The burden of proof is on believers to prove God exists (according to atheist philosphers)

[levinas12]

Actually, it is a reasoned position that derives from the doctrine of divine simplicity.

It is also a basic tenet of Christianity in a generic, non-denominational, sense.

The question of divine immutability immediately makes me think of “process theology”.

I have to say that “process theology”, whether you agree with it or not, does open up an interesting discussion about God’s “interaction” with this world (creation, incarnation and redemption). I think we see this happening in this thread whether the term “process theology” is explicitly invoked or not.

Clearly, Aristotle’s impassible god is not the Christian God. So can we still use Aristotle’s metaphysics to explicate the Christian God?

Again, I’m not advocating for “process theology” - in fact, I think the god in “process theology” is too “weak”. But there may be wiggle room with respect to God’s impassibility. Maybe there’s impassibility subscript 1 and impassibility subscript 2 - with subscript 2 closer to the Christian God.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The question of divine immutability immediately makes me think of the controversies surrounding “process theology”.

Can you explain or provide how you made the connection?

It would seem to me that Feser, Aquinas, Augustine, Boethius, the Church Fathers, and classic theists, in general, are correct on this point. If God is indeed the ground of all being, the One from whom all things come, then God has to be the Ultimate Being, Truth and Principle upon which every truth, every being, and every principle, rule or law must be grounded.

The classical theists would have to be correct that God cannot be “composed” or dependent upon some other truth upon which his “composition” depends. Aquinas was very clear about this. He would have to be impassible in the sense that he could not be changed by any dependency outside of his own being and nature – and those, as Feser points out would not be “attributes” of God in the sense of his being composed of them. God simply “is His existence which is His essence which is His power which is His knowledge which is His goodness.” He is Goodness Itself, Being Itself, Truth Itself, etc.

 

[levinas12]

Any discussion of divine impassibility has to confront the reality of Jesus.

Jesus is “one Person”, a divine “Person” - and this Person suffered.

So how do we account for this in terms of divine impassibility?

We must be able to “reconcile” Jesus’ divine nature with His human nature here.

And, in doing so, we must address the question of the impassibility of the Father and the Holy Spirit. If Jesus is the visibility of the Father, and Jesus suffers, does not the Father also suffer? Likewise, what does it mean to say that the Holy Spirit is “grieved”?

 

[levinas12]

Can you explain or provide how you made the connection?

It would seem to me that Feser, Aquinas, Augustine, Boethius, the Church Fathers, and classic theists, in general, are correct on this point. If God is indeed the ground of all being, the One from whom all things come, then God has to be the Ultimate Being, Truth and Principle upon which every truth, every being, and every principle, rule or law must be grounded.

The classical theists would have to be correct that God cannot be “composed” or dependent upon some other truth upon which his “composition” depends. Aquinas was very clear about this. He would have to be impassible in the sense that he could not be changed by any dependency outside of his own being and nature – and those, as Feser points out would not be “attributes” of God in the sense of his being composed of them. God simply “is His existence which is His essence which is His power which is His knowledge which is His goodness.” He is Goodness Itself, Being Itself, Truth Itself, etc.

I invoked “process theology” because it attributes change to God. Some postings on this thread seem to be moving in that direction although they do not explicitly mention “process theology”. Whether “process theology” is adequate is another question.

But I think that Greek metaphysics may not be entirely adequate either. Clearly, Aristotle’s god, who has no concern for or awareness of this world, is not the Christian God.

 

[levinas12]

God simply "is His existence which is His essence …

I don’t think Aristotle would understand the “ipsum esse” … and so I don’t think Aristotelian metaphysics is entirely adequate for Christian theology …

 

[levinas12]

I am reading two books, “Does God Change” and “Does God Suffer”, both by Fr. Thomas Weinandy who is a Roman Catholic theologian in good standing with the Vatican. He argues in favor of divine impassibility - but does consider the objections.

 

[inocente]

Actually, it is a reasoned position that derives from the doctrine of divine simplicity.

It is also a basic tenet of Christianity in a generic, non-denominational, sense.

christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/qt/biblefactsgod.htm

The doctrine of divine simplicity is itself controversial according to this IEP article, which also questions simple definitions like those in your link.

Imho philosophers can never prove the God they claim because to do so they have to define the Undefinable, whereas ordinary believers (of all denominations) make no philosophical claims, as per 1 Cor 1.

 

[tonyrey]

Any discussion of divine impassibility has to confront the reality of Jesus.

Jesus is “one Person”, a divine “Person” - and this Person suffered.

So how do we account for this in terms of divine impassibility?

We must be able to “reconcile” Jesus’ divine nature with His human nature here.

And, in doing so, we must address the question of the impassibility of the Father and the Holy Spirit. If Jesus is the visibility of the Father, and Jesus suffers, does not the Father also suffer? Likewise, what does it mean to say that the Holy Spirit is “grieved”?

Jesus suffers as a man but not as God. The Son’s attributes are divine and not altered by the Incarnation. St Thomas pointed out that passion is connected with the appetites and appetites with the body. But God does not have a body, nor does He have appetites. Passions are disturbances but it is not possible for God to be disturbed because He is immutable. Some passions are negative or evil whereas God is positive in every respect:

Whatever one may think of Aquinas’s position, it is a thoughtful one, in that he thinks through the consequences of God being a pure spirit from a number of angles. He is a thousand miles away from the Legoland ‘The God I Want’ approach that is characteristic of so much present-day evangelical (and other) theology.

paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/aquinas-on-divine-impassibility.html

 

[Peter_Plato]

The doctrine of divine simplicity is itself controversial according to this IEP article, which also questions simple definitions like those in your link.

Actually, your conclusion that the doctrine is “controversial” according to the article is a bit of a stretch.

Weigel says, in HIS conclusion:

Assessing the doctrine of divine simplicity is far more complicated than lining up objections and replies. The doctrine’s currents run deep in the history of Western philosophical and religious thought, predating the rise of Jewish and Christian philosophical theology. The doctrine is still regarded by many as an indispensable tenet of classical theism. Simplicity speaks to one’s fundamental understanding of God. Philosophers and theologians will continue to reach widely varying conclusions about simplicity, and the challenges it poses in a variety of areas insure it will continue to receive much attention for the foreseeable future.

That doesn’t make it “controversial” in any legitimate sense of the word, to wit: contentious, disputed, at issue, disputable, debatable, arguable, vexed, or tendentious.

Weigel’s use of “far more complicated” means something akin to “not completely understood, explored or explicated,” more like. Hardly “controversial” in the sense you are pushing.

Weigel would agree that most classical theists still accept the doctrine as something like “an indispensable tenet of classical theism.” If you mean “disputed” or argued by atheists – well okay, maybe. But that hardly makes it “controversial” among theist philosophers.

Imho philosophers can never prove the God they claim because to do so they have to define the Undefinable, whereas ordinary believers (of all denominations) make no philosophical claims, as per 1 Cor 1.

Okay, you have an opinion on the matter.

A lot of “ordinary believers” also believe many things which are directly opposed to things clearly taught by Paul, the Apostles, the early Church, the Church Fathers and the Church today – on abortion, same sex marriage, divorce, artificial contraception, sexual morality and a host of other things. “Ordinary believers” – depending upon how you define that group* – are hardly the body most capable of making judgements about the nature of God or the validity of philosophical claims.

I’ll take a sound philosophical argument any day over what “ordinary believers” are alleged to think.

---

*I am very suspicious of using ill-defined cohorts such as this which is tantamount to using the words “they,” as in “They have shown X to be true,” or “most people,” as in “Most people think X is true.” Thus demonstrating nothing of value whatsoever.

 

[tonyrey]

". . . This estrangement from GOD is not caused by reasoning but by a wish to be detached from HIM. The atheistic orientation of a life is almost always a decision by the will. Man no longer wishes to reflect on his relationship to GOD because he himself intends to become GOD., Atheism is thus a decision to ignore reason, which would bring us back to our CREATOR, . "
Robert Cardinal Sarah in his book GOD or Nothing

Atheist are to be turned over to the HOLY SPIRIT in prayer that HE will in HIS mercy grans t them HIS gifts of wisdom, knowledge and understanding for they chosen have NOT to follow reason.

It is certainly irrational to rule out the existence of God dogmatically as if it is a foregone conclusion that reality is composed **entirely **of material objects such as atomic particles. That conclusion itself would consist entirely of atomic particles capable of understanding themselves!

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, your conclusion that the doctrine is “controversial” according to the article is a bit of a stretch.

Weigel says, in HIS conclusion:

That doesn’t make it “controversial” in any legitimate sense of the word, to wit: contentious, disputed, at issue, disputable, debatable, arguable, vexed, or tendentious.

Weigel’s use of “far more complicated” means something akin to “not completely understood, explored or explicated,” more like. Hardly “controversial” in the sense you are pushing.

Weigel would agree that most classical theists still accept the doctrine as something like “an indispensable tenet of classical theism.” If you mean “disputed” or argued by atheists – well okay, maybe. But that hardly makes it “controversial” among theist philosophers.

Okay, you have an opinion on the matter.

A lot of “ordinary believers” also believe many things which are directly opposed to things clearly taught by Paul, the Apostles, the early Church, the Church Fathers and the Church today – on abortion, same sex marriage, divorce, artificial contraception, sexual morality and a host of other things. “Ordinary believers” – depending upon how you define that group* – are hardly the body most capable of making judgements about the nature of God or the validity of philosophical claims.

I’ll take a sound philosophical argument any day over what “ordinary believers” are alleged to think.

---

*I am very suspicious of using ill-defined cohorts such as this which is tantamount to using the words “they,” as in “They have shown X to be true,” or “most people,” as in “Most people think X is true.” Thus demonstrating nothing of value whatsoever.

For a Christian the words of Jesus are sufficient evidence of divine simplicity:

“The Father and I are one”. John 11:30

 

[tonyrey]

Since the claim or fact that God exists doesn’t ultimately originate from believers but from God himself there is no burden of proof. Only a choice to seek God or not. Those who love God will find him. And those who don’t will not find him. For they will not seek him. Believers can share their testimony of God in their lives for others, to encourage the brethren and help convince the unbeliever. Those who have chosen to ignore the evidence, the testimony of others, and do not seek God, have made their choice. There is no burden to provide proof to them. Only God can help them now. This is why we need to pray for them.

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the rich man suffering agony in his place of punishment wanted to send proof to his brothers. Yet, no proof was given except Moses and the prophets. It was said that if they will not listen to Moses and the prophets they will not listen even if someone should rise from the dead.

Their hearts need to be open to God before they will listen. No proof will convince them. Thus, there is no burden of proof. Burden of proof really means that they are not open to God or anything you have to say. Each person is called by God. Each person receives grace in their lives to respond to him. The question is are we listening to that call or have we made ourselves god and gone our own way?

To reject God outright implies that - as far as we know - we are the most intelligent creators in the universe - which is a highly presumptuous claim considering that it still wouldn’t explain the existence of intelligent creators…

 

[inocente]

Actually, your conclusion that the doctrine is “controversial” according to the article is a bit of a stretch.

Weigel says, in HIS conclusion:

That doesn’t make it “controversial” in any legitimate sense of the word, to wit: contentious, disputed, at issue, disputable, debatable, arguable, vexed, or tendentious.

Weigel’s use of “far more complicated” means something akin to “not completely understood, explored or explicated,” more like. Hardly “controversial” in the sense you are pushing.

Weigel would agree that most classical theists still accept the doctrine as something like “an indispensable tenet of classical theism.” If you mean “disputed” or argued by atheists – well okay, maybe. But that hardly makes it “controversial” among theist philosophers.

Nope, I mean controversial. According to that IEP article, critics of the doctrine of ivine simplicity include Plantinga, Hume, Richard Gale, Christopher Hughes, Anthony Kenny and A. N. Prior. The Wikipedia article adds William Lane Craig, John S. Feinberg and Thomas Morris.

Weigel may clam that it’s an indispensable tenet which detractors misunderstand, but that doesn’t answer all their arguments (and you’ll be overjoyed that Craig uses a possible worlds disproof).

*Okay, you have an opinion on the matter.

A lot of “ordinary believers” also believe many things which are directly opposed to things clearly taught by Paul, the Apostles, the early Church, the Church Fathers and the Church today – on abortion, same sex marriage, divorce, artificial contraception, sexual morality and a host of other things. “Ordinary believers” – depending upon how you define that group** – are hardly the body most capable of making judgements about the nature of God or the validity of philosophical claims.

I’ll take a sound philosophical argument any day over what “ordinary believers” are alleged to think.

Paul didn’t teach all those doctrines, and if some believers don’t accept them all, that doesn’t excuse philosophers who choose to ignore Paul.

You’re arguing directly against Paul by saying ordinary believers are not capable:

‘Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”’ - 1 Cor 1

It is because of God that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God. We don’t need philosophers to define God, as the wisdom to know him comes directly from Christ.

 

[inocente]

For a Christian the words of Jesus are sufficient evidence of divine simplicity:

“The Father and I are one”. John -]11/-] 10:30

By reading the verse out of context, you’ve interpreted it as against the Trinity .

Here’s Charles Ellicott’s commentary:

The last clause of John 10:29 is identical with the last clause of John 10:28 if we identify “Father’s” with “My.” This our Lord now formally does. The last verses have told of power greater than all, and these words are an assertion that in the infinity of All-mighty Power the Son is one with the Father. They are more than this, for the Greek word for “one” is neuter, and the thought is not, therefore, of unity of person, but is of unity of essence. “The Son is of one substance with the Father.” In the plural “are” there is the assertion of distinctness as against Sabellianism, and in the “one” there is the assertion of co-ordination as against Arianism. At recurring periods in the history of exegesis men have tried to establish that these words do not imply more than unity of will between the Father and the Son. We have seen above that they assert both oneness of power and oneness of nature; but the best answer to all attempts to attach any meaning lower than that of the divinity of our Lord to these His words is found here, as in the parallel instance in John 8:58-59, in the conduct of the Jews themselves. To them the words conveyed but one meaning, and they sought to punish by stoning what seemed to them to be blasphemy. Their reason is here given in express words, “because that Thou, being a man, makest thyself God” (John 10:33). - biblehub.com/commentaries/john/10-30.htm

btw you forgot to reply to my post #438.

 

[tonyrey]

By reading the verse out of context, you’ve interpreted it as against the Trinity .

Here’s Charles Ellicott’s commentary:

The last clause of John 10:29 is identical with the last clause of John 10:28 if we identify “Father’s” with “My.” This our Lord now formally does. The last verses have told of power greater than all, and these words are an assertion that in the infinity of All-mighty Power the Son is one with the Father. They are more than this, for the Greek word for “one” is neuter, and the thought is not, therefore, of unity of person, but is of unity of essence. “The Son is of one substance with the Father.” In the plural “are” there is the assertion of distinctness as against Sabellianism, and in the “one” there is the assertion of co-ordination as against Arianism. At recurring periods in the history of exegesis men have tried to establish that these words do not imply more than unity of will between the Father and the Son. We have seen above that they assert both oneness of power and oneness of nature; but the best answer to all attempts to attach any meaning lower than that of the divinity of our Lord to these His words is found here, as in the parallel instance in John 8:58-59, in the conduct of the Jews themselves. To them the words conveyed but one meaning, and they sought to punish by stoning what seemed to them to be blasphemy. Their reason is here given in express words, “because that Thou, being a man, makest thyself God” (John 10:33). - biblehub.com/commentaries/john/10-30.htm

btw you forgot to reply to my post #438.

This identification of Christ with God is emphatic in this chapter and throughout John. John 1:1 explains, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” In John 11:30 Christ says, “The Father and I are one.” In John 14:28 we are reaching a climax. Jesus is soon to be arrested and crucified. He is reassuring the apostles about himself. Yes, they are going to see him suffer in the flesh and die, but Jesus reminds them there is more to himself than just the human. He and the Father are one. His statement is a reassurance to them, and it should be to you as well.

catholic.com/quickquestions/what-did-jesus-mean-in-saying-that-the-father-was-greater-than-he

NB **"**and the Word was **with **God. What can be simpler than divine oneness?

Your post #438 contains dogmatic assertions I have already refuted…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Nope, I mean controversial. According to that IEP article, critics of the doctrine of ivine simplicity include Plantinga, Hume, Richard Gale, Christopher Hughes, Anthony Kenny and A. N. Prior. The Wikipedia article adds William Lane Craig, John S. Feinberg and Thomas Morris.

Weigel may clam that it’s an indispensable tenet which detractors misunderstand, but that doesn’t answer all their arguments (and you’ll be overjoyed that Craig uses a possible worlds disproof).

Paul didn’t teach all those doctrines, and if some believers don’t accept them all, that doesn’t excuse philosophers who choose to ignore Paul.

You’re arguing directly against Paul by saying ordinary believers are not capable:

‘Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”’ - 1 Cor 1

It is because of God that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God. We don’t need philosophers to define God, as the wisdom to know him comes directly from Christ.

It seems to me, then, that if your “wisdom” comes directly from God then you ought to demonstrate that wisdom in such a way as to put all those know-nothing philosophers to shame. Go ahead then, lavish us with that wisdom!

Oh, and by the way, you will also need to show us how to recognize that wisdom to begin with and how anyone with any degree of intellectual or spiritual integrity would recognize the difference between the faux wisdom that infects the philosophers we don’t need and the wisdom that comes directly as a gift from Christ.

I strongly suspect that your “comes directly from Christ” is a facade and a completely empty proposition since what you claim to have is provably nothing more than what anyone else, including philosophers, have been granted - a life to lead as best you can, like everyone else.

It seems to me that if any philosophers such as those you cite as questioning the doctrine of divine simplicity have their wisdom directly from God they should absolutely be able to wipe the floor with those who don’t. I don’t see that.

What I do see, is you picking sides and claiming the side you are on is the side that receives the God wisdom and anyone else doesn’t. And you do that by not making anything like a compelling case, merely by appealing to this “God wisdom” which you insist has been endowed directly to you and yours by God himself.

Call me skeptical.

Like everything else, I think wisdom requires lots of hard work and diligent thought because God as father does not treat his children like pampered rich kids who are spoiled with the most valuable of all gifts (true Wisdom) freely and at no cost to them. Rather, God’s parenting amounts to something more akin to forming reasonable, thoughtful, faithful, wise, loving, ethical, hard-working, humble, long-suffering, courageous, virtuous, meritous, refined, and temperate beings. We must be made worthy of that extraordinary gift and responsible bearers of it BEFORE and to the extent that it is placed into our hands.

In other words, wisdom is not fully endowed immediately and without merit by a magic wand wave by the hand of the sky-god merely because we make a claim to it. Wisdom is integral to every experience of every event and to every thought and every judgement and every choice we make. We either gain a bit of it or lose a bit of it through what we will and do each day. It is hard won and integral to who and what we are.

Oh, I agree that wisdom comes from God - read the OT book of Wisdom to be assured of that - but I don’t think it comes by eschewing normal human experience and endeavor, nor simply as a supernatural endowment in exchange for our denigration of everything human. That would be closer to Gnosticism than to Christianity. Jesus became fully human and went through the same human process as we do to gain wisdom precisely because, as God, he emptied himself and placed himself in our shoes from the time Mary made her fiat.

 

[tonyrey]

. I suspect that you keep evading because you were disrespecting my religion, against forum rules. Why else would you not just honestly explain yourself, as I’ve asked repeatedly?

This is sufficient reason not to answer your post.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Paul didn’t teach all those doctrines, and if some believers don’t accept them all, that doesn’t excuse philosophers who choose to ignore Paul.

You’re arguing directly against Paul by saying ordinary believers are not capable:

‘Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”’ - 1 Cor 1

It is because of God that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God. We don’t need philosophers to define God, as the wisdom to know him comes directly from Christ.

Paul’s argument is NOT that anyone who is ignoble, lowly, weak, foolish and despised is, purely by being so, chosen by God. He is saying those Christians who were chosen by God at that time could have been any of those things and that still would not have stopped God from choosing them.

By your argument, Paul himself, who was NOT lowly, weak, foolish, ignoble or despised could not have been chosen by God because he was none of those things. He was well-off, well-educated, esteemed, powerful, smart, and a Roman citizen. Apparently, God miscalculated in his selection of Paul or couldn’t have chosen him because Paul was more of a philosopher than an ordinary believer - a fact that, by itself, would have eliminated Paul as being eligible for receiving wisdom from God.

Paul wasn’t arguing that ordinary (or lowly, weak, despised, foolish or ignoble) believers were all necessarily capable, he was arguing that being all of those things couldn’t stop God from making them wise. If fact, God wasn’t stopped from making Paul, the epitome of a brilliant philosopher, the recipient of true Wisdom from Christ - and using his philosophical skills to explicate Christ to his hearers.

Grace perfects nature - including natural human intellectual abilities.

Just because a person is an ordinary believer is not sufficient to make them wise. They may be faithful, but wisdom is more than that. It involves understanding and the ability to explicate what you believe and why.

The implications of rejecting the doctrine of divine simplicity are significant. Perhaps you need to assess those before you go arguing a position you don’t fully understand.

Besides that, many of the early Church Fathers, along with many effective Christian teachers and apologists, like Augustine and Aquinas, used terms and arguments from philosophy to explain the content of the faith to non-believers.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

II Peter 3:15

“Consider also that our Lord’s patience brings salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him. He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

 

[tonyrey]

Paul’s argument is NOT that anyone who is ignoble, lowly, weak, foolish and despised is, purely by being so, chosen by God. He is saying those Christians who were chosen by God at that time could have been any of those things and that still would not have stopped God from choosing them.

By your argument, Paul himself, who was NOT lowly, weak, foolish, ignoble or despised could not have been chosen by God because he was none of those things. He was well-off, well-educated, esteemed, powerful, smart, and a Roman citizen. Apparently, God miscalculated in his selection of Paul or couldn’t have chosen him because Paul was more of a philosopher than an ordinary believer - a fact that, by itself, would have eliminated Paul as being eligible for receiving wisdom from God.

Paul wasn’t arguing that ordinary (or lowly, weak, despised, foolish or ignoble) believers were all necessarily capable, he was arguing that being all of those things couldn’t stop God from making them wise. If fact, God wasn’t stopped from making Paul, the epitome of a brilliant philosopher, the recipient of true Wisdom from Christ - and using his philosophical skills to explicate Christ to his hearers.

Grace perfects nature - including natural human intellectual abilities.

Just because a person is an ordinary believer is not sufficient to make them wise. They may be faithful, but wisdom is more than that. It involves understanding and the ability to explicate what you believe and why.

The implications of rejecting the doctrine of divine simplicity are significant. Perhaps you need to assess those before you go arguing a position you don’t fully understand.

Besides that, many of the early Church Fathers, along with many effective Christian teachers and apologists, like Augustine and Aquinas, used terms and arguments from philosophy to explain the content of the faith to non-believers.

Irrefutable:

And Peter opening his mouth, said: In very deed I perceive, that God is not a respecter of persons.

Acts 10:34

It is not for us to decide who God chooses to be apostles and evangelists…