Why doesn't God reveal himself to those who doubt?

[EpicureanSimba]

Hi everyone,

As a non-believer who has often been on the receiving end of evangilization attempts by various people of faith, I have often wondered why God does not simply reveal himself to me, or any other doubter, so as to simply remove the doubt.

I’ve been given many reasons as to why he cannot, but none of them ever really seem to hold up. For instance, I’ve been told that if God were to reveal himself to me, it would violate my free will. But this seems nonsensical to me, and in any case, throughout the Bible God constantly appears to people, such as Moses, Abraham, Peter, and even those who were outright hostile towards him, such as Paul. Presumably he did not violate their free will by doing so?

What I’m saying is, if God could save my soul, and the souls of people like me, by simply appearing to us, why has he refrained from doing so? It seems like in our increasingly secular world, he would be willing to take any help that he could get.

 

[puzzleannie]

Hi everyone,

As a non-believer who has often been on the receiving end of evangilization attempts by various people of faith, I have often wondered why God does not simply reveal himself to me, or any other doubter, so as to simply remove the doubt.

.

he does reveal himself continuously to all who care to take notice, listen and learn. He reveals himself first of all in his creation, and then more particularly, forcefully and clearly in Divine Revelation given first to the Jewish people and then in its fullness and completeness in the Person of Jesus Christ, who continues to teach this revelation in the Catholic Church, his chosen witness on earth, through her sacraments, scripture and magesterial teaching office, protected and guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

he does reveal himself continuously to all who care to take notice, listen and learn. He reveals himself first of all in his creation,

I apologize for the confusion - I meant to ask “Why does he not reveal himself in a direct and unambigous way?”.

and then more particularly, forcefully and clearly in Divine Revelation given first to the Jewish people and then in its fullness and completeness in the Person of Jesus Christ, who continues to teach this revelation in the Catholic Church, his chosen witness on earth, through her sacraments, scripture and magesterial teaching office, protected and guided by the Holy Spirit.

I’m afraid I don’t understand. I can clearly see that the Catholic Church teaches these things, but I see nothing to suggest that God Himself provided these revelations, any more than he did so for countless other religions. Therefore, it doesn’t seem like He has really “revealed” Himself through these things. That is, even if He does turn out to have inspired these teachings behind the scenes, I don’t think that it would be a very good example of Him having revealed Himself publicly.

 

[puzzleannie]

you can choose to accept or reject the testimony of “clouds of witnesses” but that does not altar the truth. there is nothing ambiguous about the 10 commandments, for instance.

my I suggest the first place for a non-believer to begin is the first place God began to reveal himself, in his creation. A study of the natural sciences and the wonder of how all the seemingly disparate elements of the created world work together, and have done so over time, is revelatory.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

you can choose to accept or reject the testimony of “clouds of witnesses” .

What do you mean by this? What witnesses are you referring to?

but that does not altar the truth. there is nothing ambiguous about the 10 commandments, for instance…

I don’t think that the instructions contained inside the Ten Commandments are ambigious - they are, indeed, fairly straightforward. What I think is ambigous is the idea that God actually produced them.

my I suggest the first place for a non-believer to begin is the first place God began to reveal himself, in his creation. A study of the natural sciences and the wonder of how all the seemingly disparate elements of the created world work together, and have done so over time, is revelatory.

What about someone who has studied the natural sciences, natural theology, and the various attempts to elicit belief in a deity by way of the natural sciences and finds them unconvincing? There are many such people. Even if it is true that the natural sciences ultimately imply that God exists, it would hardly be an unambigous way of establishing that fact, and would be a very indirect way as well.

 

[Pieman333272]

Because there’s enough evidence that his existence is obvious. Recall the story of doubting Thomas: It is not against looking for evidence for faith, but it criticizes those who constantly demand more and more evidence. God will not conform to your failure to analyze the arguments and follow the evidence.

If you really and truly think the arguments for God’s existence fail, then you won’t go to hell anyway (at least for not believing). If you don’t actually analyze them and instead demand God fit to your desires (instead of how it should be), you are dogmatic, and odds are God’s direct revelation would fall on deaf ears even if he did do it. Even with your combination of it with the problem of hell, God’s failure to reveal himself to atheists is not an issue to him or Christians’ beliefs.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

Because there’s enough evidence that his existence is obvious. .

I disagree, of course.

Recall the story of doubting Thomas: It is not against looking for evidence for faith, but it criticizes those who constantly demand more and more evidence. God will not conform to your failure to analyze the arguments and follow the evidence…

I think that I’ve done the best I can to fairly and objectively analyze the arguments, though obviously you have no reason to believe me.

If you don’t actually analyze them and instead demand God fit to your desires (instead of how it should be), you are dogmatic, and odds are God’s direct revelation would fall on deaf ears even if he did do it.

Again, I feel that have done my sincere best to analyze the arguments for God’s existence.

However, let me be clear - I’m not demanding that God reveal Himself to me, nor am I angry at him for not doing so. I don’t feel disappointed that He has not revealed Himself, nor do I feel any resentment towards Him for not doing so. I’m a non-believer, after all, so any anger I felt towards God, any demands that I made of Him, etc. would be entirely misplaced, and rather bizarre. My question is more one of practical consideration rather than a personal request. I simply cannot understand why, if God wants us all to believe in Him, that he would not make it clear who He is and what He wants, in direct and unambiguous terms. It seems like refusing to reveal Himself would be contrary to his goal of saving as many souls as possible.

 

[jmoneyideas]

Hi everyone,

As a non-believer who has often been on the receiving end of evangilization attempts by various people of faith, I have often wondered why God does not simply reveal himself to me, or any other doubter, so as to simply remove the doubt.

I’ve been given many reasons as to why he cannot, but none of them ever really seem to hold up. For instance, I’ve been told that if God were to reveal himself to me, it would violate my free will. But this seems nonsensical to me, and in any case, throughout the Bible God constantly appears to people, such as Moses, Abraham, Peter, and even those who were outright hostile towards him, such as Paul. Presumably he did not violate their free will by doing so?

What I’m saying is, if God could save my soul, and the souls of people like me, by simply appearing to us, why has he refrained from doing so? It seems like in our increasingly secular world, he would be willing to take any help that he could get.

God is revealing himself to you right now. You have decided to post a comment on a Catholic website. I imagine you have read many postings and have been asking yourself inside, what is with all these people and at some point you me begin to believe in something far greater than yourself. I was in your shoes a couple of years ago. I found Jesus in a little Non Denom Chruch and have since grown in faith and the truth in my eyes and am coming home to the Catholic Church. I took my free will that God Gave me and lived a fleshly life for many many years. Then one day I was literally dragged kicking and screaming to this little church, I heard a scripture that really has stuck with me it was from Romans 7 21 to Roman 8:2

21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

Romans 8
Deliverance from Bondage
1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death

That was it for me God came to me through a simple Scripture and I recieved it and moved on from my days of Non Belief and came to know him and actually read the entire bible in a year. It isn’t easy my friend but that is life there are ups and downs but the downs are so much easier for me knowing I have The Big Man helping me out through my struggles.

As for physical revealing I cant really tell you. I can tell you there are moments when I pray and there is definatly a Physical presence for me at that moment.

I think it boils down to a simple word FAITH. Until you open your mind and heart up and stop doubting and just listen and soak it in your faith isn’t going to be there. I hope that you one day will have the same experiance I did just a couple of years ago…

I wanted to share this clip for you, its a very short youtube clip that really caused me to look at Jesus differently, its only 5 minutes but just give it a quick look and let me know what you think……youtu.be/4Y4xacvLUXo

 

[SGWessells]

Because there’s enough evidence that his existence is obvious. Recall the story of doubting Thomas: It is not against looking for evidence for faith, but it criticizes those who constantly demand more and more evidence. God will not conform to your failure to analyze the arguments and follow the evidence.

If you really and truly think the arguments for God’s existence fail, then you won’t go to hell anyway (at least for not believing). If you don’t actually analyze them and instead demand God fit to your desires (instead of how it should be), you are dogmatic, and odds are God’s direct revelation would fall on deaf ears even if he did do it. Even with your combination of it with the problem of hell, God’s failure to reveal himself to atheists is not an issue to him or Christians’ beliefs.

Doubting Thomas is a bad example, because Jesus did reveal himself in a very tangible way to Thomas, which only underlines the question of why he doesn’t do the same for the rest of us skeptics.
Nor does a study of nature reveal God’s existence to anyone who does not assume God’s existence and attributes begin with. Even if you could prove a “first cause” or “prime mover,” there is nothing at all in nature which identifies that being with the God of Christianity.
I share EpicureanSimba’s puzzlement that a God who supposedly wants all men to be saved doesn’t make more of an effort. Some say that if he did so, we would have no choice but to believe, which would keep us from having genuine faith; but the Israelites (if you can believe the Biblical account) saw the columns of fire and smoke, saw Pharaoh’s chariots drowned in the Red Sea after their own miraculous crossing, heard his very own voice on the mountain and were so terrified by it that they asked him to speak only with Moses; yet all these, and more, blatant signs of God’s presence didn’t keep them from worshiping a golden calf afterwards. God’s making himself more evident would not guarantee that anyone in particular, or everyone in general, would worship and believe; but it would make it easier for many. The obvious fact that he doesn’t do so casts doubt on his desire to save everyone.

 

[JRKH]

Hi everyone,

As a non-believer who has often been on the receiving end of evangilization attempts by various people of faith, I have often wondered why God does not simply reveal himself to me, or any other doubter, so as to simply remove the doubt.

What makes you think that if God revealed himself to you in some direct and unambiguous way that it would remove the doubt? How many people in this world have said that God revealed himself to them and wound up in mental institutions, on medications and under the care of a psychiatrist?
If God revealed himself to you - would you accept it without doubt? Or would you perhaps “doubt” that what you experienced was “real” and “doubt” your own sanity.
Going to the other extreme - the types of things that Puzzleannie mentions - the more subtle revelations - these are dismissed as being ambiguous and not “proof positive”…What’s a loving God to do???

I’ve been given many reasons as to why he cannot, but none of them ever really seem to hold up. For instance, I’ve been told that if God were to reveal himself to me, it would violate my free will. But this seems nonsensical to me, and in any case, throughout the Bible God constantly appears to people, such as Moses, Abraham, Peter, and even those who were outright hostile towards him, such as Paul. Presumably he did not violate their free will by doing so?

What I’m saying is, if God could save my soul, and the souls of people like me, by simply appearing to us, why has he refrained from doing so? It seems like in our increasingly secular world, he would be willing to take any help that he could get.

God does what is best for us in each instance. Sometimes forcefully and sometimes (more often) subtly. The question is not whether God reveals himself but whether we are properly disposed to recognize it.

Peace
James

 

[EpicureanSimba]

As for physical revealing I cant really tell you. I can tell you there are moments when I pray and there is definatly a Physical presence for me at that moment.

What do you mean when you say a physical presence? Can you see God, for instance? Or is it more of a “feeling a strong presence” kind of thing?

I think it boils down to a simple word FAITH. Until you open your mind and heart up and stop doubting and just listen and soak it in your faith isn’t going to be there. I hope that you one day will have the same experiance I did just a couple of years ago… ]

Hopefully you realize that a Muslim could just as easily say the same thing. “Open up your heart and mind to Allah”, “stop doubting the wise words of Mohammed”, etc. I’m afraid that I would not find it convncing in that case. That is kind of the problem with “FAITH”, as you call it. It can be used to justify literally any belief, from the belief in the Real Presence or the existence of purgatory, to a belief that God wants you to fly planes into building, or to kill every last infant in Canaan. No belief is off limits as long as faith is involved.

I wanted to share this clip for you, its a very short youtube clip that really caused me to look at Jesus differently, its only 5 minutes but just give it a quick look and let me know what you think……youtu.be/4Y4xacvLUXo

The clip seems to invoke a variation of C.S. Lewis’ Liar Lunatic or Lord Trilemmna, which I’ve never found convincing unfortunately.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

What makes you think that if God revealed himself to you in some direct and unambiguous way that it would remove the doubt? How many people in this world have said that God revealed himself to them and wound up in mental institutions, on medications and under the care of a psychiatrist?
If God revealed himself to you - would you accept it without doubt? Or would you perhaps “doubt” that what you experienced was “real” and “doubt” your own sanity.

If God appeared to me, I would certainly believe. Now, I would probably get myself checked out and ensure that I was mentally sane, but if the doctors could find nothing wrong with me and I had no reason to believe that I had hallucinated, then yes, I would absolutely believe. I would still be open to the idea that I had somehow hallucinated, but the evidence would certainly be sufficient to tip me in favor of belief.

Going to the other extreme - the types of things that Puzzleannie mentions - the more subtle revelations - these are dismissed as being ambiguous and not “proof positive”…What’s a loving God to do???

Two things that I’d like to mention here.

1. I don’t actually think that the revelations she mentioned are “subtle revelations”, I think that they are not really revelations. I see no reason, subtle or otherwise, to believe that God was responsible for them.
2. The reason I brought up the unsubtle nature of those revelations is because this thread is specifically asking why God does not reveal himself in a direct and unambigous way. The fact that there may exist indirect and/or ambigous reasons for believing in God aren’t relevant to the topic. Again, I don’t think that the reasons given provide any reason, indirect or otherwise to believe in God.

 

[St_Francis]

Doubting Thomas is a bad example, because Jesus did reveal himself in a very tangible way to Thomas, which only underlines the question of why he doesn’t do the same for the rest of us skeptics.

Do you believe that The Pharoahs of ancient Egypt existed? Do you believe that Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants?

You seem to know a lot about God’s having revealed himself to others, but you do not accept these revelations yourself.*

• Nor does a study of nature reveal God’s existence to anyone who does not assume God’s existence and attributes begin with. Even if you could prove a “first cause” or “prime mover,” there is nothing at all in nature which identifies that being with the God of Christianity.

I totally agree with you. I remember when I was a practical atheist that someone presented these proofs and I thought they were trickery.*

After I returned (long slow trip through generic theism, generic Christianity, then to the Catholic Church into which I had been baptized but not raised), I read them again and realized precisely what you are saying here, that these are logical proofs of a Being Who… but then we must take other steps towards Christianity.

• I share EpicureanSimba’s puzzlement that a God who supposedly wants all men to be saved doesn’t make more of an effort.

God does want all men to be saved, but He knows not all shall be saved. Those who are not saved are not saved *through their own fault, because God sends sufficient grace to each to be saved.

Now, you and EpicureanSimba are complaining that God does not do more, but God has apparently provided sufficiently, because there are people, even today, who believe.

And you two say God has not provided sufficiently despite the fact that He sent His Son, not only to teach us but to redeem us.

And this same Son, Christ, told a parable about some tenants on a farm. When the crop was ripe, the owner sent servants with instructions, but the tenants did not want to follow the instructions of the owner, so they killed the servants.

Finally the owner sent his son, thinking surely they would listen to him. But the tenants, thinking they could steal the son’s inheritance, his authority, killed the son also.

People ask why God doesn’t do more, but I wonder what more God could do? What more would you have God do, and what is it that keeps you from accepting what He has already done?

Some say that if he did so, we would have no choice but to believe, which would keep us from having genuine faith; but the Israelites (if you can believe the Biblical account) saw the columns of fire and smoke, saw Pharaoh’s chariots drowned in the Red Sea after their own miraculous crossing, heard his very own voice on the mountain and were so terrified by it that they asked him to speak only with Moses; yet all these, and more, blatant signs of God’s presence didn’t keep them from worshiping a golden calf afterwards.

Again, some believed, but you have to admit that there was ample proof for all to believe, no? Those who decided to worship the golden calf made a *choice * to worship something else, because they didn’t like what God was doing, they didn’t teust Him. But it was not for lack of proof.

God’s making himself more evident would not guarantee that anyone in particular, or everyone in general, would worship and believe; but it would make it easier for many.

But this could go on forever, couldn’t it? Suppose God did do something which made it easier for you to believe but which was not sufficient for EpicureanSimba to believe; would God then have to provide more evidence for him? And what about the next person, would God have to provide more evidence for him, too? It would be never-ending, wouldn’t it?

The obvious fact that he doesn’t do so casts doubt on his desire to save *everyone.

How can you say that? He sent His Son to redeem each and every one of us! Why do you think this means less than His doing something which would suit your definition of sufficient evidence?

Remember that God is the Creator of everything, including the very matter from which it is all made. This grants Him a certain authority–He is the One Who decides what level of evidence He will give. It’s not the same as if I told you that before Columbus people really did believe the world was round and you asked for proof of that, because you and I are of equal authority. But if you required absolute proof og everything before you beloeved it; if you required a tripto the moon before you would believe it was made of rock instead of green cheese, then you would hardly be able to function in this world.

 

[shoe]

I apologize for the confusion - I meant to ask “Why does he not reveal himself in a direct and unambigous way?”.

That may not necessarily mean that God did not, or does not, reveal Himself. Since atheism has a presuppositional worldview that rejects the reality of God, atheists could quite easily reject out of hand God’s revelation of Himself to them, or even fail to notice the revelation in the first place. The fact is that God already has revealed Himself to mankind in many “direct and unambiguous” ways. As Paul writes in Romans 1:20: “For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.”

 

[Perplexity]

Hi everyone,

As a non-believer who has often been on the receiving end of evangilization attempts by various people of faith, I have often wondered why God does not simply reveal himself to me, or any other doubter, so as to simply remove the doubt.

I’ve been given many reasons as to why he cannot, but none of them ever really seem to hold up. For instance, I’ve been told that if God were to reveal himself to me, it would violate my free will. But this seems nonsensical to me, and in any case, throughout the Bible God constantly appears to people, such as Moses, Abraham, Peter, and even those who were outright hostile towards him, such as Paul. Presumably he did not violate their free will by doing so?

What I’m saying is, if God could save my soul, and the souls of people like me, by simply appearing to us, why has he refrained from doing so? It seems like in our increasingly secular world, he would be willing to take any help that he could get.

I highly recommend J.L. Schellenberg’s Divine Hiddennes and Human Reason, republished in '06, if you haven’t already read it. It’s an argument for atheism that goes something like this:

1. If God exists, then God is all loving.
2. If an all loving God exists, reasonable non-belief does not occur.
3. Reasonable non-belief occurs.
4. Therefore, an all loving God doesn’t exist.
5. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Now, the book is written to motivate the premises so I hope stating the argument here hasn’t oversimplified the matter

But, as far as the OP goes, I think a more interesting question is if God is all loving, why aren’t you already in a personal relationship with him? I don’t think we should give the theist this much: given inculpable unbelief, why doesn’t God reveal himself better? The real question is why is there inculpable unbelief in the first place!

 

[St_Francis]

Hopefully you realize that a Muslim could just as easily say the same thing. *“Open up your heart and mind to Allah”, “stop doubting the wise words of Mohammed”, etc. *I’m afraid that I would not find it convncing in that case. *That is kind of the problem with “FAITH”, as you call it. *It can be used to justify literally any belief, from the belief in the Real Presence or the existence of purgatory, to a belief that God wants you to fly planes into building, or to kill every last infant in Canaan. *No belief is off limits as long as faith is involved.

This is a real problem. This is why the Catholic Church provides more than mere “blind faith” or choosing one’s guru.

These are reasons for believing Catholicism over all the other proposed systems beyond liking the pastor, seeing services helpful to oneself, not feeling one’s favored sins condemned…

The clip seems to invoke a variation of C.S. Lewis’ Liar Lunatic or Lord Trilemmna, which I’ve never found convincing unfortunately.

Why do you find it unconvincing?

 

[JRKH]

If God appeared to me, I would certainly believe. Now, I would probably get myself checked out and ensure that I was mentally sane, but if the doctors could find nothing wrong with me and I had no reason to believe that I had hallucinated, then yes, I would absolutely believe. I would still be open to the idea that I had somehow hallucinated, but the evidence would certainly be sufficient to tip me in favor of belief.

Ahhh—So - while you say that you “certainly would believe”, you also say that you would have yourself “checked out” to be sure you were sane and not hallucinating. In other words you would doubt and seek some confirmation/verification EVEN of a direct and unambiguous revelation.

Now correct me if I’m wrong here but in seeking to assure that you are sane, you would consult with a mental health professional in the medical sciences and you would be guided by his/her conclusions.
That you would do this rather than running to the nearest Church and speaking with a priest. I make this assumption since you list yourself as “Atheist”.

Two things that I’d like to mention here.

1. I don’t actually think that the revelations she mentioned are “subtle revelations”, I think that they are not really revelations. I see no reason, subtle or otherwise, to believe that God was responsible for them.

1. The reason I brought up the unsubtle nature of those revelations is because this thread is specifically asking why God does not reveal himself in a direct and unambigous way. The fact that there may exist indirect and/or ambigous reasons for believing in God aren’t relevant to the topic. Again, I don’t think that the reasons given provide any reason, indirect or otherwise to believe in God.

Fair enough, but just as you regard "subtle revelations as “not really revelations” so you will doubt a direct revelation and run to the mental health professionals to get your ‘noggin’ checked out…

I don’t mean to belittle you in this - I’m just making observations based on my own experience.

Peace
James

 

[Pieman333272]

Doubting Thomas is a bad example, because Jesus did reveal himself in a very tangible way to Thomas, which only underlines the question of why he doesn’t do the same for the rest of us skeptics.

No, I meant the line at the end:

[BIBLEDRB]John 20:29[/BIBLEDRB]

See here for an explanation.

Nor does a study of nature reveal God’s existence to anyone who does not assume God’s existence and attributes begin with.

How does the cosmological argument assume God’s existence?

Even if you could prove a “first cause” or “prime mover,” there is nothing at all in nature which identifies that being with the God of Christianity.

Well, certain key traits could be deduced which match the Christian view of God, but in a sense, you are correct, proof of Christianity over other forms of monotheism in the end rests on the resurrection, which a strong case can be made for anyway.

I share EpicureanSimba’s puzzlement that a God who supposedly wants all men to be saved doesn’t make more of an effort.

I share a lot of Christian’s puzzlement that “skeptics” who supposedly follow the evidence where it leads don’t make more of an effort.

Some say that if he did so, we would have no choice but to believe, which would keep us from having genuine faith; but the Israelites (if you can believe the Biblical account) saw the columns of fire and smoke, saw Pharaoh’s chariots drowned in the Red Sea after their own miraculous crossing, heard his very own voice on the mountain and were so terrified by it that they asked him to speak only with Moses; yet all these, and more, blatant signs of God’s presence didn’t keep them from worshiping a golden calf afterwards.

I don’t subscribe to the “free will” argument anyway, so your point is moot.

The obvious fact that he doesn’t do so casts doubt on his desire to save everyone.

If you really and truly can’t see the evidence for God’s existence, and analyzed all the arguments and found legitimate flaws, than you won’t go to hell for unbelief anyway. So the only people who your actual argument applies to - people who really and truly fail to be convinced by the evidence that is available, and don’t have any biases, but would be convinced if God revealed himself further - would not go to hell for not believing. Good try though.

 

[Timothysis]

If God appeared to me, I would certainly believe. Now, I would probably get myself checked out and ensure that I was mentally sane, but if the doctors could find nothing wrong with me and I had no reason to believe that I had hallucinated, then yes, I would absolutely believe. I would still be open to the idea that I had somehow hallucinated, but the evidence would certainly be sufficient to tip me in favor of belief.
.

You state that if God appeared to you, then you would still have doubt because you say* “I would still be open to the idea that I had somehow hallucinated.”* So what more would it take for you to believe? Apparently, God appearing to you personally is still not enough.

Still, your request that God appear to you makes me think of those children who think that, unless their parents buy them everything they want, then they don’t love them.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

That may not necessarily mean that God did not, or does not, reveal Himself. Since atheism has a presuppositional worldview that rejects the reality of God, ."

What do you mean by this? I certainly don’t “presuppose” that God does not exist, though other atheists might.

As Paul writes in Romans 1:20: “For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.”

The fact that Paul says that the existence of God is obvious does not mean that it is, just like the fact that an Islamic theologion declares the “obviousness” of Mohammed’s teaching does not make it so.