Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Process theism + The divine hiddenness argument against God's Existence

#1
C C Offline
Divine hiddenness argument against God’s existence
https://iep.utm.edu/divine-hiddenness-ar...existence/

INTRO: The “Argument from Divine Hiddenness” or the “Hiddenness Argument” refers to a family of arguments for atheism. Broadly speaking, these arguments try to demonstrate that, if God existed, He would (or would likely) make the truth of His existence more obvious to everyone than it is.

Since the truth of God’s existence is not as obvious to everyone as it should be if God existed, proponents of arguments from divine hiddenness conclude that God must not (or probably does not) exist. While there is disagreement about how obvious God would make His existence, all the most prominent arguments from divine hiddenness maintain that God would (or would likely) make Himself obvious enough to everyone that nonbelief (or particular kinds of nonbelief) in God’s existence would not occur (or would not be nearly as common).

While the “argument from divine hiddenness” refers to a family of arguments for atheism, that term is often used interchangeably with the term “problem of divine hiddenness”. But the “problem of divine hiddenness” may refer to a much broader range of concerns than arguments for atheism.

For example, those who want to believe in God’s existence, but who find themselves unable to believe, may experience pain or anxiety because of their lack of belief. This pain or anxiety can be considered an experiential problem of divine hiddenness, even if these nonbelievers never consider their own nonbelief as a piece of evidence against God’s existence. While other problems of divine hiddenness are briefly addressed at the end of this article, the bulk of what follows discusses hiddenness in the context of arguments for atheism... (MORE - details)


Process theism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/

INTRO: Process theism typically refers to a family of theological ideas originating in, inspired by, or in agreement with the metaphysical orientation of the English philosopher-mathematician Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) and the American philosopher-ornithologist Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000). For both Whitehead and Hartshorne, it is an essential attribute of God to be fully involved in and affected by temporal processes.

This idea contrasts neatly with traditional forms of theism that hold God to be or at least conceived as being, in all respects non-temporal (eternal), unchanging (immutable,) and unaffected by the world (impassible). Process theism does not deny that God is in some respects eternal, immutable, and impassible, but it contradicts the classical view by insisting that God is in some respects temporal, mutable, and passible.

The views of Whitehead and Hartshorne should also be distinguished from those that affirm that the divine being, by an act of self-limitation, opens itself to influence from the world. Some neo-Thomists hold this view and a group of Evangelical Christian philosophers, calling themselves “open theists,” promote similar ideas.

These forms of theism were influenced by process theism, but they deny its claim that God is essentially in a give-and-take relationship with the world. Moreover, process theism is a genuinely philosophical theology in the sense that it is not grounded in claims of special insight or revealed truth but in philosophical reflection.

Specifically, process theism is a product of theorizing that takes the categories of becoming, change, and time as foundational for metaphysics. The metaphysical underpinning of process theism is often called process philosophy, a label suggested by the title of Whitehead’s magnum opus, Process and Reality.

In order to bring out this philosophy’s emphasis on relatedness, many scholars follow Bernard Loomer in calling it process-relational philosophy. Whitehead’s preferred expression for his metaphysical viewpoint is “the philosophy of organism.” This article concerns primarily the concept of God in process theism, although we shall conclude with a brief discussion of arguments for the existence of God in process thought... (MORE - details)
Reply
#2
Magical Realist Offline
I've always had a version of the hiddenness argument against God's existence. Why won't he reveal himself? Why does everything behave as if there is no God behind it? The standard answer is freewill. He is allowing everyone to make a free choice to accept him or not. But that's no free choice. That's stacking the deck in favor of disbelief. Behaving as if you don't exist is against freewill because it creates the false delusion that God doesn't exist. And people required to make choices under a delusion are not freely choosing. They are being deceived and therefore have no choice. Therefore God doesn't exist because pretending you don't exist and hiding from humans is deceptive, which is a vice, and therefore against the nature of a God to have. God is not just pretending not to exist. He really doesn't exist.
Reply
#3
Kornee Offline
Declaring God cannot exist because He/She/The-One-or-Ones doesn't conform to a particular human-level limited world-view philosophy is not smart reasoning imo.
Consider the possibility we intentionally and maybe necessarily have no access to or capacity to comprehend a much bigger picture. But are granted logical capacities enabling an indirect but clear answer.

If organic life could not arise via natural processes, the existence of God question is settled necessarily in the affirmative.
So, once again, that series by James Tour:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71dqAFUb-v0
Links to the rest in the series are given in description. Leading a horse to water but....
The case for ID i.e. God is imo unassailable. Putting the horse in front of the cart is the better way to deal with the matter.

The other pillar for me is the overwhelming anecdotal evidence for the supernatural. Cross-link:
https://www.scivillage.com/thread-12463-...l#pid51667
Unless one believes supernatural intelligences could evolve from the material realm, it's obvious to me there has to be an ultimate creator of such who is necessarily also supernatural.

Neither of those two planks relies on so-called Divinely inspired scriptural revelation, or philosophical ramblings of a moral nature.
Put the horse in front of the cart.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article Kurt Gödel's argument for life after death C C 1 136 Jan 3, 2024 11:32 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Neuroscientist asks: Do we long for a divine creator or do we just want our mommies? C C 5 172 Dec 22, 2022 06:31 AM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  Does modern cosmology prove the existence of God? C C 2 76 Nov 4, 2021 07:51 PM
Last Post: Syne
  God's emotional wealth is contingent, but the cost of our destruction to God is nil Ostronomos 1 385 Jun 4, 2018 07:00 PM
Last Post: Ostronomos
  Zen and everyday existence Magical Realist 1 249 Feb 8, 2018 09:50 PM
Last Post: Leigha
  The divine fire of Philip K Dick’s religious visions C C 3 636 Aug 19, 2016 07:10 PM
Last Post: C C
  Hiddenness of God C C 1 586 Apr 28, 2016 07:00 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Return to Theism: A dark version of Abrahamic religion C C 2 913 Nov 17, 2015 12:58 AM
Last Post: elte
  An argument for a God Magical Realist 3 811 May 1, 2015 06:18 PM
Last Post: Yazata
  God is dead, long live God C C 1 740 Nov 5, 2014 09:40 PM
Last Post: Yazata



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)