ipl-logo

Divine Hiddenness

1297 Words6 Pages

An argument from the divine hiddenness states; if there were an omniGod there would be no non-culpable disbelief, there is non-culpable disbelief, therefore there is no omniGod. I intend to look at this argument in further detail and attempt to find evidence on whether or not this argument should be accepted by focusing on the first premise and trying to see if it is accurate, whilst also discussing the plausibility of premise two.

Traditional theism holds that god has three Omni qualities this is where the term omiGod derives from. When speaking about a God in this essay I will be referring to a God one who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Meaning he has power, has knowledge and goodness to the highest degree possible. When …show more content…

Schellenbergs argument on divine hiddenness, ‘If there were an omniGod, there would be no non-culpable disbelief’. Those in favour of Schellenbergs argument on divine hiddenness argue that if an omniGod exists then that omniGod would let everyone open to the idea of him, know of his existence, the reason he would do this is so he would have more believers. Therefore anyone who is open to the idea of an omniGod who isn't actively disputing an omniGod would believe in him because he would make it easy for him or her to believe. Therefore if God is hidden he cannot …show more content…

Knowing your son well, you have strong reason to believe that they have been wrongly accused of the crime. Considering the evidence, you find you have equal amount of evidence to believe your son didn't commit the crime as to confirm that he did. Even though the evidence is balanced, you do not suspend judgment on the case. Remembering giving birth to your child, you take steps to support your child in the belief that he is innocent by continuing to accept their innocence. If absolute evidentialism were true, you would be wrong to think that you son was innocent, however, no one could justify saying you were irrational or immoral in your belief under the circumstances. So many theists would say that as Gods child they have a strong bond and belief in him even though there is not solid evidence for his existence they know he is there through the spiritual bond they share with him. Absolute evidentialism is, therefore, found to be

Show More
Related
1056 Words | 5 Pages

He says that some propositions or beliefs are self-evident, but most of the other beliefs require proofs or evidences that man already has. He presents a group of thinkers that prescribe to themselves the same authority that reason should have in proving revelation. They do use reasoning to an extent, however, the main source comes from themselves. Which in essence takes away revelation and replaces it

Read More
1125 Words | 5 Pages

Paradoxes Now with the possibility of backwards causation there arises some paradoxes within the view. Namely, there are three different types of paradoxes to talk about, the Bootstrap Paradox, the Consistency Paradox, and Newcomb’s Paradox. The one that we will focus on, and I believe holds that most weight against backwards causation is Newcomb’s Paradox. The paradox in short is that a person is given a choice between two boxes, by a fortune teller who can fully predict the choice of the person. The boxes contain one thousand dollars in a clear box, box A, and an opaque box, box B, that either contains one million dollars or no money at all.

Read More
1328 Words | 6 Pages

Modern Day Fools In Our Midst It is a serious charge to call someone a fool. When you or I call someone a fool, it is unlikely that we are referring to an objective analysis, like the person having a psychiatric disorder or subnormal intelligence, and therefore likely to be under special supervision. No, when we call someone a fool, it is usually a subjective opinion, someone with whom we may disagree, and may even abhor because we judge that person to be lacking good sense or sound judgment. To willy-nilly call someone a fool is dangerous, because first; it might be untruthful, and secondly, the person may be far more intelligent than you are, and you may not have the judgment to see that.

Read More
483 Words | 2 Pages

Ruby’s argument is deductively valid. An impotent demiurge may exist, but the appellation of “God” is unwarranted, along with the epithet of “faultless”. An omniperfect deity simply cannot coexist with turpitude, yet the antipodal notion is the quintessence of religion, making religion fundamentally

Read More
1628 Words | 7 Pages

(Anon., 2004) Anselm’s argument is a reductio argument, it seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that an absurd result would follow from its denial. I will be discussing three objections to Anselm’s argument which I will reply to, namely: “the perfect island” objection by Gaunilo; “existence is not a predicate” objection by Immanuel Kant and Aquinas objection “not everyone has the same concept of God”. I agree that that Anselm’s ontological argument does indeed show that God exists.

Read More
542 Words | 3 Pages

ID: 000883370 537 Words Pascal suggests that the faith in believing God is a "wager". For any person S, he or she has two choices can be made. One choice is α, the other is β, and if α is chosen to have a greater benefit for S, S should choose α. Taking into account the existence of God or not has half of the possibility, and believing God has greater benefit. Therefore, people should choose to believe in the existence of God.

Read More
2071 Words | 9 Pages

An omniscient God is self-refuting and contradictory. “If God gives us free will, then he cannot for see what we will do in the future, if that would be possible it wouldn't be free will. So this means that the biblical God cannot be omniscient for he cannot for see our actions.” Is it logical for God to know all things? Again, this argument shouldn't be used to prove if there is a God because omniscience is just an attribute of God, and not every religion teaches that their God is omniscience.

Read More
494 Words | 2 Pages

If we designate the God who punishes His followers as “anti-God,” the rewards to be earned by believing in God in offset by the possibility that the God we believe in is the “anti-God.” Similarly, the losses to be suffered by not believing in God is balanced by the possibility that the God we did not believe in is the “anti-God.” In this way, all possible attributes of God and their opposites essentially cancel the net benefit of each choice to zero. While some may argue that some of these attributes of God are “absurd,” without any prior knowledge of who God is, all attributes of God must be considered as equally

Read More
858 Words | 4 Pages

• There is no evidence or at any rate not sufficient evidence for the proposition that God exists. Alvin Plantinga has canvassed them lucidly in his books Does God have a Nature? A substance’s essence, says Plantinga, will be a certain one of its properties – that conjunctive property which includes as conjuncts those properties which all which the substances has in all possible worlds in which it exists. So if God is identical with God’s essence, then God is identical with a property. But God, being a person, is not a property.

Read More
150 Words | 1 Pages

1. Wittgenstein’s statement is correct. I don’t think that the believers wouldn’t have believed if first they didn’t have the proof. In essence this is because you really can’t explain a proof if you haven’t experience it yourself. For example, you cannot explain color unless you show examples of that color.

Read More
713 Words | 3 Pages

Weaver 1 Michelle Weaver Faith & Philosophical Enquiry PHI-110RS-ATWE Co_PHI-110-ATWE-2018SP1 Dr. DonatienCicura 25 February 2018 Saint Thomas Aquinas: Proof of the Existence of God Saint Thomas Aquinas was a theologian who wrote about proving the existence of God. There are five ways that Aquinas argues to show that God exists and I chose to write about two of those ways. The second way: “Argument from Efficient Causes” meaning that nothing in this world could have been created from itself.

Read More
1089 Words | 5 Pages

The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The strongest argument in contradiction to God’s existence is the Problem of Evil, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to describe the problem of evil, analyse the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.

Read More
559 Words | 3 Pages

Does Evil disprove Atheism? I thought the speaker in this video made an excellent point regarding whether or not evil disproves God. As C. S. Lewis put it, “The shadows prove the sunshine.” In order to have shadows, you must have sunshine.

Read More
1279 Words | 6 Pages

In this paper, I will begin by stating the Problem of Evil. Following this I will include two objections to the argument and why I find the argument to not be convincing. The Problem of Evil is an argument concerning the existence of God and why God cannot exist because of the presence of evil in the world. The argument begins by saying that God is both all-powerful and wholly good, and that evil exists in the world. However, these statements contradict each other, so all three cannot be true.

Read More
954 Words | 4 Pages

Several philosophers before Kierkegaard tried to prove the existence of God, but Kierkegaard didn’t follow that same path. He felt that it is more valuable to discover more subjective and personal truths than one universal Truth (375). Reading this made me feel more secure about being agnostic. The truth for me is that there is no way for me to prove or disprove that God exists.

Read More

More about Divine Hiddenness

Related Topics

Open Document