring to here.  Bucky appears acquainted with some other argument with which I'm not familiar.

I provided a link to it in my post.

[Bucky Ball]

I can't speak officially, as I'm not a member of staff, but I have no objection.  That being said, I don't tend to participate in discussions of this type much, so might not be very involved.  That, and I'm not knowledgable about the divine hiddenness argument in general like I am about some other common theological arguments.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/

However, “divine hiddenness” refers to something else in recent philosophical literature, especially since the publication of J.L. Schellenberg’s landmark book, Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason (1993). In this context, it refers to alleged facts about the absence of belief of God, .....

Basically, this is about Schellenberg's argument for atheism.

Ezekiel 36:26-8
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within
you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will
give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my
statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye
shall be my people, and I will be your God.

Isaiah 59:20-21
20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from
transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord.
21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit
that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not
depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the
mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.
 
See also:
Ezekiel 36:26-8, Isaiah 59:20-21, Jeremiah 24:6-7,
Jeremiah 31:33-34, Ezekiel 11:19, 1 Samuel 10:9,
2 Corinthians 1:21-22

God seems to be laying down on the job.  Or to not exist at all.

The Schellenberg arguments are simply an expansion on a pre-existing concept, and what had already been written. 
They presuppose the necessity to argue about the idea of a god, (without even defining it).  
I stand by what I said. 

From the link :
"Divine hiddenness”, as the phrase suggests, refers, most fundamentally, to the hiddenness of God, i.e., the alleged fact that God is hidden, absent, silent.
In religious literature, there is a long history of expressions of annoyance, anxiety, and despair over divine hiddenness, so understood.

So the link agrees with me.

"However, divine hiddenness refers to something else in recent philosophical literature, especially since the publication of J.L. Schellenberg’s landmark book, "Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason" (1993). In this context, it refers to alleged facts about the absence of belief of God, on the basis of which one might think there is no God.

The Quran and the traditions of belief do not refer to the "hiddenness problem" based on the absence of belief. You actually think Link knows about Schellenberger ? LOL

Anselm of Canterbury, in his Prosiogion, said : "I have never seen thee, O Lord my God; I do not know thy form. What, O most high Lord, shall this man do, an exile far from thee? What shall thy servant do, anxious in his love of thee, and cast out afar from thy face? He pants to see thee, and thy face is too far from him. He longs to come to thee, and thy dwelling place is inaccessible. He is eager to find thee, and knows not thy place. He desires to seek thee, and does not know thy face. Lord, thou art my God, and thou art my Lord, yet never have I seen thee. It is thou that hast made me, and hast made me anew, and hast bestowed upon me all the blessings I enjoy; and not yet do I know thee. Finally, I was created to see thee and not yet have I done that for which I was made."

[Dānu]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/

However, “divine hiddenness” refers to something else in recent philosophical literature, especially since the publication of J.L. Schellenberg’s landmark book, Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason (1993). In this context, it refers to alleged facts about the absence of belief of God, .....

Basically, this is about Schellenberg's argument for atheism....

That appears to be the argument that Link is referring to here.  Bucky appears acquainted with some other argument with which I'm not familiar.

I provided a link to it in my post.

Actually what you provided was a link to a press release about a book that uses "The Hiddenness Of God" as a title. If the book review linked below is accurate, the book you linked to is an author addressing arguments of the type offered by Schellenberg, so I'm rather confused as to what Christian argument for the existence of God you are referring to there, and what relation it bears to the book whose press release you linked.

Some people seek God, but seem not to find him. To others, God seems distant or absent. In one way or another, God seems hidden to many people. This is unexpected if there is a God who wants us to know that he exists, and even more puzzling if there is a God that loves us. Not only is the situation puzzling, but it causes some people significant pain. In various ways, divine hiddenness has been thought to pose a challenge to traditional Christian theism. Michael C. Rea's book offers a multifaceted response to phenomena related to God's apparent hiddenness and the family of philosophical problems it raises.

The version of the hiddenness problem most discussed in current literature Rea calls 'the Schellenberg problem.' The Schellenberg problem suffers from an important drawback: it does not target the God of Christian theism, according to Rea. But the Schellenberg problem is just one among many problems of divine hiddenness. Rea prefers to think of the problem as a family of problems and advances his own characterization of what unites them: in general, the problem of divine hiddenness is "fundamentally a problem of violated expectations." People have various expectations of what a loving God would be like -- they might expect him to have provided more religious experience than they have, or stronger evidence, or expect that theistic belief would be more widespread than it is. Hiddenness arguments take the violation of these expectations as reasons to conclude that God does not exist. Rather than respond to just one particular hiddenness argument, Rea addresses hiddenness arguments that take this general form.

Rea's solution to the problem is two-tiered. The first step is to argue that the hiddenness problem rests on unwarranted assumptions and expectations about God's love. He offers two different arguments to this end (the first in Ch. 3-4 and the second in Ch. 5).

~ Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews: The Hiddenness of God, by Michael C. Rea