Atheist arguments often include presuppositions of what god/God must communicate, do, & even the methods. Why?
Posted by admin | Filed under Religion & Spirituality
That is, I notice that many of the argument include assumptions like, “If God really existed, he would immediately heal everybody in the hospitals.” or “He would appear before me right now at my request and converse with me.” or “He would prove himself to vast crowds by means of miracles and otherwise unexplainable wonders.”
But if a god/God has such power, knowledge, and superiority to his creation (and his creatures), WHY SHOULD WE ASSUME that he would do things “our way”??
MORE DETAILS IF YOU NEED THEM:
Logically speaking, would it not be likely that an “infinite god/God” would have his own agenda, so to speak? Perhaps even his own timing or ultimate process? I don’t presume to know — but I do feel confident that ASSUMING THE DEFINITION OF A CREATOR GOD, I have few logical grounds for assuming that I can predict what god/God will do and how he will do it, right?
I certainly understand why someone would choose to conclude that God has provided insufficient proofs for his existence. (No argument there.) But I do NOT understand why god/God’s failure to “live up to” human presuppositions tells us much of anything.
And just to cite an example of one presupposition that I’ve often seen presented as a MUST DO for god/God: “He should want to do everything possible to show himself and convince all humans of his existence.” YET, if god/God is like the God of the Bible, the text says that (1) it is part of the “glory of God” to conceal himself and be selective about who will come to believe [e.g. "And because of their lack of belief he did no miracles there." and 'It is to the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of kings to see it out."], and (2) to look upon God is fatal [perhaps depending upon the circumstances, according to the text….and the reaction of people confronted by the Holy was to fall on the ground flat in fear.
So, putting aside for the moment the unhelpful whining of “But god/God doesn’t exist” and “But the Bible is a book of fables”, isn’t it LOGICAL to assume that the difference between a Creator Deity and mere humans would be such that it would be presumptuous to assume what god/God “must do” if he exists and is as he is defined/described in the Bible?
======================
Yes, people, there are a host of OTHER questions, issues, whatever I COULD have asked, but I asked about THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT. If you don’t LIKE the question, there are plenty of others that might better fit your interests. MY PURPOSES are to solicit ideas for a PARTICULAR TOPIC that is part of an article I’m doing on how people approach the idea of DEITY.
The ubiquitous complaints about “The bible being a book of fables” and “God doesn’t exist” are not WHINING ON THEIR OWN but they ARE WHINING WHEN THEY ARE IRRELEVANT to a particular question. (Yikes, people. It’s not brain surgery!)
======================
GRASSHOPPER:
“Atheists dont assume that he would, they ask why he doesnt do those things.”
But isn’t the negative form of a presupposition just another kind of presupposition? After all, the very fact that you ASK why he DOESN’T do those things involves a particular interest in knowing why he does NOT do what you presume. Right?
===> PEOPLE: There is no CRITICISM in saying that someone has PRESUPPOSITIONS! Everybody does about most things! The purpose of the question is to draw out the REASONS why you think various presuppositions are VALID/logical.
======================
DAKIN:
“You do realize that you are projecting so hard that I could shove a flash light up you and show a power point right?”
OF COURSE, Einstein! The purpose of the question is to describe a very common phenomenon and collect the most common rationale/reasoning of why the presuppositions are valid/reasonable/
But the anger provoked by simple questions of this sort is fascinating in itself — so the exercise is not in vain, in any case.
(But if Daken and others think that this would represents some sort of effective apologetics exercise — if that is your inference — that part DOES seem illogical. How would soliciting your views of the concept of deity (and there are an almost infinite number) somehow bring your thought process to some particular conclusion??
======================
MATHIUSDRAGOON:
Yes, I can see what you mean. Excellent observation. R&S often seems to draw out these kinds of “extreme answers” as if every question on this forum has some sort of ulterior underlying meta-question or statement behind it.
But what is particular interesting to me is if the question and details are worded just right, BOTH ends of the spectrum go into meta-mode and take off on their wildest arguments of issue which aren’t even on the table. (In this instance I got a few from the Christian side but they were not as emotive for the most part and perhaps not as interesting. But data is data.)
======================
DAKIN:
May 22nd, 2010 at 1:15 pm
I agree.
It is selfish to ask God to cure everyone because we all must eventually die and move on and God is not a vending machine.
Atheists will bring up children in Africa who starve to death because of droughts but God is blameless for the droughts. We are to blame because we should be helping them. Also, droughts exist because of us. We as humans committed original sin which made the world an imperfect place.
May 23rd, 2010 at 2:19 pm
You got me on this one. I indeed assume that if a loving all-powerful God exists, he will heal all the people in the hospitals. I guess I’m just too attached to my preconceptions.
May 25th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Isn’t it even more presumptuous to say “God exists because the Bible says so and I have faith?” Basing things on mere faith is the epitome of a presumption.
I don’t try to presume what God would be like or do because the mere thought of any sort of God is ridiculous to even fathom.
May 26th, 2010 at 6:07 am
Why to theists claim to know the mind of the unknowable, and why do they presume to speak for their own “mysterious” God? Seems like a heck of a lot of hubris there…
May 28th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
the point of any mircial’s is to prove that someone is divine,
haven’t seen any lately
also saying “god did it” isnt any more logical
EDIT: “Naomi” says its selfish to ask god to heal everyone.
Is it selfish if i asked “heal all the 100 million homeless people”
You wouldn’t believe in your fucking god if you live in a fucking trashcan.
bitch
EDIT AGAIN: droughts don’t happen because of us dumb ass
May 31st, 2010 at 1:10 am
Gladly he doesn’t exist, because if he did, he would be immoral.
May 31st, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Yet Christians do this exact same thing, all the time.
June 2nd, 2010 at 9:43 pm
“Logically speaking, would it not be likely that an “infinite god/God” would have his own agenda, so to speak? Perhaps even his own timing or ultimate process?”
This is great, and what many Christian Evolutionists are saying. I think that ultimatly, God doesnt grant requests, but there is a divine plan. A divine plan for the whole of humanity, that is.
June 5th, 2010 at 12:31 am
Atheists do not presuppose anything on god because he doesn’t exist.
Religion does that.
Edit*** Atheists would NEVER have to presume ANYTHING about god if it wasn’t for religion. And even then thet are only counterpresuming.
If You presume your god is all loving then I am damn well entitled to say “what about the homeless? The sick the disabled the disasters the unanswered begging of the suffering??”
RELIGION presumes they know somthing about a god because they have a book that they presume was written by people who were presumed to had “revelations” from him. This my friend, is where it started.
June 7th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Labeling reasonable statements like “the Bible is a book of fables” as “unhelpful whining” doesn’t make them any less accurate.
The Bible IS a book of fables. If you find that unhelpful or whiny, that’s your problem. I’m just telling you the truth.
June 10th, 2010 at 2:03 am
You do realize that you are projecting so hard that I could shove a flash light up you and show a power point right?
edit- You really have no idea what you are talking about, your response to me was pathetic and hillarious.
edit 2- When you wish to attack me and show yourself as wise, spelling my user name correctly might help.
June 11th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
I don’t presume to have any insight as to what a god or gods would want if they existed. I also don’t presume to know anything about how Santa Clause would feel about my cookie selection at Christmas time.
The reason most Atheists don’t believe in any gods is not because we see the world as filled with hatred or evil or something. We don’t believe in any gods because there is no evidence to suggest that one exists.
However, we CAN attach a specific religious text and acknowledge it as incorrect. If Jesus/God was performing miracles and saving people who believed in him and answering prayers, wouldn’t Christian’s have a lower death rate, longer lives, less likely hood of cancer? They don’t.
June 12th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
They aren’t my presuppositions, they are yours. I am just feeding them back to you.
If you don’t like your dirty laundry commented on, don’t leave it out for others to see and smell.
June 12th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Atheists dont assume that he would, they ask why he doesnt do those things.
June 14th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Those qestions are adressed at Christians, and Christians claim that god has the power to do all those things. If they were talking about a god that was outside of religion, their argument would be worded differently. I fully understand the difference between a god, and a God as defined by many religions. If I was talking about a deist god, I would say so, instead of implying that I was talking about a monotheistic god.
In case you didn’t know, deism is the belief that is is some kind of higher power/being/god, that lies outside of what any religion defines it as, and is usualy hands off and inanimate in the universe. If I was talking about a deity, I would specify and reword my question to fit my subject. But since Most people on here are Christians, and the Christian bible claims that god has the power to heal and perform such impossible acts, my questions are directed at these impossible attributes of that god. If I didn’t mean to directly adress the Abrahamic god, I wouldn’t call such attributes into question.
I see how a diety is possible, since a diety that lie outside of religious claims, a diety that is hands off and inanimate, does not have to answer for “why the world is the way it is” “why doesn’t it jsut heal everybody”. A diety wouldn’t make such claims as to be all-powerful. If a diety is not making such claims, it would have nothing to answer for, since it never promised anything. What I call into question is the claims that religions make about their gods, how it’s impossible for a god to have some of the powers that are attributed to it, and how if there is a god, it must be a cruel god for leaving the world in such a mess. If a god is making the claims that it is all-powerful and benevolent, then leaves the world in shambles and seems cruel, those are things that it would have to answer for, which is why questions are directed that that specific type of god.
A diety makes no such claims, and has nothing to answer for, therefor no1 adresses any questions toward a diety, because it has nothing to be questioned about.
June 15th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
to lazy to destroy your argument.. but you made HUGE ASSUMPTIONS WITHOUT EVIDENCE
June 17th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Atheist assume if God exist He must follow what they say.
God will not put on a show or do anything atheists say He must do to meet their approval.
Salvation (payment of sin & forgiveness of sin) was paid by Jesus.
Please read:
John 3:15-21
1 Cor 6:9-10
Eph 2:8-9
Matt 25
Romans 3,6,1,10
June 17th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
“WHY SHOULD WE ASSUME that he would do things “our way”??”
Not to throw a thorn in it, but likewise that viewpoint is a total brush off.
All the excuses that people give that god does what he wants, that “god works in mysterious ways,” and so forth are just a complete brush off from ever having to answer tough questions or expect bigger results/responses from the deity. People just say “goddidit” and forget about it. Don’t expect any big responses and you can’t be disappointed or have the faith threatened by doubt…
June 20th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
You’re right. Now explain to me, please, why you don’t believe in Brahman, the supreme creative force of Hinduism, from which all other things, even lesser gods, emanate?
I’m a pantheist. I believe that there is something we can crudely, anthropomorphically describe as a creative will to the universe. Dawkins calls us pantheists sexed up atheists. And in one sense, he has every right to do so. I have my own reasons for continuing to adhere to pantheism, which I have enumerated on this forum; however, in terms of the net effect of human interaction with this creative force, I may as well be an atheist.
I’m not going to think that my God concept gives me the right to tell people who can sleep with whom. I’m not going to kill over my God concept. And anything extremely unlikely happening in my life, whether for good or ill, I’m not going to attribute it to Godly interference. Whether or not a God or gods exist won’t change my moral code. And I do believe there is an absolute moral code for humanity. It is this: What is harmful to yourself, you ought not do to others. It requires no eternal threats, nor promises of heavenly reward in order to operate, just enlightened self-interest. It has been expressed by humans in written form long before most currently practiced religions even started.
Game theory shows that using a strategy based on a such a code leads to viable long term success:
Moreover, evolutionary biolgoy and game theory mathematics overlap, and show that such behavior can confer adaptive benefits on a population:
June 22nd, 2010 at 11:47 am
These atheist arguments are refutations of theistic points. You might not be able to recognize the point they are trying to refute because atheists often state them as an “argument ad absurdum”. This is because their argument is that the original theistic premise is absurd, but they don’t reference the original theistic argument, because their conversations with theists have watered down all the theistic arguments into their absurd forms, so they just start from there.