Just for background, the Stanford page on Divine Hiddenness includes a couple of arguments for what the OP has termed "P1", from the person traditionally credited with formulating the divine hiddenness argument as we now recognize it-

More than anyone else, Schellenberg has shaped the contemporary debate over arguments from nonbelief. The main argument from his 1993 book can be stated as follows:

(1) There are people who are capable of relating personally to God but who, through no fault of their own, fail to believe.
(2) If there is a personal God who is unsurpassably great, then there are no such people.
(3) So, there is no such God (from 1 and 2).
For the defense of premise (2), Schellenberg’s reasoning provides the following subargument:

(2a) If there is a personal God who is unsurpassably great, then there is a personal God who is unsurpassably loving.
(2b) If there is a personal God who is unsurpassably loving, then for any human person H and any time t, if H is at t capable of relating personally to God, H has it within H’s power at t to do so (i.e., will do so, just by choosing), unless H is culpably in a contrary position at t.
(2c) For any human person H and any time t, H has it within H’s power at t to relate personally to God only if H at t believes that God exists.
(2d) So, if there is a personal God who is unsurpassably great, then for any human person H and any time t, if H is at t capable of relating personally to God, H at t believes that God exists, unless H is culpably in a contrary position at t (from 2a through 2c).
(2d) is tantamount to premise (2) of the main argument.

In his post-1993 writings, Schellenberg clarifies that he means his claims about God, love, and relationship to be necessary truths. Moreover, the main argument of his 2007a replaces talk of “culpability” with talk of “resistance”. (“I now see this focus on culpability and inculpability as a mistake”; 2015a: 54.) And he emphasizes “meaningful conscious relationship”. Finally, his 2015a and 2015b focus on the “openness” of “a perfectly loving God” to “positively meaningful” and “reciprocal conscious relationship”. Thus, the latest version of the argument (slightly condensed):

(4) Necessarily, if God exists, then God perfectly loves such finite persons as there may be.
(5) Necessarily, if God perfectly loves such finite persons as there may be, then, for any capable finite person S and time t, God is at t open to being in a positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship with S at t.
(6) Necessarily, if for any capable finite person S and time t, God is at t open to being in a positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship with S at t, then, for any capable finite person S and time t, it is not the case that S is at t nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
(7) There is at least one capable finite person S and time t such that S is or was at t nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
(8) So, it is not the case that God exists. (from 4 through 7)

- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/

So, maybe not a slam dunk, but a plausible enough idea (imo). I don't think many people would say that by itself the argument from divine hiddenness constitutes conclusive disproof of the existence of God or anything like that, but I would argue that it adds to the cumulative case for atheism, since the existence of non-resistant non-believers (not to mention the strong correlation between geographical location and cultural situation with particular religious belief) is better and more naturally explained by atheism/naturalism than by theism.

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. — Banno

And how can one know what it's like to be ignorant if they have always known everything? It's a paradox.

Which is why I don't personally like to personify the three Omnis. The omni God from my perspective is a conscious universe. Not a person. The confusion lies in referring to an entity that is conscious but not us. It naturally tends to devolve into anthropomorphism. And we end up getting all the paradoxes and contradictions that come with a three omni god that is a person. Which is absurd.

It is possible to conceive of a consciousness that doesn't think in the same way that we do. But by discussing it we merely inject it with more human tropes. The best device we have so far is elucidating the laws of physics and figuring out what that tells us about how tu universe operates (thinks).

And no I'm not saying that a rock is conscious or a clump of metal.
I imagine that the consciousness operates as a system on such a vast magnitude of time and space that its virtually impossible to see anything we typically associate with consciousness in it, because we are totally biased towards our own version of it, and we are so brief and reactive and densely packed complexity within the vast universe.

:up:

And how can one know what it's like to be ignorant if they have always known everything? It's a paradox. — Benj96

Hence omniscience is a nonsense.

It is possible to conceive of a consciousness that doesn't think in the same way that we do. — Benj96

...and take your argument off on a holiday from reason.

If you are able to recognise that what you have before you is a mind, then it can't be thinking in a way thats so very different to how you think. It must be problem-solving, for example...

But god cannot have any problems... 'cause then he would no be god.

I imagine that the consciousness operates as a system on such a vast magnitude of time and space that its virtually impossible to see anything we typically associate with consciousness in it, because we are totally biased towards our own version of it, and we are so brief and reactive and densely packed complexity within the vast universe. — Benj96

...virtually impossible...

So can you recognise it as a mind, or not? If you can, then it has stuff in common with the minds with which we are familiar; and if you can't , then by that very fact you cannot conclude that it is a mind.

God get's hoisted on his own... omniscience.

So can you recognise it as a mind, or not? If you can, then it has stuff in common with the minds with which we are familiar; and if you can't , then by that very fact you cannot conclude that it is a mind. — Banno

Yes it has loads in common with our own minds. The laws of chemistry, physics etc. Our minds aren't just some magically conjured up thing outside of the purview of existence, they come directly out of human evolution, which came out of biogenesis, which came out of prebiotic organic chemistry and so on regressing back systematically into the systems set up universally.

....so which is it? Is god's mind beyond our understanding, and hence not recognisably a mind, putting an end to the notion that we were made in his image? Or is god not omniscient?

Or is the notion of god am amalgam that cannot be made coherent?

Can human minds do theology, or not?

so which is it? Is god's mind beyond our understanding, and hence not recognisably a mind, putting an end to the notion that we were made in his image? Or is god not omniscient? — Banno

Strewth! This is all beginning to read like footnotes to the ineffable thread... :razz:

I was thinking the same thing. On the map of language this is the bit around the edges, marked "here be dragons".

Nice.

Nuh. Trite. Hackneyed. A bit lazy.

What remains is that much of philosophical discourse has a common error, so it turns up again and again in different areas.

I know we could all go read Austin, Searle, etc - but I have often thought it would be interesting to have some short essays posted on this site by members outlining a particular and common philosophical problem and the proposed way out. Just an overview or prompt, not a definitive answer.

Subjects might include this one, but also idealism, Stove's gem, science and the 'view from nowhere', quantum BS - you know the kind of thing. The threads themselves become so cluttered and desultory.

:wink: The OP's to each of my threads serve just such a purpose... Now if folk would just stop disagreeing with them...

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. — 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. — Banno

I can but 'ditto' Banno's responses. If you are omniscient then you have no purpose and I cannot perceive why such would have a desire to create and observe the scurryings of creatures such as humans.

, SO wanna coauthor a book?

I remain a tad mystified that issues straight out of medieval scholasticism keep cropping up. Especially when serious and worthwhile efforts are being devoted to untangle the conundrum of "ineffable". :chin:

The OP's to each of my threads serve just such a purpose... Now if folk would just stop disagreeing with them... — Banno

Ha! Yes, people are disappointing. I certainly appreciate how you lay out ideas and pose questions for us to work through. It's interesting how quickly people are affronted by this.

SO wanna coauthor a book? — Banno

Appreciate the invite, but I fear the only role I can play in an enterprise like this is as patsy to Socrates

t I fear the only role I can play in an enterprise like this is as patsy to Socrates — Tom Storm

Me too. So we need to find a Socrates...

SO wanna coauthor a book? — Banno

Fictional, biblical or scientific?

Biblical. Or at least on a biblical scale. Life , the Universe and Everything.

I think 'the bible,' literally translates to 'the book.'
So, yeah, its about time 'the book' or 'thee book,' was reconsidered in the West.

So if things don't make sense they can never make sense? People who want to believe in God already believe in God. There is not always a great rush about it, especially if other areas of life have your attention