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

[EpicureanSimba]

Why do I believe? First, I believe God exists because evolution without any intelligent guidance makes no sense. Either a complex organ developed all at once by chance, and this happened many times, or complex organisms developed over generations, during which time each change would have to bring about greater survivability and interlock so as to end with a working development. ( It was not for several years that I would find out about the various critiques of materialist evolution along these lines. I was not scientifically inclined if no crime was involved!)

I’ve heard that line of reasoning before, from people like Michael Behe, but I don’t find it convicing. For one thing, a lot of the “examples” given of organs “too complex to evolve” have been refuted, and it has been demonstrated how exactly they could have evolved, even piece by piece.

If you don’t mind me asking, which scientists did you read that directly tried to address this seeming problem with evolution?

Even, however, if it turned out that for some organ or another, we simply can’t explain how evolution alone provided the organ, I still don’t think that that would give us reason to believe in a God. Look at the ancient Greeks. By the science of their time, lightning was utterly unexplainable. They couldn’t even imagine being able to study it, much less harness it. Therefore, they gave an unscientific explanation - “I guess Zeus is throwing lightning bolts.”. This is God of the Gaps reasoning. Just because science can’t yet explain something doesn’t mean that God did it, anymore than the inability of the ancients to explain lightning meant that Zeus did it. Even if evolution itself turned out to be patently false, that would still not lend any strength to the God hypothesis - you would still have to provide positive evidence in favor of God’s existence, you can’t just point to gaps in out scientific knowledge and assume that God was responsible for them, as many in the Intelligent Design movement do.

Actually, miracles still occur.*This is a set of YouTube videos–long at 9, I know, and subtitled from Spanish, but the speaker was an atheist scientist who began, at his mother’s request iirc, to investigate what seemed to be a Eucharistic miracle. It is not professionally done, so the information is not always presented efficiently, but watch it all because it is… well, if it doesn’t convince you that something is going on, I can’t imagine what would.

m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=K_vyxkF0PDs

I think that your link might be broken, when I tried to follow it, it led me to a list of four different youtube videos, none of which seemed to be the one that you mentioned.

In any case, I have to ask, what makes this miracle more impressive than those given by Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.? Sathya Sai Baba alone had thousands of witnesses to his healings, miracles, and even a resurrection that he performed. It seems to me like all religions have plenty of credulous people who will claim that miracles occur.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

1.Can you explain the basis of the distinction between good and evil in an amoral, purposeless universe??

That would be a contradiction in terms, since you explicitly defined our hypothetical Universe as an “amoral” one.

1. Is morality a set of human conventions that can be safely ignored if one’s crimes are likely to be undetected?

I think that it runs deeper than that. I think that morality is part of our nature. That’s why attempts to do something evil, like rape, or steal, leave us with all that painful guilt - our actions are rubbing up against the better part of our nature.

1. Do you have any control over your conscience or is it the product of social conditioning?

I haven’t studied the science behind it much, but I would imagine that our conscience is influenced by a variety of factors, of which social conditioning is one.

How would you convince doctors you were not hallucinated and avoid being carted off to a psychiatric hospital?

They would not have the legal right to cart me off just because I said that I spoke with God. They’d have to cart of half of the Republic presidential candidates as well if that were all that it took. My goal would be to assure myself that I was sane, not the doctors.

Precisely what precautions?

The things I mentioned above - getting myself checked out, making sure I had no mental illnesses, etc. Basic precautions that would make me much more comfortable in my decision. Again, I don’t see why everyone is so hung up on this.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

1. Do you believe there are good reasons to believe we just happen to exist for no reason or purpose whatsoever in a universe which just **happens **to exist for no reason or purpose whatsoever - and that the power of reason just happens to have been produced by purposeless particles?

I don’t know why we exist, nor do I know why the universe exists, nor do I know precisely how it is that evolution formed our ability to reason. However, I do not find the “God hypothesis” convincing.

1. In other words is it rational to believe rational activity is the result of irrational activity?

Not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate?

1. What guarantee would there be that rational activity is not a delusion?

There’s always the possibility that we’re deluding ourselves. However, I’ve seen no reason to ever believe that that is true.

1. Do you agree you are using your power of reason to assert that everything is unreasonable?!

When did I say “everything is unreasonable”? I’m sure that your apologetics books have asserted that the universe is unreasonable under atheism, but that does not make it so.

What would it take for you to believe in God? What kind of a revelation and/or a miracle would convince you? I suspect that an honest answer would be that they would not because you would seek to explain them away. I don’t think that the question here is a lack of proof but the very foundations of your reasoning.

God appearing to me, similar to the vision on the road to Damascus, for instance, would be one of many potential avenues.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

God appearing to me, similar to the vision on the road to Damascus, for instance, would be one of many potential avenues.

Potential avenues. So even if you get knocked over and blinded, given a vision and an explicit knowledge about the existence of God you still might not be convinced. You see? This is exactly what I’m talking about. No amount of proof is enough for the one who wants to doubt. Human nature I guess.

I am convinced that emotional issues are the cause of atheism in people. It can be dissappointment, fear, need for control, etc. But it is not logic and intellectual honesty. I’ve heard many people say exactly the same thing as you when it comes to demanding proof and then admit that nothing would be enough to convince them. Because when you dig deep enough you see that there is anothere issue (or more) there that is the source of disbelief, something deeply personal. Any ideas?

 

[Perplexity]

If you have done nothing to impede God’s desire you are in such a relationship even though you are unaware of the fact! Your enjoyment of life and love for others are evidence of that relationship - unless you think they are entirely accidental!

Can you give an example of inculpable non-belief? (specifying whether it is atheism or agnosticism.)

If the one who’s done nothing to impede God’s desire for a relationship is in such a relationship, then that person does not have “unbelief.” This is because a necessary condition of a personal relationship between two or more agents is belief in the existence of each other. Imagine being told you’re in a personal relationship with a secret admirer of yours whom you didn’t previously know even existed. You’re not really in any relationship, right?

The non-belief of “inculpable non-belief” refers to the the non-belief common to atheists and agnostics, it’s said to be inculpable because these unbelievers haven’t done anything immoral in their holding this position.

One would expect such a position to not exist if God did. i.e., everyone would either accept God, or reject him.

 

[Abba]

Even if (2) is false, the argument is logically valid. I’m not sure what you’re referring to by “valid” if it can be absent simply because a premise is false.

Why would I want to take seriously an argument with a false premise? Boy, I should get published! All of the sudden, a stupid argument becomes important because someone actually surrounded the argument with a lot of fancy verbiage and got it published. Then others, who are just as eager to get published or get famous, tag on and respond as though the argument was really worthy of a response. Golly! I should get published too. I bet I could write something with more substance than that and I could surely use the money to pay my bills.

Since we are taking serious an argument with a false premise:

“2. If an all loving God exists, reasonable non-belief does not occur.”

we can state as we wish and cannot argue the verity of the premise. We must all pretend that the premise is true because we obtain our objective of pretending to have logically proven that God does not exist. Now, every one can go home and pretend that you are intellectually satisfied by this false argument which proves God does not exist. Phew! finally that problem is resolved! God does not exist and I can get on with my little life as I wish. Next. Oh, and even if we accept that the premise is false, the argument is still structurally valid so = God does not exist.

It also follows that these arguments are just as valid and using the same tactic prove that God does not exist:

1. If an all loving God exists, teenager will not have pimples.
2. If an all loving God exists, no one will be born blind.
3. If an all loving God exists, no one will be born deaf.
4. If an all loving God exists, there would be no war.
5. If an all loving God exists, there would be no suffering.
6. If an all loving God exists, there would be no evil.
7. If an all loving God exists, there would be no illness.
8. If an all loving God exists, there would be no hunger.
9. If an all loving God exists, all students will get As.
10. If an all loving God exists, there would be no birth pain.
11. If an all loving God exists, there would be no pain.
12. If an all loving God exists, there would be no mental illnesses.
13. If an all loving God exists, there would be no research as we would know.
14. If an all loving God exists, there would be no death.
15. If an all loving God exists, everyone would just be happy.

I think you get the point. If we really continue on with this list and if I dress it up as if it would be published in some fancy book before you know it you will see how this existence would quickly become hell and people would start gnashing their teeth and long to be taken out of that little world that with every added false premise 2 becomes a more and more enclosed prison which denies us our human nature. This reminds me of Dostoevsky. :yawn:

I don’t want to live in a world created and designed by someone who did not create me. :hypno: I want to live in God’s world, the world created by my Father, who loves me.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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.

You wouldn’t recognize Him if He stood in front of you as plain as day.



I’m sure you’ve heard the story of the man who was stuck in his house during a flood. He prayed to God for rescue. When the water was rising above his first floor, another man in a boat came by, offering to take him out. “No, he said, God will help me.” The water kept rising, and he had to go to his roof. Another boat came by, but the man said, “No, God will save me.” Finally the water was about to sweep him off his roof, and a helicopter came over him, and the rescuer tried to give him the basket, but the man again said, “Thank you, but God will save me.” He was swept off his roof and drowned. He got to Heaven, and he asked God, “Why didn’t you save me?” God said, “What do you mean?? I sent the boats and the helicopter!”

 

[Sonny1954]

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.

Beats me. He has a penchant for playing hide-and-seek with humanity. I’d think that an unexpected world-wide event with no possible scientific explanation and which newspapers and TV stations around the globe could not ignore would do the trick AND be extraordinarily easy for God to do.

 

[Perplexity]

Why would I want to take seriously an argument with a false premise? Boy, I should get published! All of the sudden, a stupid argument becomes important because someone actually surrounded the argument with a lot of fancy verbiage and got it published. Then others, who are just as eager to get published or get famous, tag on and respond as though the argument was really worthy of a response. Golly! I should get published too. I bet I could write something with more substance than that and I could surely use the money to pay my bills.

Since we are taking serious an argument with a false premise:

“2. If an all loving God exists, reasonable non-belief does not occur.”

we can state as we wish and cannot argue the verity of the premise. We must all pretend that the premise is true because we obtain our objective of pretending to have logically proven that God does not exist. Now, every one can go home and pretend that you are intellectually satisfied by this false argument which proves God does not exist. Phew! finally that problem is resolved! God does not exist and I can get on with my little life as I wish. Next. Oh, and even if we accept that the premise is false, the argument is still structurally valid so = God does not exist.

It also follows that these arguments are just as valid and using the same tactic prove that God does not exist:

1. If an all loving God exists, teenager will not have pimples.
2. If an all loving God exists, no one will be born blind.
3. If an all loving God exists, no one will be born deaf.
4. If an all loving God exists, there would be no war.
5. If an all loving God exists, there would be no suffering.
6. If an all loving God exists, there would be no evil.
7. If an all loving God exists, there would be no illness.
8. If an all loving God exists, there would be no hunger.
9. If an all loving God exists, all students will get As.
10. If an all loving God exists, there would be no birth pain.
11. If an all loving God exists, there would be no pain.
12. If an all loving God exists, there would be no mental illnesses.
13. If an all loving God exists, there would be no research as we would know.
14. If an all loving God exists, there would be no death.
15. If an all loving God exists, everyone would just be happy.

I think you get the point. If we really continue on with this list and if I dress it up as if it would be published in some fancy book before you know it you will see how this existence would quickly become hell and people would start gnashing their teeth and long to be taken out of that little world that with every added false premise 2 becomes a more and more enclosed prison which denies us our human nature. This reminds me of Dostoevsky. :yawn:

I don’t want to live in a world created and designed by someone who did not create me. :hypno: I want to live in God’s world, the world created by my Father, who loves me.

I never conceded that the premise was false, I just pointed out how your understanding of logical validity was either false, or quaint.

I’m not sure I’m interested in dialoguing with you though, given your condescending and rude attitude. Richard Swinburne (one of the world’s most prominent philosophers of religion) says Schellenberg’s book is one of the most important books on the philosophy of religion.

I was going to respond to any substantive points you’d made (so it didn’t look like I was just trying to evade your points) but I couldn’t find any.

 

[albarker1]

I posted the long answer in private msgs…basically your fallen from spiritual connection and your fleshly vessell is driving an eternal soul that cant get to heaven without new stuff happening to awaken and reorder the original design and God is a spirit only worshiped in spirit and truth and his glory is to great for any fleshly body to fully see without dropping dead and damning the soul to hell or sticking it on earth in the dust with the body. his spirit gave life hand formed body and your soul is unable to see him without faith and belief its impossible, so no man can see god except through the believers of christ that he shines through so evanglists are god knocking at the door to your heart but god cant show up until you open it…see big ol explanation in private god bless…

 

[EpicureanSimba]

Potential avenues. So even if you get knocked over and blinded, given a vision and an explicit knowledge about the existence of God you still might not be convinced. ?

Actually, I meant the opposite. When I said potential avenues, my intention was to imply that it was simply one of many avenues that could guide me to believe in God. I’ve already made it quite clear that if I had a vision of God, I would believe, though you seem to have ignored what I said. Here’s some direct quotes of what I said, just to recap:

I explained above that if the menal health specialists could not find anything wrong with me apart from the fact that I had seen God, then I would believe that I had truly seen God.

All I said was that I would take precautions to ensure that I was not being deceived. If I had taken that precaution, then I would believe very sincerely, and would not doubt it any more than I doubt my other beliefs.

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.

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

While I understand that my use of the word potential was somewhat ambigous, I would’ve hoped that you would’ve been charitable read the other posts in this thread before making accusations.

You see? This is exactly what I’m talking about. No amount of proof is enough for the one who wants to doubt. Human nature I guess.

BS. I have said, in this very thread, exactly what would be required in order for me to believe.

I am convinced that emotional issues are the cause of atheism in people. It can be dissappointment, fear, need for control, etc. But it is not logic and intellectual honesty.

You are wrong.

I’ve heard many people say exactly the same thing as you when it comes to demanding proof and then admit that nothing would be enough to convince them.

I have never once said that nothing would convince me. You are putting words into my mouth, trying to get my behavior to match the behavior that the Church tells you atheists are supposed to exemplify. I have laid out exactly what would convince to me believe in God.

Because when you dig deep enough you see that there is anothere issue (or more) there that is the source of disbelief, something deeply personal. Any ideas?

Saw that one coming from a mile away :

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

 

[Lisa44]

…

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.

By your own logic God does not want to appear to you. And that is true. But maybe he will? That is up to God, you are correct about that.

You cannot make him do anything.

So what do you do when you can’t make someone do something for you? You’ve tried bossing them around and you get no where. You’ve tried telling them they don’t exist because if they did surely they would obey you! What other tactic can you try?

You already know by logic that God could reveal himself to you if he wanted to but he’s not doing that. You can’t force his hand.

Lets go back to basics, you’ve read the gospels right? Slowly, carefully? You believe that Jesus is God but you are disturbed that he won’t show up in your house…? wait… do you believe Jesus is God?

If the answer is no then you are a joker expecting a non-existent God to meet with you in person.

So then your left with, as you said, he exists but he doesn’t want to reveal himself to you.

So then knock until the door opens. And if it doesn’t open it means that he doesn’t want to open it for you. And then my advise would be to humble yourself and study the bible more.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

By your own logic God does not want to appear to you. And that is true. But maybe he will? That is up to God, you are correct about that.

**You cannot make him do anything. **
So what do you do when you can’t make someone do something for you? You’ve tried bossing them around and you get no where. You’ve tried telling them they don’t exist because if they did surely they would obey you! What other tactic can you try?

You already know by logic that God could reveal himself to you if he wanted to but he’s not doing that. **You can’t force his hand. **
Lets go back to basics, you’ve read the gospels right? Slowly, carefully? You believe that Jesus is God but you are disturbed that he won’t show up in your house…? wait… do you believe Jesus is God?

If the answer is no then you are a joker expecting a non-existent God to meet with you in person.

So then your left with, as you said, he exists but he doesn’t want to reveal himself to you.

I am not trying to be rude here, but I am having a hard time constantly having to repeat myself. I already said that I’m not trying to “boss him around”, or “get him to obey me”. Here’s what I said, direct quote:

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 would appreciate it if people would charitably read what I actually said instead of putting words in my mouth. The conversation would flow much better.

 

[Lisa44]

So what your saying is you are a non-believer who expects a non existent entity to meet with you?

That is illogical and it makes no sense.

by the way I didn’t mean to come off as “rude” I just have a direct way of speaking. sorry.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

In what form would you accept an appearance by God?

Specifically please.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

So what your saying is you are a non-believer who expects a non existent entity to meet with you?

No. No. No! I’m sorry, but I don’t know how else to say this. I DON’T EXPECT GOD TO MEET WITH ME!. I have to ask you, did you even read my above response?

by the way I didn’t mean to come off as “rude” I just have a direct way of speaking. sorry.

I apologize as well.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

In what form would you accept an appearance by God?

Specifically please.

Here is one possibile form that I already mentioned above:

God appearing to me, similar to the vision on the road to Damascus, for instance, would be one of many potential avenues.

 

[Lisa44]

Reveal, appear, these are the same things are they not?

Either God does not exist, and therefore only a fool would expect a non existent God to appear or reveal themselves.

Or God does exist, and he hasn’t revealed himself to you because he doesn’t want to.

I assume that you were in second category. Then he might reveal himself to you in the future, its entirely possible. Why hasn’t he yet? Are you asking why God hasn’t revealed himself to you yet?

 

[Abba]

Hello Perplexity,

I never conceded that the premise was false, I just pointed out how your understanding of logical validity was either false, or quaint.

I am conceding that the argument is logical. I thought the falseness of the premise had become evident to you. Now it is clear that you think the premise is true.

“2. If an all loving God exists, reasonable non-belief does not occur.”

Although the premise is clearly false in my estimation, which is based in my previous comments, it does not mean that the *question *of the ‘inculpability’ of non-belief cannot be posed. However, just because the question can be posed it does not follow that it is valid to deduce that a loving God would not allow non-belief and conclude that therefore - God does not exist. We can not take a decent question and insert it in a logical syllogism as a false premise and claim to have come to a logical conclusion about a matter.

That premise requires evidence and a lot of substantiation. Like Carl Sagan once told me after I asked him ‘the question’: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

I would think that it would be a more logically valid discussion to ask: Does reasonable non-belief occur? What is meant by ‘reasonable’? Reasonable referring to the intellect or reasonable referring to a degree of justification in general? Reasonable to whom and according to what measure? Remember that some people have been given more than other, but, more will be expected of them too. This just all goes back to judging souls and making judgement as if we were all knowing and God. To come to know God we need to be humble and let God be God. It is not as though we do not have responsibility in our unbelief. The Apostle Paul would say that non-believers are without excuse.

Romans 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

I’m not sure I’m interested in dialoguing with you though, given your condescending and rude attitude.

I apologize. I did not mean to offend you.

Richard Swinburne (one of the world’s most prominent philosophers of religion) says Schellenberg’s book is one of the most important books on the philosophy of religion.

He is entitled to his opinion. They also work together at Oxford. I don’t think Pope Benedict XVI would think it is a good argument.

I was going to respond to any substantive points you’d made (so it didn’t look like I was just trying to evade your points) but I couldn’t find any.

That’s unfortunate, because I made some very good points. I will pray that someday you will come back and would be able to appreciate them.

May the peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and may our Blessed Mother Mary protect you and guide you to her son.

Peace,

Abba

 

[jmoneyideas]

Reveal, appear, these are the same things are they not?

Either God does not exist, and therefore only a fool would expect a non existent God to appear or reveal themselves.

Or God does exist, and he hasn’t revealed himself to you because he doesn’t want to.

I assume that you were in second category. Then he might reveal himself to you in the future, its entirely possible. Why hasn’t he yet? Are you asking why God hasn’t revealed himself to you yet?

Didn’t God reveal himself through his son 2000 years ago? So the real question should be if The OP actually believes who Jesus said he is. Goes back to my video I posted few pages back that Jesus causes us to have to make a Choice either your with him or against him. Jesus is either who he says he is or he is a fraud and a bad man. I tried to explain to the OP that when I opened my heart and my mind to Christ a few years back he completely revealed himself to me. Changed my whole outlook on life and who I am as a man and father. God moved me in a direction towards him. Remember God never leaves us it is us who choose to leave God.