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

[tonyrey]

Nevertheless, if there was nothing wrong with me, I would certainly believe. all that I’m saying is that I would take precautions to ensure that my fallible human mind was not being deceived.

Precisely how would you ensure that your fallible human mind was not being deceived by a vision?

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

That already happened when Jesus became man. Many still not believed. Do you think if Jesus appeared doing miracles and flying around the sky like Superman, everyone would believe?

 

[tonyrey]

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?

They all believed in God!

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?

An apparition is not sufficient to save a soul!

It seems like in our increasingly secular world, he would be willing to take any help that he could get.

The world always has been and always will be secular by its very nature! Whether society is secular or not has no bearing on the truth…

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

That already happened when Jesus became man. Many still not believed. Do you think if Jesus appeared doing miracles and flying around the sky like Superman, everyone would believe?

Yes, people would believe. Those of old believed in God, but they had a very different idea of who the Messiah would be. This isn’t a “debate” about what idea of God is correct as it is an allusion to the fact that if God won’t make his existence known, then there is no point in believing in his existence.

In addition, Jesus didn’t perform many miracles during his lifetime (at least, from what we can ascertain from Scripture). Indeed, Paul states that Jesus took on the form of a “bondservant” (Philippians 2:7) and was therefore somewhat of a normal person. So it wasn’t as if Jesus performed many miracles and people were just covering their eyes in willful ignorance. No. He performed only a few miracles, and the emergence of Christianity did not come until decades later.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Do you believe you have a conscience - fallible but a conscience nevertheless? Do you regard it as worthless and try to ignore it as far as you can?

(Assuming you believe you have one!)

 

[tonyrey]

He performed only a few miracles, and the emergence of Christianity did not come until decades later.

Then who was (or were) the founder(s) of Christianity and the author(s) of the teaching of Jesus? Do you have any evidence for your hypothesis?

 

[St_Francis]

Yes, people would believe. Those of old believed in God, but they had a very different idea of who the Messiah would be. This isn’t a “debate” about what idea of God is correct as it is an allusion to the fact that if God won’t make his existence known, then there is no point in believing in his existence.

In addition, Jesus didn’t perform many miracles during his lifetime (at least, from what we can ascertain from Scripture). Indeed, Paul states that Jesus took on the form of a “bondservant” (Philippians 2:7) and was therefore somewhat of a normal person.

For most of His life, Christ was indeed like a normal person, but I do not think it follows that Christ was “like a normal person” from the fact that St Paul said He took the form of a bondservant. In fact, the miracles He performed were in the service of others; they were not self-aggrandizing in the least. He fed people, He cured people, He brought people back from the dead.

And what do you mean when you say Christ did not perdorm many miracles? Even one miracle would have been extraordinary! And how many do we have on record that He performed?

So it wasn’t as if Jesus performed many miracles and people were just covering their eyes in willful ignorance. No. He performed only a few miracles, and the emergence of Christianity did not come until decades later.

What do you mean when you say Christianity did not “emerge” til decades later?

Christ filled all the prophecies for the Messiah Who had been prophesied centuries before. The Pharisees and Sadducees were well aware of these prophecies. They were also aware of the miracles He performed.

 

[Pieman333272]

In addition, Jesus didn’t perform many miracles during his lifetime (at least, from what we can ascertain from Scripture). Indeed, Paul states that Jesus took on the form of a “bondservant” (Philippians 2:7) and was therefore somewhat of a normal person.
So it wasn’t as if Jesus performed many miracles and people were just covering their eyes in willful ignorance. No. He performed only a few miracles…

First of all, terms like “many” and “a few” are subjective. You need to compare him to some objective standard to claim he only did “a few” miracles. But even if you were right, the quality, that is, the purpose and nature, of the miracles is far superior than those for any faith of the time. Not only was he raised bodily from the dead, but he was raised as the Son of God, proved to be King and above the Roman Ceasar. No other miracle of any religion overstepped cultural and theological bounds as much as the resurrection did until much later.

…[T]he emergence of Christianity did not come until decades later.

Actually, Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection dates as early as 32 A.D… So it was hardly “decades”.

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

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.

Well, Jesus has a parable about something like this. I can’t remember his name, but the man was mean and cruel, and was sent to Hell. And when he saw Moses (?) he begged him to tell his family about the place he was in, so they wouldn’t end up there as well. But Moses (Or whoever it was) replied something like “If they don’t listen to the prophets, they will not listen to me.”

Sorry, but I’m absolutely horrible at quoting. Maybe going to Sunday school down the street at the Baptist Church for a year would be of some help.

 

[passer_by]

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.

I am not a major in philosophy or anything so my answer might not be as rigorous. But here is my attempt.

I assume by making himself known, you mean that “one can know God exists without resorting to complicated logic just as you know I exist and vice versa”.

So my answer goes along the lines of naturally knowing. What I mean to say is that nearly everyone believes that there is something greater than themselves, right? Every ancient civilization had this belief.

But somehow the modern civilization has started having a crisis.

From what I understand, the modern person actually has two types of objections to disbelieve in God (or some entity greater than himself).

1. Reasons to believe God does not exist
2. The mere possibility that God might not exist

Now I believe that all of the “reasons” to believe God does not exist can be refuted. As far as I am aware, there have been no successful arguments that prove God does not exist. Probably why we have a lot more Agnostics than Atheists. So the (1) above is not a problem. In any case, we can abandon (1) since we are talking about a person understanding God exists/ does not exists without resorting to complicated logical arguments. It should be obvious in the way I know you exists and in the way I know Superman does not exist.

So I think the difficulty lies with (2). Now it is possible that one can show that the possibility that God might not exist is logically inconsistent But that too is not important for what we are analyzing.

But I think the solution to (2) is more obvious. Take human persons we know. It is ‘possible’ that they do not exist. It is ‘possible’ that we are all brains being stimulated by an evil scientist. But naturally, we do not doubt the existence of others because of this mere possibility. We take what we naturally know as true to be true.

So mere possibilities that somethings are false should not be enough to move us away from what we naturally know as true.

Now since many persons DO naturally know that God exists, perhaps it is the fault of the person to move away from that belief simply because of a possibility that God might not exist.

In conclusion, God has revealed himself to all of us by making us in a way that we naturally believe he exists. It is only our erroneous thinking, or trying too hard to be intelligent that has lead us to become overly suspicious or skeptic.

 

[tonyrey]

Whether society is secular or not has no bearing on the truth…

But it does have a bearing on what people believe - rightly or wrongly!
“All they like sheep…”

 

[jmoneyideas]

It is safe to say the OP won’t being opening his mind or heart. When I read so many anti religious comments mixed in with the Scripture reference I can’t but pause and think of the enemy using the words and tone against us. People that broadcast theme selves as atheist are so lost that the best thing we can do is pray for them. The person that posted this topic was much like me a few years ago. I wanted a proof that God existed. I wanted the Almighty BigFoot clip that never happened. My blinded eyes would never let me see the truth as will our OP blind eyes keep him blind. No matter what we say or type it all falls down to his views. All we can do is pray and hope there ls a change.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

You clearly missed the point. The point was this Jesus compells you to make a Choice, either your with him or your against him. He is either who he says he is or he is a bad man. I made my Choice and it has turned out rather well for me.

I disagree that those are the only choices. He doesn’t have to be a bad man, he could also be sincerely mistaken.

Lewis seems, by what he wrote, to have wanted to include the option of Christ’s having been mistaken under the lunatic label,

I agree, I simply have learned that “sincerely mistaken” is less likely to cause offense then “lunatic”.

The problem is that for most mental health personnel, having a vision of God would be ipso facto evidence of a mental problem, so you would be no further along than you were before.

Probably, and I wouldn’t really blame them for that. Nevertheless, if their only reason for thinking I was insane was the fact that God had visited me, then I would go ahead and accept that the revelation was probably true. I would mainly be looking to see if there were any other factors that suggested hallucination. If there were none, I would believe.

Non-belief is ambiguous. It may mean agnosticism or atheism. I leave you to decide which is more reasonable…

I’m probably what most people would consider an agnostic, though I think that the constant bickering over which term means exactly what is kind of pointless. At the end of the day, they’re both just labels that can’t really express a person’s full position. A shorthand, if you will. The distinction is taken far too seriosuly IMO.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

So how does that answer my problem? It’s all well and good if you can provide positive evidence of B-Theory, but that doesn’t address the problem of infinite past I mentioned, or ideas like the grim reaper paradox Craig uses.
.

Craig’s point is that if the A-theory of time is not true, then it doesn’t matter whether the universe is finite or infinite. If the a-theory is false, then the universe could be finite without ever having “begun to exist”. Time would simply be a dimension, and the fact that the universe was finitely extended along the “time” dimension would not mean it began to exist anymore than the fact that it was extended finitely along the spatial dimensions.

OK, who have you read and WHY do you find them unconvincing?.

Many philosophers, William Lane Craig being one of them. Since you brought it up, why don’t you tell me which arguments you find persuasive?

So it doesn’t meet an undefined burden of proof? How odd.

Let me be blunt here, I simply do not believe that we are capable of determining the truth of ancient miracle claims. The further removed we are from an event(10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, and so on), the less able we are to determine the truth of what happened. When one combines a 2000 year distance in time with the inherent unlikliness of a miracle, I think it simply becomes impossible to tell whether or not it happened. In fact, that’s one of the reasons that I think God should appear to people in the modern day. If He really expects us to be able to sift through all of the absurd stories, miracle claims, claims of divine intervention, accusations of witchcraft, etc. over the course of thousands of years of human history, and find the one guy, Jesus, who actually did have magic powers, unlike the others, He’s out of his mind. It’s just not possible to tell which of these ancient stories really happened and which ones didn’t. We’re too far removed from the events.

Just to speed up the debate, would you agree that if the empty tomb and appearance stories matched the criteria of authenticity that they would be historical, and that the only explanation for the events were shown to be Jesus being raised from the dead, that that would meet the burden of proof?

No, I don’t think that an empty grave in any way implies that the previous occupant got up and walked away. That would be the last thing I would think. As to the stories being told about him coming back from the dead, the mere fact that people are circulating such stories does not mean that such stories are true. If right now, you heard a ring at the doorbell, and when you answered, there were a half dozen strangers on your doorstep, trying to convince that they’d seen their dead buddy Jimmy up and about, would you believe them? Would you say “My God, unverifiable stories from total strangers who have done nothing to earn my trust? It must be true!” I wouldn’t, and I don’t think you would either.

No, the Gospels clearly set themselves as being by Mark, Luke, and Matthew. The manuscript evidence is unanimous, except for one case of Matthew 1 which is the result of a tag on the original scroll copy (see tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.html)…

Everything that I’ve read would indicate otherwise, that most scholars agree that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not written by those who later Christians ascribed them to. In any case, you have to actually give reasons as to why we should believe that they were written by these people. You and I can quote different scholars back and forth until we’re blue in the face, it will get us nowhere.

Actually, there is.

Really? How did you determine that? In any case, we have the same problem as above: we can’t simply quote some scholar as being correct, that’s an “appeal to authority” fallacy. You have to actually provide reasons as to why you think that this passage can be traced back to within three years of the event.

Even if it can be, that really doesn’t mean much. Myths and legends have sprung up much more quickly than that. Even if it was close to the time of Jesus, we have no reason to believe that the person who developed it knew Jesus. There were plenty of people alive during that time who had never met him. Why should we trust this tale?

Precisely how would you ensure that your fallible human mind was not being deceived by a vision?

I admit that we can never be completely sure. But if I had taken the best precautions and ensured that I was still mentally healthy, I would be reasonably certain that God had really appeared to me.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

That already happened when Jesus became man. Many still not believed. Do you think if Jesus appeared doing miracles and flying around the sky like Superman, everyone would believe?

Those who were genuinely concerned with truth would. I cannot speak for anyone else.

Do you believe you have a conscience - fallible but a conscience nevertheless? Do you regard it as worthless and try to ignore it as far as you can?

(Assuming you believe you have one!)

I do believe that I have a conscience. Your last sentence is kind of confusing, but I do consider my conscience to be worth following. If that’s not what you were asking, please explain further.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

I assume by making himself known, you mean that “one can know God exists without resorting to complicated logic just as you know I exist and vice versa”…

Precisely.

So my answer goes along the lines of naturally knowing. What I mean to say is that nearly everyone believes that there is something greater than themselves, right? Every ancient civilization had this belief…

It depends on what you mean by “greater than myself”. The God of theism is much, much more than just “something greater than myself”.

1. Reasons to believe God does not exist
2. The mere possibility that God might not exist
   .

I would correct 2) to say “there are no good reasons to believe that God exists”, but other than that I agree.

But I think the solution to (2) is more obvious. Take human persons we know. It is ‘possible’ that they do not exist. It is ‘possible’ that we are all brains being stimulated by an evil scientist. But naturally, we do not doubt the existence of others because of this mere possibility. We take what we naturally know as true to be true…

I agree that the mere possibility of something does not give us reason to believe it. That’s my whole point with God - the mere fact that He might exist does not provide us with good reason to believe that He actually does.

Now since many persons DO naturally know that God exists, perhaps it is the fault of the person to move away from that belief simply because of a possibility that God might not exist…

I would challenge the idea that most people naturally know that God exists. Most people are taught that God exists. Almost everyone alive today was raised in a theistic worldview. I know I was. among my friends who were not raised to believe in God, none of them have even the slightest belief in a deity, and in fact most of them considered the idea extremely bizarre when they were introduced to the concept later on in life. The fact that most people are raised with this belief that does not mean it is “natural” for humans. The widespread appeal of belief in God says nothing about whether or not it is actually true. To say otherwise would be an ad populum fallacy.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

It is safe to say the OP won’t being opening his mind or heart. .

You know this how?

My blinded eyes would never let me see the truth as will our OP blind eyes keep him blind.

And what truth is that? That we should believe in God even without good reason?

 

[shoe]

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

I basically meant that atheism is a worldview that states that God does not and cannot ever exist. Webster defines atheism as; “a) a disbelief in the existence of deity; b) the doctrine that there is no deity.” Since science offers no evidence that supports the worldview that denies the existence of God; or, to put it another way, science has absolutely no evidence that God doesn’t exist, atheists must start with a presupposition that is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever and build their entire worldview on an unbelievable presupposition that everything in the universe exists but the Creator. But theists, on the other hand, have a very believable answer: "“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” (Romans 1:20).

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.

The fact that atheists frequently and sometimes with much bellicosity attack the trustworthiness of the Bible does not make the Bible untrustworthy. I think one of the reasons that atheists cannot understand the reality of the God of the Bible is that they simply are not looking for Him; in fact, they seem to go out of their way to steer clear of Him altogether.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

I basically meant that atheism is a worldview that states that God does not and cannot ever exist. Webster defines atheism as; “a) a disbelief in the existence of deity; b) the doctrine that there is no deity.” Since science offers no evidence that supports the worldview that denies the existence of God; or, to put it another way, science has absolutely no evidence that God doesn’t exist, atheists must start with a presupposition that is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever and build their entire worldview on an unbelievable presupposition that everything in the universe exists but the Creator. .

This kind of goes into that Atheist Vs. Agnostic debate that I mentioned above, but anyways, no atheist that I know would say that God “cannot exist”, or that He “definitely” does not exist. For myself, I simply don’t believe in God, but I’m open to the idea.

But theists, on the other hand, have a very believable answer: "“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” (Romans 1:20)…

“Believable” is a rather subjective term.

The fact that atheists frequently and sometimes with much bellicosity attack the trustworthiness of the Bible does not make the Bible untrustworthy. I think one of the reasons that atheists cannot understand the reality of the God of the Bible is that they simply are not looking for Him; in fact, they seem to go out of their way to steer clear of Him altogether.

I think that there are many reasons to doubt the trustworthiness of the Bible, but that’s not the subject of the thread, nor was that the point that I was trying to make. I was simply pointing out that something is not true just because the Bible says it, unless you’ve already provided reasons as to why we should trust the Bible in the first place.

 

[jmoneyideas]

You know this how?

And what truth is that? That we should believe in God even without good reason?

Its my TRUTH… Not yours, a relationship with God is a personal relationship. My belief system is Mine and if you want to come in here and try and sway it or doubt it you will find your cause is a lose. My friend God is Real, he is real to me and every other person who is open to his truth and life. The problem with the Atheist movement is they feel they control everything. Yet when the time comes and you are on your death bed what do you think…do you take a moment and ask God if he is real or ask for him to accept you. I will tell you that from what I have read is that most do. So think what you want and asked the Good questions and Hide your heart and mind from the truth if you want but I tell you this when the time comes I beg you…accept the Lord Jesus as your savior… except God as a truth, Don’t think you have all the answers and for your sake have Faith if you can. I do… I know I could quote you scripture after scripture and wise men after wise men but you are set in your ways. Your ways are wrong my friend I know it in my heart. I have been there. I have felt the same things you have. You need to try and understand. I will pray for you.