nonresistant nonbelievers — aminima

Explain.

Passive atheists.

What do I win?

a nonresistant nonbeliever is one who either wants to believe in God, but doesn't, or at least isn't hostile toward the idea of God existing. The only reason they don't believe is because of evidential reasons, not psychological reasons.

The argument makes sense if we rephrase the first premise thus:

1. If there's evidence for God (God exists), nonresistant nonbelievers would not exist.

I believe protestants are dead against natural theology (purportedly evidence-based), relying solely on their faith (sola fidei).

P1: if God exists, nonresistant[passive] nonbelievers would not exist
P1: Nonresistant[passive] nonbelievers do exist
C: God does not exist — aminima

"P1" is not true, ergo "C" does not follow. :point:

e.g.

p1. If the round Earth exists, then "nonresistant" flat earthers would not exist.
p2. "Nonresistant" flat earthers do exist.
c. The round Earth does not exist.

:roll:

:up:

P1: if God exists, nonresistant[passive] nonbelievers would not exist
P1: Nonresistant[passive] nonbelievers do exist
C: God does not exist
— aminima
"P1" is not true, ergo "C" does not follow. :point:

e.g.

p1. If the round Earth exists, then "nonresistant" flat earthers would not exist.
p2. "Nonresistant" flat earthers do exist.
c. The round Earth does not exist. — 180 Proof

I sense a disturbance in the Force.

The argument form the OP is using is modus tollens and it's valid. Your counterexample is not a counterexample. If p1 and p2 are true, c follows. c (The round Earth does not exist) just happens to be false, independent of the premises and that probably threw you off.

As for the OP itself, drawing from my past 30 years of life on earth during which I learned people love games - god could simply be playing hide-and-seek with us!

if God exists, nonresistant nonbelievers would not exist — aminima

I don't think this premise can be demonstrated to be true.

A relationship with God would be the highest good in the world if God exists, and God would want to, and have the power to achieve this good. The reason this is the highest good is the same reason why any relationship is good, — aminima

You need to make the case that god is good first, which is not a given. Or that your definition of good corresponds with a deity's. It also doesn't distinguish between theist or a potential deist account. It presupposes in specific terms what a particular account of a god would want - how can anyone demonstrate this?

The argument form the OP is using is modus tollens and it's valid. Your counterexample is not a counterexample. If p1 and p2 are true, c follows. c (The round Earth does not exist) just happens to be false, independent of the premises and that probably threw you off. — Agent Smith

Yeah. The argument in the OP is likely unsound (P1 is doubtful), but valid. I'm baffled by this simple mistake of 180's.

Yeah. The argument in the OP is likely unsound (P1 is doubtful), but valid. I'm baffled by this simple mistake of 180's — bert1

Premise 1 is where the problem lies. Belief is independent of proof/evidence. Flat-earthers exist because they're quite clearly ignoring the evidence; hence it's false that If the round Earth exists, then "nonresistant" flat-earthers wouldn't exist.

As for the OP's argument, God & "nonresistant nonbelievers" can coexist if evidence is concealed (hidden God) and so the premise if God exists, nonresistant nonbelievers would not exist is false.

In the first case (flat-earthers) evidence is ignored and in the second (atheism) evidence is hidden.

P1: if God exists, nonresistant nonbelievers would not exist — aminima

I believe this is the point of contention.

Why would nonresistant nonbelievers necessarily not exist if God exists?

p2. "Nonresistant" flat earthers do exist. — 180 Proof

Hmm, are you sure? The flat earthers I have observed online seem very resistant to evidence of round earth.

@aminima, I think what you are saying is that if God exists, he would be readily knowable to people that aren't opposed to the idea of him.
Like 1+1 equaling 2, God should be easy to deduce if he were a necessary being.

I think you are right.
However, like @Tom Storm pointed out, it depends on what the essential qualities of God are.

One of the major issues I observe is when atheists and/or theists conflate or equivocate between God as some necessary ultimate metaphysical ground of being and God as some being existing within reality. Eg, the Greek and Hindu pantheon of deities.

I guess I don't understand quite what you are saying. what do you mean by 'passive' nonbelievers?

You need to make the case that god is good first — Tom Storm

I only attempt to argue against an all-good God, so any evil Gods are not part of the scope of the argument

It presupposes in specific terms what a particular account of a god would want - how can anyone demonstrate this? — Tom Storm

If the theist claims that even though we cannot think of a reason for God allowing evil, this does not entail that there is none, they are similarly entailed to believe that even though we cannot think of a reason for God lying to us, this does not entail that there is none. So, the theist would not be able to rule out the possibility of divine lies, and has to concede that God could be lying about any number of things, like the eternal world, and even though we cannot think of a reason for his lying, this does not entail that there is none.

You're mistaken, Smith. P1 in the OP is not true; the conclusion does not follow.

Nevermind. Your argument in the OP is not sound.

P1 If it isn't necessary to believe God exists, God will not prove he exists.
P2 God has not proven he exists
P3 It is not necessary to believe God exists
P4 If God exists it would be necessary to believe God exists
P5 It is not necessary to believe god exists
C God does not exist

I only attempt to argue against an all-good God, so any evil Gods are not part of the scope of the argument — aminima

We have no access to a god in order to determine what god's nature actually is. Is Yahweh, say, good or evil? Discuss. I would say this is unclear from the text. Unlikely to be good. Plus there is the issue of what appears good to humans may look very different to a god. I don't think we build any argument on premises we cannot know to be true.

You're mistaken, Smith. P1 in the OP is not true; the conclusion does not follow. — 180 Proof

:ok:

Why would God want a relationship with you? I don't think he would, so I think P1 is false.

When Sarah forms a relationship with utterly absurd William, then I conclude that Sarah is flawed, for William is an ignorant and morally flawed person and he seems beneath her.

Needless to say, we are ignorant and morally flawed people. Why on earth would God want a relationship with us? He would want 'not' to have one with us, it seems to me.

Why would God want a relationship with you? — Bartricks

Good question! PSR.

Why on earth would God want a relationship with us? — Bartricks

The same question but now with hints in the sentence preceding the query.

PSR again.

P1: if God exists, nonresistant nonbelievers would not exist
P1: nonresistant nonbelievers do exist
C: God does not exist

Defense of P1:

A relationship with God would be the highest good in the world if God exists, and God would want to, and have the power to achieve this good. The reason this is the highest good is the same reason why any relationship is good, (because it is intrinsically good, or mutually beneficial etc.) And surely a relationship with good would be the best relationship of all. — aminima

A relationship with God is not the highest good. This is because possessing a good is higher than knowing it (having a relation with it). God gave us free will for a good which is greater than the good of knowing Him (having a relationship with Him). This is justified because possessing a good falls into a category of more benefit than knowing that good.

So the possession of free will, (as a good), which allows us to freely judge the evidence, is more important for God to grant us, as a higher good for us, than the good of us knowing Him, or having a relationship with Him. That is the nature of love, it must be freely chosen rather than imposed. Incidentally, this is also the case with all the suffering and evil in the world, which comes about as the result of human beings having free will. Possessing the good, (free will), is superior to knowing the good. And not knowing the good results in suffering and evil.

P1: if God exists, nonresistant nonbelievers would not exist
P1: nonresistant nonbelievers do exist
C: God does not exist — aminima

Deism and other forms of theism will not necessarily want people to believe in them

When the student is ready the teacher will appear. — Ashok Kumar/Jane Doe

God's hiding in plain sight! In other words He's here among us! We can't see recognize Him due to, some say, karmic defilement of our minds. :snicker:

About P1. We cannot deduce the existence of a belief from the truth or falsity of a proposition. Whatever beliefs a person must hold in order to qualify as a non-resistant non-believer, we could probably find someone who holds those beliefs - irrespective of God's existence or non-existence. There could be flat earthers and round earthers and flat earthers willing to be convinced otherwise and round earthers williing to be convinced otherwise - whatever the shape of the earth. *I just saw 180 proof said same thing only better..*

p1. If the round Earth exists, then "nonresistant" flat earthers would not exist.
p2. "Nonresistant" flat earthers do exist.
c. The round Earth does not exist. — 180 Proof

I assume the reason this is different from OP is because the round earth isn't a person that desires people to know it's a round earth, isn't omnipotent/omniscient (so can't perfectly make that happen).

The argument in OP is that if God desires people to know God exists, that God is omnipotent/omniscient, then non-resistent non-believers wouldn't exist (I am interpreting "nonresistent nonbelievers" as being people that are open to the idea of God existing if given sufficient evidence).

if God desires people to know God exists — Astro Cat

One of my problems with the omnigod posit lies there.
I cant think of a rational reason for an omnipotent/omniscient god to have desires, can you?

Nothing I can add to the post you've replied to. My position remains that the OP's demonstration is invalid. If it makes sense to you, Astro Cat, then you're welcome to it.

P1: if God exists, nonresistant nonbelievers would not exist — aminima

I'm a little confused. Can't you resist belief itself? In which case a non-resistent nonbeliever is a total contradiction.

How can one be a non-resistent belief-resister (non-believer)?

As far as I know people believe things exactly because they don't resist it. They accept it. Acceptance is the start of a belief. Whether it's that your loved one passed away, or that your crush doesn't love you, or that you're a bad singer. You can resist it all you want. You can choose not to believe it. But I doubt you can be a non-resistent nonbeliever.

A Non-resistent nonbeliever is like saying "I want to give up drinking alcohol, I think it would be good for me (non-resistent ideation) but I will keep drinking anyways lol. Yolo. Its just hypocrisy.
Obviously if you want something achievable, and continue to behave the opposite way, something stands between you and the goal and that is resistence. Fooling oneself.

One of my problems with the omnigod posit lies there.
I cant think of a rational reason for an omnipotent/omniscient god to have desires, can you? — universeness

Yes. I can. If they're omniscient and omnipotent, they may desire to know what it's like not to be so. Or to at least create the illusion of such for a moment to explore those experiences.
To be less self aware. Perhaps to be multiple selves.

An omniscient god may ask themselves "What is it like to question something without already knowing the answer?" or "what is it like to be restricted, to be unable to do anything and everything at once, what is it like to struggle?"

Of course, to do those things, an omniscient, omnipotent God doesn't have to give up what they are, they need merely compartmentalise some of their consciousness in some temporary mortal agent that is wholly finite, restricted, impotent, and with a low degree of knowledge.

An omniscient god may ask themselves "What is it like to question something without already knowing the answer?" or "what is it like to be restricted, to be unable to do anything and everything at once, what is it like to struggle?" — Benj96

But being omniscient, they already know the answer to these questions.

Asking a question presupposes not knowing something. An omniscient being cannot ask any questions.