tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post763044628393648812..comments2024-03-14T08:15:15.207-07:00Comments on CADRE Comments: My own Take on Divine Hiddenness.BKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-43872999255989198842010-06-16T19:29:16.779-07:002010-06-16T19:29:16.779-07:00Dialogues need not start with "God's exis...Dialogues need not start with "God's existence," because if you are dialoging with a member of a revealed religion with a particular Holy Book, it's really "their God" that they are discussing whenever they mention "God," and "their holy revelation of that God" as revealed in their particular holy book. But how do we know such books are holy? And Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-66181083506602542192010-06-16T19:22:42.954-07:002010-06-16T19:22:42.954-07:00Neither the existence of God and an eternal afterl...Neither the existence of God and an eternal afterlife, NOR the truth of any one particular religion or denomination is particularly obvious. <br /><br />What is most obvious is this. . . You and I were born into a world we share, in which we both were born. We share the language of those around us in our shared culture, and we can all go see and touch things together, and scientists round the Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-24435112206470504612010-06-14T18:17:54.102-07:002010-06-14T18:17:54.102-07:00I think what you are doing is committing the genet...<i>I think what you are doing is committing the genetic fallacy. The trustworthiness of the Bible is not the question here, the question is whether or not the considerations given by Layman rebut the argument from hiddenness.</i><br /><br />No, that's not what's going on. Layman is pointing to some reasons R for God to refrain from revealing himself to inculpable nonbelievers (of which Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05693985638589020492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-85242545516512306562010-06-14T18:15:23.856-07:002010-06-14T18:15:23.856-07:00Hi Layman and Brad.
I am curious, what probabilit...Hi Layman and Brad.<br /><br /><i>I am curious, what probability did you and Schellenberg attach to the characteristics you decided to test God's existence against? Did you assume the Bible was a trustworthy guide to God's reasons when you decided to test whether an all-loving God could exist? No, and neither did I. That is because you and he (and I) are testing hypotheticals.</i><br /><Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05693985638589020492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-69548766083419485812010-06-14T12:00:42.929-07:002010-06-14T12:00:42.929-07:00Ah, Mark, I see what the problem is now. I think ...Ah, Mark, I see what the problem is now. I think what you are doing is committing the genetic fallacy. The trustworthiness of the Bible is not the question here, the question is whether or not the considerations given by Layman rebut the argument from hiddenness. The Bible could be reliable in only this, or it may have gotten it right by mistake, but the issue at hand is the considerations Brad Haggardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14814856985147330634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-65646143000170454272010-06-13T23:50:39.250-07:002010-06-13T23:50:39.250-07:00Mark,
I too could emoticon my argument, but will ...Mark,<br /><br />I too could emoticon my argument, but will spare readers the sighs. If you think you have said your piece and refuted our arguments, feel free to let it rest and let the readers decide for themselves that is the case. <br /><br />I am curious, what probability did you and Schellenberg attach to the characteristics you decided to test God's existence against? Did you assumeLaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11761410435140602771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-31910803715887424122010-06-13T21:08:09.589-07:002010-06-13T21:08:09.589-07:00Sigh. Forgive the impatience, but I can only expla...Sigh. Forgive the impatience, but I can only explain that I'm not begging the question so many times on here. In no way have I stated that anyone's rebuttal fails because the argument it rebuts is sound. That is not even close to a fair representation of what I've been saying. What I've been saying is: We cannot rely on a document to be a trustworthy guide to God's reasons Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05693985638589020492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-86135466055794385692010-06-12T21:32:18.492-07:002010-06-12T21:32:18.492-07:00Mark, I hope I'm not repeating myself unnecess...Mark, I hope I'm not repeating myself unnecessarily, but what Meta and Layman are saying is that the argument from divine hiddenness is not compelling. I think you should show why their responses to the argument aren't compelling, because stating that their rebuttal fails because the argument already obtains is begging the question.<br /><br />In other words, you have to show why Layman&Brad Haggardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14814856985147330634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-29584803045097257572010-06-10T18:03:47.938-07:002010-06-10T18:03:47.938-07:00Really? Then they're certainly not touching Sc...<i>Really? Then they're certainly not touching Schellenberg's argument, since he's not trying to demonstrate anything like the logical incoherence of the existence of God with the facts of divine hiddenness. He is instead arguing that the facts of divine hiddenness make the existence of God (construed as essentially omnipotent, omniscient and loving) unlikely.</i><br /><br />O good, Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-72537803423391998612010-06-10T16:00:06.916-07:002010-06-10T16:00:06.916-07:00Hi Brad.
What Meta and Layman and JD are saying i...Hi Brad.<br /><br /><i>What Meta and Layman and JD are saying is that, given those other considerations, there is no logical incoherence to those two propositions. God's a priori likelihood is not a factor in determining the coherence of the doctrine.</i><br /><br />Really? Then they're certainly not touching Schellenberg's argument, since he's not trying to demonstrate anything Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05693985638589020492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1684879317668202382010-06-10T09:28:49.825-07:002010-06-10T09:28:49.825-07:00BH:What Meta and Layman and JD are saying is that,...<b>BH:</b><i>What Meta and Layman and JD are saying is that, given those other considerations, there is no logical incoherence to those two propositions. God's a priori likelihood is not a factor in determining the coherence of the doctrine.<br /><br />In other words, if these considerations obtain, then the argument from divine hiddenness fails, and you have no initial reason to assume God&#Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-77593699141444839272010-06-10T09:27:27.318-07:002010-06-10T09:27:27.318-07:00Whoops, I of course did say that:
I noticed
Sch...Whoops, I of course did say that: <br /><br /><b>I noticed</b><br /><br />Schellenberg thinks God's existence is unlikely. But I meant he thinks God's existence is unlikely given the argument from divine hiddenness. There's nothing circular about that. I didn't start out by assuming that God's existence is unlikely as a matter of prior probability.<br /><br /><br /><b>but Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-45294726774992003412010-06-10T09:26:21.819-07:002010-06-10T09:26:21.819-07:00. I never said that God is unlikely. I said it'.... I never said that God is unlikely. I said it's unlikely that God would possess certain reasons if he existed, at least prior to conditionalizing on his self-ascriptions.<br /><br />2. I am not arguing that it's illegitimate to appeal to God's reasons X, Y and Z since if God doesn't exist, he can't have reasons. That would be intensely silly. I am arguing that it's Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-47161261981675333372010-06-10T07:45:07.539-07:002010-06-10T07:45:07.539-07:00Mark, I think the label of question-begging is ger...Mark, I think the label of question-begging is germane, here.<br /><br />We are talking about the conception of God, and what it means for God to be "loving." The question of the authority of the NT doesn't really come into question here, because what's in question is the logical coherence of God's loving nature and His apparent "hidden" nature (whether or not Brad Haggardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14814856985147330634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-77383661752049915662010-06-08T19:32:59.790-07:002010-06-08T19:32:59.790-07:00I never said that God is unlikely.
Whoops, I of c...<i>I never said that God is unlikely.</i><br /><br />Whoops, I of course did say that: Schellenberg thinks God's existence is unlikely. But I meant he thinks God's existence is unlikely given the argument from divine hiddenness. There's nothing circular about that. I didn't start out by assuming that God's existence is unlikely as a matter of prior probability.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05693985638589020492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-38635510319504133812010-06-08T18:07:45.645-07:002010-06-08T18:07:45.645-07:00You're misunderstanding my claims.
1. I never...You're misunderstanding my claims.<br /><br />1. I never said that God is unlikely. I said it's unlikely that God would possess certain reasons if he existed, at least prior to conditionalizing on his self-ascriptions.<br /><br />2. I am not arguing that it's illegitimate to appeal to God's reasons X, Y and Z since if God doesn't exist, he can't have reasons. That would beMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05693985638589020492noreply@blogger.com