Divine Hiddeness 2.0

I like Bones argument more, tho actually, problem of evil has bunch of solutions,

Argument from Divine hiddeness =/= problem of evil.

"Perfectly loving" refers to a love that is pure, flawless, and intrinsically unselfish; omnibenevolent

SkepticalOne wrote:

If God exists, He is perfectly loving.

If a perfectly loving God exists, He would desire a personal relationship with every individual capable of such a relationship.

If God exists and is perfectly loving, He would ensure that all non-resistant individuals believe in Him.

There are non-resistant individuals who do not believe in God.

Therefore, a perfectly loving God does not exist.

This is still just the flip side of the Ontological Argument, the Ontological Argument tries to "define" God into existence, the Divine Hiddenness Argument tries to "define" God out of existence.

Neither semantic parlor game is logically valid. Just because one can create the definition of a concept in their mind, it does not mean that concept has an objective correlate in reality.

This is still just the flip side of the Ontological Argument, the Ontological Argument tries to "define" God into existence, the Divine Hiddenness Argument tries to "define" God out of existence.

I am certain folks arguing "God is love" are not trying to define their god out of existence.

SkepticalOne wrote:

This is still just the flip side of the Ontological Argument, the Ontological Argument tries to "define" God into existence, the Divine Hiddenness Argument tries to "define" God out of existence.

I am certain folks arguing "God is love" are not trying to define their god out of existence.

That's a non-sequitur and a nonsense statement.

That's a non-sequitur and a nonsense statement.

Not at all. It nullifies the claim that no one believes in a perfectly loving god and OP is trying to 'define god out of existence'.

SkepticalOne wrote:

That's a non-sequitur and a nonsense statement.

Not at all. It nullifies the claim that no one believes in a perfectly loving god and OP is trying to 'define god out of existence'.

Oh, so it's one of those magical nonsense statements, like an incantation that creates logic out of thin air?

Cool, please explain how that works.

Sidewalker wrote:

SkepticalOne wrote:

That's a non-sequitur and a nonsense statement.

Not at all. It nullifies the claim that no one believes in a perfectly loving god and OP is trying to 'define god out of existence'.

Oh, so it's one of those magical nonsense statements, like an incantation that creates logic out of thin air?

Cool, please explain how that works.

You claimed no one believes in a god like in the OP. You were presented with an obvious undeniable group of believers in such a god. What's the issue?

SkepticalOne wrote:

You claimed no one believes in a god like in the OP. You were presented with an obvious undeniable group of believers in such a god. What's the issue?

It's one thing to have people not understand what you wrote, it's something completely different that you don't understand what you wrote.

I tried to be clear when I claimed that, let me try to dumb it down far enough for you to understand.

The God of the OP "would ensure that all non-resistant individuals believe in Him".

As far as I know, there are no people that believe that God has ensured that everyone believes in him.

You claim a loving God would create people without free will, I don't know of any believer that thinks that is an attribute of God.

Yes, there are people who argue that God is love, please explain why they would be making an argument if they thought that everyone believed in God.

Also, please explain why people who argue that "God is love" don't believe that God would want people to have free will?

I must tell you, I think your ideas about love are pretty fucking creepy.

I mean, sure, every once in a while, you do read about someone who thinks the person they love should not be able to choose to not love them back, but the main reason we can read their story is because it has been discovered that they have a woman tied up in the basement, or buried in the back yard, something like that.

I don't think you know anything about the subject matter of your post. There's only about a million books about comparative religion and/or theism, maybe you could read one, you know, to find out what theists actually believe.

It doesnt help to summarize the thread absent responses to your arguments. Ive explained why your understanding is mistaken. Knowledge of existence doesnt thwart free will. If it did, then ...no one tell the Christians what Jesus did to them! 😉

SkepticalOne wrote:

It doesnt help to summarize the thread absent responses to your arguments. Ive explained why your understanding is mistaken. Knowledge of existence doesnt thwart free will. If it did, then ...no one tell the Christians what Jesus did to them! 😉

"Just because she's tied up in the basement, doesn't mean she doesn't love me" - RemyBrown

Sidewalker wrote:

SkepticalOne wrote:

It doesnt help to summarize the thread absent responses to your arguments. Ive explained why your understanding is mistaken. Knowledge of existence doesnt thwart free will. If it did, then ...no one tell the Christians what Jesus did to them! 😉

"Just because she's tied up in the basement, doesn't mean she doesn't love me" - RemyBrown

Deflection.

SkepticalOne wrote:

Sidewalker wrote:

SkepticalOne wrote:

It doesnt help to summarize the thread absent responses to your arguments. Ive explained why your understanding is mistaken. Knowledge of existence doesnt thwart free will. If it did, then ...no one tell the Christians what Jesus did to them! 😉

"Just because she's tied up in the basement, doesn't mean she doesn't love me" - RemyBrown

Deflection.

You are an atheist that knows the mind of God, no point in arguing with that.

You're really good at that logic thing LOL.

Jesus revealed the mind of God and his love for humanity. His sacrifice shows the extent of his love.