So why doesn't God write in the sky?

[catholic1seeks]

I hope most of you understood what I mean by that question.

A common objection to the Christian faith is *if God loves us so much, why doesn’t He just tell us he exists? * Why doesn’t he just write in the sky “I exist?”

This is a very serious objection. If God would personally appear to us all, then it would be much easier to believe in him and follow his will.

Some will say that this, in some way, would negate free will.

But the angels knew God existed, and yet they still had a choice to rebel.

So why doesn’t God reveal to us all that he truly exists, and that Christianity is true?

Even though the Apostles suffered much for their faith, they at least had assurance that God exists. They themselves saw the Resurrected body of Jesus! So why can’t we all have this personal experience, that way there wouldn’t be any atheists? I don’t mean to sound grumpy or arrogant when I say this.

I just wish we could all have assurance like they did.

So why doesn’t God just “write in the sky”?

NOTE: This question originally popped up in my mind as an emotional response while watching a Christian vs. Atheist debate (Dinesh D’Souza v. John Loftus to be specific). While I was watching, I just thought to myself: This atheist sounds pretty sincere to me, as I’m sure most are. I felt sad for him and all of the unbelievers out there. We all want to know the truth. Why do you think God doesn’t tell us the truth in the way I described?

 

[R_Daneel]

I hope most of you understood what I mean by that question.

It is a hard question, and I don’t think that there is an answer to it. For atheists the answer is simple: “because God does not exist”. But for believers this is not an answer.

We would all be better off if there would be a clear, unmistakable sign that God exists. There would be no theists, no atheists, there would only be worshippers and “rejectors” (if there is such a word). It would even be bettter if we had a definitive set of requirements of the do’s and the don’t’s that God expects us to do (or avoid). In that case, it would truly be correct to say that if one does not wish to worship God, or does not wish to be with him, then God would respect his will and leave to whatever fate he chooses - especially if that “fate” would also be known beforehand.

The currently existing argument that those who are condemned to hell (if there is such a “place”) choose to go there is so dumb, that it is mindboggling. As if anyone would “choose” to be tormented knowingly(!) till the “end” of eternity. As if there could be an “intelligent” choice if neither of the options are spelled out.

You are right, such a knowledge would not “rob” us of our freedom of how to relate to God. We would still be free to accept or reject him. As it is today, we do not have that freedom. All we have is the assertions of some humans, who are exactly as blind as everyone else, except they don’t admit it. They assert with ironclad certainty that they “know” that God exists, they “know” what God wants. As if anyone could “know” that. (Of course they also assert that finite beings cannot even start to understand God. Doublethink at it best.)

The truth is that for me the clearest, most obvious sign that there is no God is the fact that he does not come down and does not kick the living… (ahem) daylight from those who spread such vicious rumors about him. (Figuratively speaking, of course.)

 

[buffalo]

He does. Go outside and find something created by man.

 

[R_Daneel]

I can recommend a great short story about this question, written by Stanislaw Lem in his book: “A perfect vacuum”. The title of the story is “Non Serviam”, and it is less than 20 pages long. The story answers this question from God’ perspective. I am sure it can be found in the library.

 

[DavidKays]

I hope most of you understood what I mean by that question.

A common objection to the Christian faith is *if God loves us so much, why doesn’t He just tell us he exists? * Why doesn’t he just write in the sky “I exist?”

This is a very serious objection. If God would personally appear to us all, then it would be much easier to believe in him and follow his will.

Some will say that this, in some way, would negate free will.

But the angels knew God existed, and yet they still had a choice to rebel.

So why doesn’t God reveal to us all that he truly exists, and that Christianity is true?

Even though the Apostles suffered much for their faith, they at least had assurance that God exists. They themselves saw the Resurrected body of Jesus! So why can’t we all have this personal experience, that way there wouldn’t be any atheists? I don’t mean to sound grumpy or arrogant when I say this.

I just wish we could all have assurance like they did.

So why doesn’t God just “write in the sky”?

NOTE: This question originally popped up in my mind as an emotional response while watching a Christian vs. Atheist debate (Dinesh D’Souza v. John Loftus to be specific). While I was watching, I just thought to myself: This atheist sounds pretty sincere to me, as I’m sure most are. I felt sad for him and all of the unbelievers out there. We all want to know the truth. Why do you think God doesn’t tell us the truth in the way I described?

Probably because God needs faith and trust before He can reveal Himself. Faith and trust are the most important ingrediant when you have this relationship with Him. Jesus Himself testify to that when He said " Blessed are they who believe and yet have not seen! " Faith or trust is vital in your relationship with God. By the way your title " write in the sky " is interesting. Do you read the Diary of St.Maria Faustina? I have and in the book the Divine Mercy Saint wrote a passage that Jesus will soon " write in the sky. " Let me quote the words of Jesus when He addressed them to St.Maria. " Write this: before I come as the Just Judge, I am coming first as the King of Mercy. Before the day of justice arrives, there will be given to people a sign in the heavens of this sort: All light in the heavens will be extinguished, and there will be great darkness over the whole earth. Then the sign of the cross will be seen in the sky, and from the openings where the hands and the feet of the Saviour were nailed will come forth great lights which will light up the earth for a period of time. This will take place shortly before the last day." Jesus promised in the Gospels there will be great signs in the heavens. So here is your " write in the sky " that you are looking for! It might come soon because of the times we are in. Your atheist will certainly have something to talk about! God Bless! oh yes remember the words of the movie the Song of Bernadette. If you believe no explanation is necessary. To those who do not believe no explanation is suffecient.

 

[Stylites]

. . . This atheist sounds pretty sincere to me, as I’m sure most are. I felt sad for him and all of the unbelievers out there. We all want to know the truth. Why do you think God doesn’t tell us the truth in the way I described?

But He does. Anyone who sincerely seeks the truth will be sought out by the Truth.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

A common objection to the Christian faith is *if God loves us so much, why doesn’t He just tell us he exists? * Why doesn’t he just write in the sky “I exist?”

It’s funny, everytime I look at the sky, especially about a half hour before dusk with all those colors swirling across the sky, I am reminded of the grandeur of God’s creation. Maybe he does write in the sky “I exist”

 

[lizaanne]

*if God loves us so much, why doesn’t He just tell us he exists? *

He has told us - in every face we see, in every voice we hear, in every hand we hold. WE ARE His message of creation, He created us because He loves us. It is the fault of those who do not see what is right in front of their eyes, not the fault of God that his message is not being heard. Why should God have to speak louder when so many simply cover their ears?

Why doesn’t he just write in the sky “I exist?”

His pen ran out?

~Liza

 

[DavidKays]

Actually the correct words to the movie " The Song of Bernadette " are this and I will quote, " For those who believe in God, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe in God, no expanation is possible. God Bless!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If God would personally appear to us all, then it would be much easier to believe in him and follow his will.

Some will say that this, in some way, would negate free will.

But the angels knew God existed, and yet they still had a choice to rebel.

So why doesn’t God reveal to us all that he truly exists, and that Christianity is true?

Would the world be a better place if He did? Undeniably, the world would be happier, more just, less confusing, etc. But would it be better?

If you had to be a character in a book, which character would you choose? Would you choose a happy, fulfilled, and utterly boring character, or a passionate, restless, and dynamic character? What if I told you that the restless character would eventually find rest? Then who would you choose?

God is just, but He isn’t merely just. A merely just world would be dull and lifeless. A crowd of millions of people worshipping before the throne of God would be simply a computer program, if the love of God were merely rational.

God appreciates beauty, and there is nothing more beautiful than a man or a woman – confused and suffering and at a loss – choosing to affirm the meaningfulness of his life, choosing to love God, though the way be hard. This would not be possible if we were not capable of doubt.

Without doubt, there is no faith. Without faith, there is no love. Thus, we should bless the God who made us capable of doubt.

Good question, by the way!

 

[R_Daneel]

Would the world be a better place if He did? Undeniably, the world would be happier, more just, less confusing, etc. But would it be better?

If you had to be a character in a book, which character would you choose? Would you choose a happy, fulfilled, and utterly boring character, or a passionate, restless, and dynamic character? What if I told you that the restless character would eventually find rest? Then who would you choose?

God is just, but He isn’t merely just. A merely just world would be dull and lifeless. A crowd of millions of people worshipping before the throne of God would be simply a computer program, if the love of God were merely rational.

God appreciates beauty, and there is nothing more beautiful than a man or a woman – confused and suffering and at a loss – choosing to affirm the meaningfulness of his life, choosing to love God, though the way be hard. This would not be possible if we were not capable of doubt.

Without doubt, there is no faith. Without faith, there is no love. Thus, we should bless the God who made us capable of doubt.

Good question, by the way!

Didn’t you just describe heaven? No faith, no doubt, no love, only worship?

But you are wrong. Even if we knew that God exists, we still could choose to worship or not. If I knew, really knew that God exists, and he would only offer those lame excuses as the posters around here do (when asked about the problem of suffering) then I certainly would not worship him. I would not “rebel”, since rebelling against an all-powerful being is futile and irrational. But I certainly would not “worship” him.

 

[tonyrey]

Why do you think the sky is blue? Colours are luxuries because they are not necessary for survival. The beauty of nature is ample evidence of the power and goodness of the Creator.

“None are so blind as those will not see”. The crude demand for writing in the sky reveals a superficial mentality which expects to have everything served up so that no effort is required on our part: instant coffee, instant photos, instant proof that God exists. It is a precise contradiction of the teaching of Jesus:

“Seek and you shall find…”

 

[Windfish]

Because God isn’t the Godfather. He makes us an offer we CAN refuse. But I don’t know why anyone refuses it. 2 + 2 = 4. No one is defiant and says that the sum equals 3. We are naturally bound by the truth.

youtube.com/watch?v=qbg_dhI4XCs

Catholicism (i.e., Christianity) is true. The man in the video was an atheist, a neuroscientist until God “wrote in the sky” for him. Seriously, it’s a no brainer.

 

[jmcrae]

I hope most of you understood what I mean by that question.

A common objection to the Christian faith is *if God loves us so much, why doesn’t He just tell us he exists? * Why doesn’t he just write in the sky “I exist?”

God actually does do this sort of thing, and quite frequently. The problem is, either the atheists don’t really want an answer to the question, and so don’t ask God for a clear sign, or else they ignore the sign when it appears, and dismiss it as “mere coincidence.”

For example, I knew a man who, when he was a questioner, said to God, “Send me a sign that you exist,” and a few moments later (this was in the early 1970s) a hippie came around the corner carrying a placard that said, “God exists.”

Someone determined to remain an atheist would have simply dismissed it as a coincidence, but my friend was willing to believe, and so he decided to believe that God had sent him a sign, just as he had requested.

This is a very serious objection. If God would personally appear to us all, then it would be much easier to believe in him and follow his will.

Ask and ye shall receive. The sort of thing that happened to my friend is actually quite common. Most believers can tell you of incidents very similar to that in their lives, when they were experiencing doubts in their faith. But it’s a very personal thing. No atheist reading along in this thread is going to suddenly become convinced by what happened to my friend - they will dismiss it as being a made-up story, or else say, “Well, hippies were very common in those days, and the chances of a hippie coming around the corner with a sign proclaiming the existence of God were actually pretty good. It was just a coincidence.”

But if they ask for their own sign, God will surely send them one.

 

[fhansen]

The gospel of John says that the light entered the world and was not recognized. Eventually I suppose a light as strong as Jesus could not be overlooked. His perfection, His deity, would have to overflow. Justice would need to be done; good and evil could not co-exist in His presence forever.

But instead He dropped in for awhile, leaving a mark on the world which has remained for us to be influenced by and argue over for more that 2 millennia. He changed the world in some way. He claimed that God is Love, and demonstrated it by His own compassion, most dramatically in the ultimate act of love of laying down His life, and proved the promises He made by solving “the problem of death” for us by the resurrection. Before He left to “hide” Himself again, He made an enigmatic statement; that He must leave in order for man to be convicted of guilt.

The light is here now in this world. The message has been disseminated-that God is love and love is the standard we’ll be judged by. We can choose love and reject darkness or not. If evil’s an illusion, if evil, perpetrated by man, did not exist in this world, then there’d be no guilt for man to be convicted of-there’d be no darkness to embrace or reject.

When man first sinned, the act was an act of rejection of God, as God. And once this was done, faith is lost-it died in mans heart. The CCC teaches that man prefers it this way, prefers himself to God. We want to seek our happiness-our life- outside of Him. We’re the gods of this world, and here, in this self-imposed exile from God, we get to find out how well we’ll do playing God-and how we like living in a world effectively cut off from Him, where man’s will reigns. But there’d be no such exile-no test- if God revealed Himself in so definitive a manner that His existence could not be missed.

Here we can pretend for awhile that there is no God.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Didn’t you just describe heaven? No faith, no doubt, no love, only worship?

I said above that “A crowd of millions of people worshipping before the throne of God would be simply a computer program, if the love of God were merely rational.” This is because heaven is a fruit of earthly love. But without the earthly love, heaven would just be empty and meaningless.

A comparison: on a wedding night – in traditional cultures at least – the bride and groom had spent a LOOOONG time waiting to express their love physically. Thus, a moment which – stripped of anticipation and hormones and passion – might have been simply “having sex” becomes one of the most powerful and fulfilling moments of their lives. You will agree, I’m sure, that waiting and suffering for a time can sweeten earthly delights. So why not heavenly delights to?

But you are wrong. Even if we knew that God exists, we still could choose to worship or not. If I knew, really knew that God exists, and he would only offer those lame excuses as the posters around here do (when asked about the problem of suffering) then I certainly would not worship him. I would not “rebel”, since rebelling against an all-powerful being is futile and irrational. But I certainly would not “worship” him.

Well, if we knew for certain that God exists, then the suffering would not be necessary. And I will agree that anyone who says they know for certain that the Christian God exists is probably either confused or lying (or perhaps they have terribly low standards of certainty). But people can have a justified belief in God; which, if God actually exists, philosophers would tend to label as “knowledge”.

Suffering provokes doubt. You surely cannot deny that! And, as I said, doubt is necessary to faith.

Another problem here: **how, exactly, could God let us know beyond a shadow of a doubt that He exists? **You tell me that the fact that the sun and moon line up for a perfect eclipse – that they are precisely the right size for that! – is a coincidence of chance. Couldn’t you tell me that chance could account for the writing on the sky, too? In the tradition of Hume, most atheists say that evidence of God is absolutely impossible. Well then, how can you complain that He doesn’t reveal Himself?

(I don’t say that you follow Hume on that last point, Daneel. I rather hope that you do not).

 

[Windfish]

And I will agree that anyone who says they know for certain that the Christian God exists is probably either confused or lying (or perhaps they have terribly low standards of certainty).

Well, there are different kinds of certainty because there are different kinds of proofs. There is a difference between a scientific proof and a legal proof, for instance. From a certain standard of proof, we can be certain that God exists. Now, in saying from a “certain standard of proof,” I am not lowering my standards, I am just acknowledging that God, in principle, cannot be directly proven. In principle, evidence/rational/proof for Him could only ever point to Him but not quite touch Him. That said, we can get pretty darn close, like a limit in Calculus. For instance, take a look at the video I posted earlier. If the claim in the video is true (and it looks like it is), than Catholicism is true. And while that doesn’t prove God directly, per se, it sure does point to him with big, huge neon Vegas-style arrows.

 

[abucs]

God says in the Old Testament that in the future he will write not in the sky but in people’s hearts.

“This is the new covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

No longer will a man teach his neighbor, 
   or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' 
   because they will all know me, 
   from the least of them to the greatest," 
   declares the LORD. 
   "For I will forgive their wickedness 
   and will remember their sins no more."

Christians of course think that God has already revealed Himself in the person and lesson of the Christ with the new Covenant of Christianity and the forgivesness of sins through the perfect sacrifice of Jesus. And the lesson was for us to come to God and be like Him.

I think the answer can be found by considering what God might want rather than what we might want.

If God was again to publicly and physically say ‘here I am’ what would happen?

Would He stay physically with us and still give us choice? How could that work?

If He did then there would still be violence and sin.

In such an environment there may well be a strong movement condemning God for allowing this and not giving us ‘what we want.’

I think God prefers to work with what is real - emotions/spirituality/what is in the heart, while allowing for individual freedoms in our physical world.

From the perspective of God in eternity, the relatively few years we spend on Earth subject to the fruits of our fellow man might be the most important lesson we will ever learn.

 

[R_Daneel]

I said above that “A crowd of millions of people worshipping before the throne of God would be simply a computer program, if the love of God were merely rational.” This is because heaven is a fruit of earthly love. But without the earthly love, heaven would just be empty and meaningless.

A comparison: on a wedding night – in traditional cultures at least – the bride and groom had spent a LOOOONG time waiting to express their love physically. Thus, a moment which – stripped of anticipation and hormones and passion – might have been simply “having sex” becomes one of the most powerful and fulfilling moments of their lives. You will agree, I’m sure, that waiting and suffering for a time can sweeten earthly delights. So why not heavenly delights to?

What does the length of the waiting have to with anything? But I agree to a certain point. If you would keep on beating your thumb with a hammer, it would feel very good when you stop it. Yet, somehow people don’t do it. So would be to starve almost to death, and then be presented with a meal. These are clearly examples of relative “good”. (Something becomes “good” because the “bad” stopped.) I do not agree that suffering first and get a relief later is preferable to be well-fed and healthy all the time. In other words “absolute” good trumps “relative” good. (We may not call it “good”, without a reference point, that is true.)

Of course we rationalize things and come up with such ideas. These rationalizations are necessary to reconcile the pain and suffering which are inexplicable when one assumes a loving God.

Well, if we knew for certain that God exists, then the suffering would not be necessary. And I will agree that anyone who says they know for certain that the Christian God exists is probably either confused or lying (or perhaps they have terribly low standards of certainty). But people can have a justified belief in God; which, if God actually exists, philosophers would tend to label as “knowledge”.

When does a belief become justified is strictly personal. The same sign may be sufficient for one and insufficient to others.

Suffering provokes doubt. You surely cannot deny that! And, as I said, doubt is necessary to faith.

That just postpones the question. What is so wonderful about faith? Give me certainty any day so that faith would not be necessary.

Another problem here: **how, exactly, could God let us know beyond a shadow of a doubt that He exists? **You tell me that the fact that the sun and moon line up for a perfect eclipse – that they are precisely the right size for that! – is a coincidence of chance. Couldn’t you tell me that chance could account for the writing on the sky, too? In the tradition of Hume, most atheists say that evidence of God is absolutely impossible. Well then, how can you complain that He doesn’t reveal Himself?

(I don’t say that you follow Hume on that last point, Daneel. I rather hope that you do not).

I disagree with Hume. When one must choose between accepting an undeniable evidence and one’s own sanity, everyone will accept the evidence. We can doubt many things. But there is always a limit to incredulity. When the evidence becomes overwhelming, one must accept it. Sufficient evidence is in the eyes of the beholder. But God is all-knowing and so he would know just what sign is sufficient for someone. Of course personal signs are not what the OP was all about. It asked about public signs, which cannot be chalked up to personal delusions.

 

[Nan_S]

If God were to float a disembodied hand in the sky and write, “I exist!” and you were already a doubter, you would not believe the words were written by God. You would publicly sneer about gullible fools and explain that it was obvious the words were written by Jedis or Vulcans or were a just an unusual display of the Aurora Borealis.

That’s why.

And if great miracles were to suddenly occur all over the earth immediately afterwards and you were already a doubter, you would not believe the miracles were performed by God. You would go on FOX News or CNN and announce that Jedis or Vulcans or high-intensity cosmic rays did it, and you would quote Isaac Asimov saying, “Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic.”

That’s why.

Furthermore, if God were to suddenly appear bodily in all heavenly glory for everyone to see, unleashing the four horsemen of the apocalypse, and you were already a doubter, you would host news conferences and public rallies and announce that this is what Klingons or Sith or other malicious extra-terrestrial aliens really look like. And having called God’s actions unleashing the Last Judgment “evil” you would demand that the federal governments of the world launch a military assault to defend us against these evil aliens.

That’s why.

In short, if you have already decided to deny the existence of God, there is absolutely no amount of physical proof which God could present that would persuade you. Whatever God presented you would attribute to some other cause, and you would steadfastly proclaim all these proofs of the existence of God to be “insufficient.”

That’s why.

Luke 16:31 ‘If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.’