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

[EpicureanSimba]

Why do you find it unconvincing?

Mainly because I think that Jesus could have been sincerely mistaken, and i think it also possible that he was lying, though that seems less likely.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

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.

I would do the same thing if I saw a UFO, or something else that seemed exceedingly unlikely to me. 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. As long as I had taken those precautions, I would have no problem believing following a direct 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.

If I was questioning my mental health, then absolutely. I don’t buy into the Catholic idea that every problem is best solved by consulting a priest. Once I had verified that my vision was true however, my very next step would be to consult a religious leader from whatever religious group God directed me towards during the revelation, if any.

Fair enough, but just as you regard "subtle revelations as “not really revelations”

I do not regard them as being the same thing at all, in fact, my post was meant to draw a distinction. A subtle revelation would be one which indirectly established the existence of God, while something was not really a revelation would be a failed attempt to establish the existence of God. I was arguing that the revelations that were offered to me would have been subtle revelations had they been successful. As it happens, however, I think that they are in fact not really revelations because they in fact fail to establish the existence of God, regardless of whether they are subtle or not. Does that make sense?

 

[EpicureanSimba]

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…

I believe in being open to all ideas, and in always being open to changing my mind and acknowledging past mistakes. I’m simply saying that I would want to take precautions to ensure my mind was not being tricked. If I had taken those precautions, I would have no problem believing.

Please don’t take me saying “I would still be open to the idea that I had somehow hallucinated.” as meaning I would be insecure or insincere in my belief. I am open to being wrong on virtually all of my beliefs, yet that does not change the fact that I sincerely believe them

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.

Please don’t be condescending, it tends to reduce the quality of conversation rather quickly. As I said I above:

EpicureanSimba:

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. .

 

[Pieman333272]

Lol, I just realized that last post I answered wasn’t by you. Anyway:

I disagree, of course.

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.

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

OK, tell me what you see wrong with the cosmological argument and the arguments for Jesus’ resurrection from the dead? (These aren’t the only arguments I’m convinced by, but I’m most familiar with them).

It seems like refusing to reveal Himself would be contrary to his goal of saving as many souls as possible.

Well, that isn’t the case. As I mention above, if you sincerely fail to see the evidence for God’s existence, which may or may not be the case with you, you will not go to hell for lack of belief. So your soul can still be saved even if God doesn’t convince you to your desired standards.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

OK, tell me what you see wrong with the cosmological argument and the arguments for Jesus’ resurrection from the dead? (These aren’t the only arguments I’m convinced by, but I’m most familiar with them)…

Well, there are a lot of different cosmological arguments, but the most common one goes something like this:

Premise 1) Everything has a cause
Premise 2) But the causes can not go back infinitely, because an infinite regress of causes is impossible.
Conclusion 1) Therefore, there is a single “uncaused cause” at the beginning of the causal chain. This we call God.
(If you were referring to a different cosmological argument, please correct me.)

First, I think this argument is self refuting. Its first premise is that everything has a cause. And yet, its conclusion is that not everything has a cause. Therefore, if its conclusion is correct, then its first premise is false, which undermines the argument. Therefore, if it’s possible for something to not have a cause, then it’s entirely possible for the universe to not have a cause.

Secondly, even if the argument worked flawlessly, I see no reason to believe that the uncaused cause would in any way resemble the God of the Bible.

As for the resurrection of Jesus, I feel that the evidence does not meet the burden of proof. The only claimed piece of eyewitness testimony for the Resurrection is the Gospel of John, which leaves us with exactly one piece of eyewitness testimony for the Resurrection of Jesus. Hardly enough to determine the truth of something as outlandish as a Resurrection. We have astronomically better evidence than that for UFO’s and ghost sightings, and yet most people agree that those things are unlikely.

 

[PJM]

=EpicureanSimba;8597584]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.

My dear friend in Christ,

Welcome to our FORUM!

Allow me please to at least attempt to answer your quesions in the limited space permitted to us.

Have you ever heard the expression: “I can’t see the forest because of the trees”?

Evidence of God surounds us to the point of being overwhelming. The greatest evidence of God is us: you and me! Consider the compexites of the human body, mind and soul.

Our bodies consist of BILLIONS of cells, a brain, sight and hearing. It is inconceivablw that we can or do exist by luck, by evolution ALONE, or by chance. IMPOSSIBLE!

Of the MANY BILLIONS of created things in the universe; ONLY One; Only humanity alone can LOVE and RATIONALIZE. To do so requires a mind [not the brain], and an intellect [not IQ], and FREEWILL which are all permnantely attached to our souls. Which for the present descussion we will define as that which gives and sustains life.

Try to quantify any one of these things. Your “FREEWILL” for example. How large, what is its shape, color, weight? CAN’T be done because each of these THINGS, which we can show exist; is a SPIRITUAL THING. Science claims that “like MUST COME FROM LIKE.” So my friend what is the Origin of these things?

Let’s now just address your final question as space is limited.

Humanity is the ONLY created thing in the entire universe made from Gods OWN want.

Isa.43: 7and 21: “every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made." AND the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise.”

There is the answer to your question in summury form.*** God can be defined as “all good things perfected”*** So the questions now are Justice and fairness good things? of course THEY ARE. So God then MUST BE "Just and fair."

One of the greatest LIES today is that anyone can, may, or will join Christ in heaven without ALSO particiating in HIS SUFFERING. The idea that GOD became man like us in everyway but sin so that we COULD, WOULD and SHOULD know Him [not simply “of Him”], then freely choose to suffer the most humilitating and painful death known at the time; being NAILED to the Cross for us, and not REQUIRE something back in return is short-sighted, FOOLISH, and silly.

BECAUSE MAN ALONE OF ALL CREATED THINGS CAN FREELY CHOOSE TO LOVE AND RATIONALIZE; WE ARE THUS OBLIGATED TO CHOOSE TO DO SO.

Because Gos MUST be Just and Fair, and they way He created us; and because God is “PERFECT LOVE,” humanity was created exclusively so that we could FREELY choose to know, Love and serve God. We can also freely choose to deny and hate God. WHY? Becuse “perfect love” musr be FREELY bestowed, and ONLY we can choose to do that.

Luke.14: 7 [Christ speaking in the 1st. Person] "***Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” ***

This my friend is what God Himself teaches us: IF WE CHOOSE TO LISTEN TO HIM?

**1Pet.5: 1, 9 ** “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world.”

1Pet.4: 13 ” But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

Phil.1: 29 “For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, “

2Thes.1: 5 “This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be made worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering “

Heb. 2: 10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering"

PLEASE CHECK OUT MY BLOG and send me a private message if you have more questions?

God Bless you,
Pat
PJM on the Forum

 

[EpicureanSimba]

Evidence of God surounds us to the point of being overwhelming. The greatest evidence of God is us: you and me! Consider the compexites of the human body, mind and soul.

Our bodies consist of BILLIONS of cells, a brain, sight and hearing. It is inconceivablw that we can or do exist by luck, by evolution ALONE, or by chance. IMPOSSIBLE!

I don’t think that it’s impossible for human beings to have evolved, at all.

Try to quantify any one of these things. Your “FREEWILL” for example. How large, what is its shape, color, weight? CAN’T be done because each of these THINGS, which we can show exist; is a SPIRITUAL THING.

I think that there is a difference between an abstract concept and a “spiritual thing”.

Science claims that “like MUST COME FROM LIKE.” So my friend what is the Origin of these things?

I have to admit, I’ve received a fairly comprehensive basic education in science, and I’ve never heard of this concept of “like must come from like”, so I’m not entirely sure what you mean. Could you tell me where you got this from.

There is the answer to your question in summury form.*** God can be defined as “all good things perfected”*** So the questions now are Justice and fairness good things? of course THEY ARE. So God then MUST BE "Just and fair."

It seems like you’re just defining God as “all good things perfected”. But the ability to define something does not mean that it exists. I can “define”, for instance, a “Dalek” as being “a genocidal alien armed with incredibly powerful weaponry”, but my ability to define it does not mean that it actually exists.

Because God MUST be Just and Fair, and they way He created us; and because God is “PERFECT LOVE,” humanity was created exclusively so that we could FREELY choose to know, Love and serve God. We can also freely choose to deny and hate God. WHY? Becuse “perfect love” musr be FREELY bestowed, and ONLY we can choose to do that.

Again, I don’t think that God revealing Himself to us in any way impairs our ability to freely accept or deny Him.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

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!

I’ve read similar arguments before, and I think that I agree with what you’re saying. Unfortunately, most believers will simply insist that reasonable non-belief does not really occur, and that we evil non-believers are simply deluding ourselves. You know the drill

 

[Pieman333272]

First, I think this argument is self refuting. Its first premise is that everything has a cause. And yet, its conclusion is that not everything has a cause. Therefore, if its conclusion is correct, then its first premise is false, which undermines the argument.

You are attacking a strawman of the argument, I’m afraid. The first premise is NOT “all things have a cause”. No significant philosopher has or does ever advocated that form of the argument. The REAL first premise is “everything which begins to exist has a cause” (or some grammatical variation of that). Hence the contradiction is non-existent.

Therefore, if it’s possible for something to not have a cause, then it’s entirely possible for the universe to not have a cause.

Actually, it’s not possible for the universe to exist forever. If the universe existed forever, we would never reach the point we are today (the present), as the past would be infinite.

Secondly, even if the argument worked flawlessly, I see no reason to believe that the uncaused cause would in any way resemble the God of the Bible.

Actually, there is strong reason, which I cannot summarize here, that the God that is proved by the CA is omnibenevolent, -potent, -scient, and transcendent, among other features. I do agree he can’t be equated with the Christian God, but a strong case for Christianity can be made based on history, which I will address presently.

As for the resurrection of Jesus, I feel that the evidence does not meet the burden of proof.

Give an objective description of the kind of proof Jesus’ resurrection needs first.

The only claimed piece of eyewitness testimony for the Resurrection is the Gospel of John which leaves us with exactly one piece of eyewitness testimony for the Resurrection of Jesus.

No, Matthew is by an eyewitness too, and Luke and Mark are immediately removed from eyewitnesses. Paul is also key, being an eyewitness to his own conversion testimony and being immediately removed from the eyewitness testimony of all the disciples. Paul also reports a creed, probably written by eyewitnesses, which dates as early as 3 years after the crucifixion. There is plenty of trustworthy primary sources in the NT regarding the resurrection. So your argument is false.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

You are attacking a strawman of the argument, I’m afraid. The first premise is NOT “all things have a cause”. No significant philosopher has or does ever advocated that form of the argument. The REAL first premise is “everything which begins to exist has a cause” (or some grammatical variation of that). Hence the contradiction is non-existent…

It is not a strawman, it is simply a different variation than the Kalam argument that you give, which is why I asked for clarification.
In any case, I don’t believe that the universe actually began to exist. I believe this because I am convinced that the B-theory of time is true, and under that theory, the universe never came into existence at all. The reasons for that are kind of complicated, and require some knowledge of the philosophy of time, but the reason was best articulated by the most prominent defender of the Kalam argument, William Lane Craig, when explaining why argues so vehemently against the B-theory:

“From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived.”

Actually, there is strong reason, which I cannot summarize here, that the God that is proved by the CA is omnibenevolent, -potent, -scient, and transcendent, among other features. I do agree he can’t be equated with the Christian God, but a strong case for Christianity can be made based on history, which I will address presently…

I’ve read the arguments to that effect, and I find them unconvincing.

Give an objective description of the kind of proof Jesus’ resurrection needs first…

I admit that it would very diffcult to do. Establishing the credibility of a miracle is extremely difficult even in modern times, with people like Sathya Sai Baba, where thousands of living witnesses are avilable for interviewing.

No, Matthew is by an eyewitness too, and Luke and Mark are immediately removed from eyewitnesses. …

All three of those Gospels are written anonymously. How could we possibly know how close these anonymous authors were to Jesus?

Paul is also key, being an eyewitness to his own conversion testimony and being immediately removed from the eyewitness testimony of all the disciples. .

Paul had visions of Jesus after the Resurrected Jesus had supposedly already left earth, that’s a completely different experience.

Paul also reports a creed, probably written by eyewitnesses, which dates as early as 3 years after the crucifixion…

Really? There’s a scholarly consensus on that?

There is plenty of trustworthy primary sources in the NT regarding the resurrection. So your argument is false.

I disagree.

 

[jmoneyideas]

EpicureanSimba;8597997]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?

If you were asking if God sat down next to me and had a general conversation then thats a NO. That being said there is a feeling, a weight on my chest, hairs standing on my arm and a sense of calm. It is hard to explain when to some one who has not experianced it and maybe has never truely looked for God other than using the Big Foot premise, I gotta see it with my own eyes to know its true. It goes back to Faith and making a commitment and turning from your own preconcieved notion of what YOU believe and open your own thought process. I feel for you if you have such a hardend stance on this but maybe one day you will come around, I will pray for you

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

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.

If I am right and I live my life according his word and keep him in front of me and believe he is my savoir and lord then I have a life of eternity in my grasp and If I am wrong and you are right then I still lived a life of virtue and was as good a person as I can be but what if your wrong, I am not willing to bet eternity on that and that is why I have faith and Believe.

It all comes to a Choice my friend. The meaning and origin of the expression: You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink… Free Will is allows us to go one way or the other…Up or Down!

 

[St_Francis]

Mainly because I think that Jesus could have been sincerely mistaken, and i think it also possible that he was lying, though that seems less likely.

Lewis seems, by what he wrote, to have wanted to include the option of Christ’s having been mistaken under the lunatic label, and overall, this was an argument against one sort of statement, the type which went, I don’t believe Jesus was God, but I do think He was a great moral teacher.

ETA: I re-read what Lewis wrote after seeing your reply, which reminded me of its context, otherwise I would have said that before. Sorry about that!.

 

[St_Francis]

I would do the same thing if I saw a UFO, or something else that seemed exceedingly unlikely to me. 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. As long as I had taken those precautions, I would have no problem believing following a direct revelation…

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.

 

[Pieman333272]

It is not a strawman, it is simply a different variation than the Kalam argument that you give, which is why I asked for clarification.

It’s not just the Kalam. Every version of the argument postulated by a serious theistic philosopher either depends on the version of the premise I named or doesn’t depend on the universe beginning to exist at all.

In any case, I don’t believe that the universe actually began to exist. I believe this because I am convinced that the B-theory of time is true, and under that theory, the universe never came into existence at all. The reasons for that are kind of complicated, and require some knowledge of the philosophy of time, but the reason was best articulated by the most prominent defender of the Kalam argument, William Lane Craig, when explaining why argues so vehemently against the B-theory:

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.

I’ve read the arguments to that effect, and I find them unconvincing.

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

I admit that it would very diffcult to do. Establishing the credibility of a miracle is extremely difficult even in modern times, with people like Sathya Sai Baba, where thousands of living witnesses are avilable for interviewing.

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

All three of those Gospels are written anonymously. How could we possibly know how close these anonymous authors were to Jesus?

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).

Paul had visions of Jesus after the Resurrected Jesus had supposedly already left earth, that’s a completely different experience.

That’s correct. My bad. I was confusing its usage by my source, it was meant to prove something else regarding Paul’s attestation of the resurrection, not that he was an eyewitness.

Really? There’s a scholarly consensus on that?

Actually, there is.

 

[Perplexity]

I’ve read similar arguments before, and I think that I agree with what you’re saying. Unfortunately, most believers will simply insist that reasonable non-belief does not really occur, and that we evil non-believers are simply deluding ourselves. You know the drill

I agree But, the following quote should help motivate our Catholic interlocutors:

“Take, for example, the view of theologians at Vatican II, as reported by Karl Rahner: The council makes no reference to the traditional textbook view that positive atheism cannot be entertained for any considerable period of time by a fully developed person of normal intelligence without involving any blame on his part. The Council actually assumed a contrary thesis i.e., that it is possible for a normal adult to hold an explicit atheism for a long period of time-even to his life’s end-without this implying moral blame on the part of such an unbeliever. [Emphasis in the original]" - Karl Rahner, “Atheism and Implicit Christianity” in Gerald A. McCool. A Rahner Reader. New York: Seabury, 1975. pp. 221-222, as cited in Schellenberg, J. L. Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 2006. p. 69

 

[Nelka]

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.

Luke 16:31 Then Abraham said to him, “If they will not listen either to Moses or to the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone should rise from the dead.”

 

[tonyrey]

The whole point of our existence is to choose what to believe, how to live and who to love. If we weren’t in the dark we would be attracted like moths to the light and unable to be capable of determining our destiny.

But we are not in total darkness: - if we are sincerely seeking God there is enough goodness, beauty, joy and love in the world to demonstrate that we don’t exist by chance. Even evil is evidence that we don’t live in an amoral, purposeless universe!

 

[tonyrey]

If I am right and I live my life according his word and keep him in front of me and believe he is my savoir and lord then I have a life of eternity in my grasp and If I am wrong and you are right then I still lived a life of virtue and was as good a person as I can be but what if your wrong, I am not willing to bet eternity on that and that is why I have faith and Believe.

In an amoral, purposeless universe virtue is an illusion!

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Indeed. Materialists assume religion is sheer, unadulterated superstition…

 

[tonyrey]

Unfortunately, most believers will simply insist that reasonable non-belief does not really occur, and that we evil non-believers are simply deluding ourselves.

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