MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6964024495 · doi:10.22054/wph.2023.70736.2121

Evaluating the Assent Principles of the “Divine Hiddenness Argument”, in Schellenberg's Thought

2023· article· en· W6964024495 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueTheology and Philosophy of Evil
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésArgument (complex analysis)PresuppositionPerspective (graphical)NormativeTheismOntological argument

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction"Divine Hiddenness Argument" is one of the arguments against the existence of God, which has attracted the attention of some religious philosophers in the contemporary era. The introducers of this argument, by referring to some important attributes of the God of monotheistic religions, and the requirements and consequences of accepting these attributes in human life, especially His complete and absolute love for His creatures, try to convince that the real world is devoid of the existence of God, or at least make the possibility of His non-existence appear weaker than the possibility of His existence.John L. Schellenberg, the Canadian philosopher, has tried to present this matter in the form of various logical arguments in his works, and in his opinion, has tried to make it appear as complete proof against the existence of God. On the other hand, a range of theistic thinkers and philosophers have tried to criticize this argument and show its inadequacy in proving the non-existence of God. This argument is based on the concept and assent principles, whose discussion and analysis will be helpful in the correct understanding of the argument, and the continuation of its criticism.Although in the works that criticized Schellenberg's “Divine Hiddenness Argument”, useful information about the principles and presuppositions of Schellenberg's argument has been stated, and we have also taken advantage of this information, none of them have discussed this argument from the perspective of assent principles and they have not examined and corrected. In this paper, we are going to investigate Schellenberg's “Divine Hiddenness Argument”.Principles are the contents and materials on which the problems of science are based, and they can be divided into two parts: concepts and assents. Assent principles refer to propositions that come as an introduction to the arguments and analogies used in a science, and to prove the problems and rules of that science. These propositions are also of two categories: some of them are self-evident, and therefore, do not need proof; while some others are theoretical and need proof, and of course this is done in another science other than assent principles.The type of assent principles are confirmation and they are propositional and indicate the assent of existence, the truth and reality of propositions, and the issues and subjects of science; in other words, assent principles are issues and reasons that lead to the acceptance of the existence predicables of science problems. In this research, by examining Schellenberg's works, we have tried to extract the assent principles of his interpretations of the “Divine Hiddenness Argument”. Literature ReviewAccording to the search of valid and indexed scientific documents in scientific sites, so far eight scientific-research articles and two books have been written about the “Divine Hiddenness Argument”. In all of them, the authors have either taken steps in the direction of presenting the “Divine Hiddenness Argument”, or they have mentioned the presuppositions of Schellenberg's argument, but as we will indicate in our research, the assent principles of this argument have not been mentioned by those authors; it is why referring to these principles is considered as the originality of this research, although some researchers have indirectly referred to these principles in their works. MethodologyThis paper using a descriptive-analytical method, refers to the assent principles of Schellenberg's argument and analyzes them. In the analysis, data is collected from Western and Islamic sources, and rational and descriptive-analytical analysis is used (If necessary). ResultsBy examining Schellenberg's works, one can find four assent principles for his argument: 1. the involuntary nature of the belief formation process in humans; 2. God's finality, His incomparability, unsurpassable, and inaccessibility; 3. Ultimism theory; 4. Human free will. The explanation of these matters, along with considerations based on them, will be presented in this research.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,012
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,013
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,093

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0120,026
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,027
Communication savante0,0070,010
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,542
Tête enseignante GPT0,570
Écart entre enseignants0,028 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Même sujetTheology and Philosophy of EvilTravaux en français237 207