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

[STT]

How could it be made obvious to those who do not want to believe?

Neither the Temple Jews nor the Romans thought it was obvious, though Jesus himself in the flesh had made God as obvious as it was possible to make Him.

Only when we let down our defenses can God attack our hearts and minds.

That is how God made us … free to choose Him or refuse Him.

I think he means why God doesn’t show his face to us?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think he means why God doesn’t show his face to us?

But he has shown his face to us!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

Some still do not want to see it, and find reason to believe he never showed it.

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, the human “face, hands, feet and lots of other parts” of Jesus are not essential to his divine nature. In fact, the doctrine of the hypostatic union of Jesus teaches that Jesus is one person with two natures – God and man. So his human nature is not an aspect of his divine nature.

In other words, Jesus is fully God without his human nature, so his human parts have entirely nothing to do with his divine nature. In a sense, they are essential to his human nature but not essential, but accidental, to his being God.

Irrefutable! God could have chosen other ways of inspiring and redeeming us…

 

[STT]

But he has shown his face to us!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

Some still do not want to see it, and find reason to believe he never showed it.

I meant why God doesn’t show Himself personally to us?

 

[Aloysium]

I meant why God doesn’t show Himself personally to us?

He does. You are probably referring to yourself and others who are struggling along the way. If you want to know Him, at the very least pray, meditate on holy scripture and act charitably toward your neighbour.

Atheists do not wish to know Him for their personal reasons. If one does not want to do His will, which is very clearly stated and available to most, one cannot see Him. It’s a vicious circle for some until they hit rock bottom and then let go of their prejudices. If one does not wish to embrace love, if one does not pursue the truth, the good and the beautiful, one will not know God. Pride is usually at the bottom of it; sometimes anger and resentment, a refusal to abandon sin, these are all factors that interfere with our capacity to see Him.

In other words, the issue has to do with us and our unwillingness to undergo the transformation of ourselves into the temple that would house Him.

You may wish to contemplate on the parable of the indiscriminate sower, who spreads seeds of faith everywhere.

 

[STT]

He does. You are probably referring to yourself and others who are struggling along the way. If you want to know Him, at the very least pray, meditate on holy scripture and act charitably toward your neighbour.

Actually I didn’t initiate the question. S/he was IWantGod so s/he apparently has problem meeting God being a Catholic like you. I am happy that you meet your God but his question still stands. Why God doesn’t show himself to us? With us I meant not a couple of individuals.

Atheists do not wish to know Him for their personal reasons. If one does not want to do His will, which is very clearly stated and available to most, one cannot see Him. It’s a viscous circle for some until they hit rock bottom and then let go of their prejudices. If one does not wish to embrace love, if one does not pursue the truth, the good and the beautiful, one will not know God. Pride is usually at the bottom of it; sometimes anger and resentment, a refusal to abandon sin, these are all factors that interfere with our capacity to see Him.

To me it is more reasonable that God shows Himself to atheist since believers already have their owns faith.

In other words, the issue has to do with us and our unwillingness to undergo the transformation of ourselves into the temple that would house Him.

I have meet several believer who believe in God and they were questioning that why God hiding Himself from us.

 

[tonyrey]

Overstating it is the heresy of Sabellius according to Thomas Aquinas in his commentary:

“1451 This statement [Jn 10:30] rejects two errors: that of Arius, who distinguished the essence [of the Father from that of the Son], and that of Sabellius, who did not distinguish the person [of the Father from the person of the Son]. We escape both Charybdis and Scylla, for by the fact that Christ says, one, he saves us from Arius, because if one, then they are not different [in nature]. And by the fact that he says, we are, he saves us from Sabellius, for if we are, then the Father and the Son are not the same [person].” - dhspriory.org/thomas/John10.htm

BTW It’s good that you consult St Thomas.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . To me it is more reasonable that God shows Himself to atheist since believers already have their owns faith.

I have meet several believer who believe in God and they were questioning that why God hiding Himself from us.

If it weren’t tragic, I would say that the situation is comical.
It is to close one’s eyes and claim that one cannot see, refusing to open them until one sees.
The darkness does typically overwhelm those looking for light, and eventually they will open them.

I haven’t heard any Catholics saying that God hides Himself from us, but I do not deny that they may exist and/or that is what you understood them to say.

It is a journey and we not infrequently may find ourselves lost at times.
The yearning can be great, and represents His calling to us from where we are in the relationship.
In a similar manner, sometimes all we see is dirt. In those times, He may be closest - the world of sin seen through the eyes of love.
We can be led astray by our pride. Praying and getting closer to Him, we may end up praising ourselves like the Pharisees, rather than glorifying God. Feeling ourselves to be holier than the next, undoubtedly leads us to being less so. God may hide to humble us.
He may turn His face from those who work to bring faith within a secular society. This would be done in order to make us more understanding of the seriousness of the situation we as one humanity are facing.
And more . . .

 

[STT]

If it weren’t tragic, I would say that the situation is comical.

What is comical?

It is to close one’s eyes and claim that one cannot see, refusing to open them until one sees.

Of course we can see God if He wants to present Himself to us.

The darkness does typically overwhelm those looking for light…

Why it should be like this?

I haven’t heard any Catholics saying that God hides Himself from us, but I do not deny that they may exist and/or that is what you understood them to say.

So all the Catholic you have met claim that they visit God?

 

[Aloysium]

What is comical?

Of course we can see God if He wants to present Himself to us.

Why it should be like this?

So all the Catholic you have met claim that they visit God?

i thought it was funny that someone would refuse to open their eyes until they are able to see. It is when you open your eyes that you can see. I guess you didn’t take my advise to think deeply about the parable of the indiscriminate sower. Seeds of faith falling on the dry rocky path are like these words falling on deaf ears. We “visit” God, know Him would be a better way to phrase it, when we are charitable, when we partake of the Eucharist, when we come together in prayer, and when we contemplate the teachings of the Church. God is transcendent and in everything actually, with us in each breath we take.

 

[inocente]

Nothing I have stated implies either error.

I answered the questions but you have rejected my answers:

It doesn’t follow that** the identity **of the agent of change changes… In a court of law you are found guilty if you committed a crime fifty years ago regardless of all the changes you have caused.

I gave you a definition you have ignored…

You never answered either of the questions, and what you said here doesn’t either.

BTW It’s good that you consult St Thomas.

I don’t usually, just thought who better than a philosopher to refute your claim that John 10:30 is evidence of the philosophical doctrine of divine simplicity.

In view of the fact that at High Mass every Sunday I sing the Credo I am hardly likely to make such an elementary mistake:

(I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages; God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.)

And yet you did make such an elementary mistake, since in the very passage from which I quoted, Thomas agrees they are one substance, against the error of Arius. But Thomas points out they are also different persons. He says the error of Sabellius was he "did not distinguish the person [of the Father from the person of the Son], for “by the fact that [Jesus] says, we are, he saves us from Sabellius, for if we are, then the Father and the Son are not the same [person]”.

So according to Thomas you were wrong to claim in post #490 that “the words of Jesus are sufficient evidence of divine simplicity”.

And in his own argument for divine simplicity, Thomas cites several bible verses but not John 10:30.

Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

 

[inocente]

Actually, the human “face, hands, feet and lots of other parts” of Jesus are not essential to his divine nature. In fact, the doctrine of the hypostatic union of Jesus teaches that Jesus is one person with two natures – God and man. So his human nature is not an aspect of his divine nature.

In other words, Jesus is fully God without his human nature, so his human parts have entirely nothing to do with his divine nature. In a sense, they are essential to his human nature but not essential, but accidental, to his being God.

Thing is, that doctrine is only necessary for those who use Aristotelian categories such as natures, substances, essences, accidentals, etc. as you did there.

An ordinary believer doesn’t know any of those categories and so never has that problem.

 

[tonyrey]

You never answered either of the questions, and what you said here doesn’t either.

I don’t usually, just thought who better than a philosopher to refute your claim that John 10:30 is evidence of the philosophical doctrine of divine simplicity.

And yet you did make such an elementary mistake, since in the very passage from which I quoted, Thomas agrees they are one substance, against the error of Arius. But Thomas points out they are also different persons. He says the error of Sabellius was he "did not distinguish the person [of the Father from the person of the Son], for “by the fact that [Jesus] says, we are, he saves us from Sabellius, for if we are, then the Father and the Son are not the same [person]”.

So according to Thomas you were wrong to claim in post #490 that “the words of Jesus are sufficient evidence of divine simplicity”.

And in his own argument for divine simplicity, Thomas cites several bible verses but not John 10:30.

Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

There is no point in continuing because you misinterpret and disagree with everything I write without explaining why - and ignore statements such as:

It doesn’t follow that** the identity **of the agent of change changes… In a court of law you are found guilty if you committed a crime fifty years ago regardless of all the changes you have caused.

 

[tonyrey]

And in his own argument for divine simplicity, Thomas cites several bible verses but not John 10:30.

Non sequitur. The fact that Thomas does not cite John 10:30 does **not **imply that he thought it is irrelevant or proves the contrary. In fact it is his starting point in his Gospel.

Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

Another non sequitur. “the wisdom of the world” doesn’t imply that all philosophy is foolish. If that were the case all Christian philosophy would be worthless - including that of the first apologists as well as St Augustine and St Thomas.

 

[tonyrey]

Non sequitur. The fact that Thomas does not cite John 10:30 does **not **imply that he thought it is irrelevant or proves the contrary. In fact it is his starting point in his Gospel.

“his”, of course, refers to St John not St Thomas!

 

[Peter_Plato]

Thing is, that doctrine is only necessary for those who use Aristotelian categories such as natures, substances, essences, accidentals, etc. as you did there.

An ordinary believer doesn’t know any of those categories and so never has that problem.

I don’t “know” or recognize your category “ordinary believer,” because it is so imprecise as to be meaningless. I have no idea what your “ordinary believer” thinks or believes – nor how he arrived at those beliefs to begin with – since he is simply your mental construct. Therefore, I don’t have the problem of attempting to answer your point – whatever that point was.

Two can play that game.

 

[tonyrey]

Non sequitur. The fact that Thomas does not cite John 10:30 does **not **imply that he thought it is irrelevant or proves the contrary. In fact it is his starting point in his Gospel.

Another non sequitur. “the wisdom of the world” doesn’t imply that all philosophy is foolish. If that were the case all Christian philosophy would be worthless - including that of the first apologists as well as St Augustine and St Thomas.

It is worth glancing at St Justin Martyr’s First Apology to understand how well Christian philosophy has served all followers of Jesus in the face of persecution:

Chapter 1. Address To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Cæsar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Cæsar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole People of the Romans, I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them.
Chapter 2. Justice demanded

Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honour and love only what is true, declining to follow traditional opinions, if these be worthless. For not only does sound reason direct us to refuse the guidance of those who did or taught anything wrong, but it is incumbent on the lover of truth, by all means, and if death be threatened, even before his own life, to choose to do and say what is right. Do you, then, since you are called pious and philosophers, guardians of justice and lovers of learning, give good heed, and hearken to my address; and if you are indeed such, it will be manifested. For we have come, not to flatter you by this writing, nor please you by our address, but to beg that you pass judgment, after an accurate and searching investigation, not flattered by prejudice or by a desire of pleasing superstitious men, nor induced by irrational impulse or evil rumours which have long been prevalent, to give a decision which will prove to be against yourselves. For as for us, we reckon that no evil can be done us, unless we be convicted as evil-doers or be proved to be wicked men; and you, you can kill, but not hurt us.

newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

 

[ericc]

Then why doesn’t he make that obvious.

If God were to pop in front of you with all the special effects and bands of angels etc. you will have have no choice but to accept Him. Then you will have no free will because you are COMPELLED to believe him. You have no choice but to acknowledge him.

But God wants us to love him not out of compulsion. So he stay hidden but just not quite. He leaves enough clues for you to exercise your free will to accept or reject him. And when our spiritual blindness is lifted through faith and by looking for him, we discover that he is there all along. We just need to search for him. Those who seek , will find Him. Knock and the door will open to you. Just don’t knock on the wrong doors.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If God were to pop in front of you with all the special effects and bands of angels etc. you will have have no choice but to accept Him. Then you will have no free will because you are COMPELLED to believe him. You have no choice but to acknowledge him.

Again, this is why Jesus cloaked himself in humility and submitted to those who wanted to kill him. He could have performed miracles in front of the High Priests and Pilate, but did not, because that would have been an affront to their free will to accept or reject him.

After the crucifixion he rose from the dead, the greatest of miracles, not to prove anything to Pilate and the High Priests, but to reassure the disciples that their faith was justified.

 

[PRmerger]

This is an article from Psychology Today written by Dr. David Kyle Johnson

psychologytoday.com/blog/logical-take/201402/why-62-philosophers-are-atheists-part-i

It is basically saying “Since theists demand the Big Bang needs an explanation, God would need an explanation as well. Saying he doesn’t need one is a double standard. Since he can’t be explained, there is no evidence that He exists, thus there is not logical reason to believe”

Here is a paragraph from the actual article:

**Of course, theists will likely reply that they are not just saying God doesn’t need an explanation, but that by definition he doesn’t because by definition he is the greatest being, and the greatest being can’t have an explanation. (Anything that explains God would be greater.) It’s not clear to me that this is the case; but even so, the basic rule of logic that, in debates on existential matters, the burden of proof lies on the one making the positive existential claim is true regardless of whether the entity in question is unexplained or self-explained. For example, if someone suggested the existence of an alien race that created itself through time travel (by traveling back in time and seeding its own race), I would still demand they provided evidence for such beings before I believed. In addition, I could maintain that there is an infinite number of universes, each of which exists inexplicably—without cause or explanation. Yet to rationally believe that any other such universe exists, I would demand evidence.

All in all, atheists are not being irrational by justifying their atheism simply in a lack of evidence for God’s existence, any more than I am being irrational in justifying “a-bigfootism” in a lack of evidence for Bigfoot.**

What is the rebuttal?

The rebuttal is: we do have proof.

Our answer to “why is there something rather than nothing” is: because God.

Atheism has no answer to this.

In fact, even Christopher Hitchens called that question the believer’s “trump card”.