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

[davidv]

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 has revealed Himself to you. You just have not recognized Him. His presence is revealed by His creation. He is revealed by His Church. And, He is revealed by those around you.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

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 you that those aren’t the only two options.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

God has revealed Himself to you. You just have not recognized Him. His presence is revealed by His creation. He is revealed by His Church. And, He is revealed by those around you.

We already addressed the issues of “God is revealed by his creation” and “God is revealed by the church” above. Do you have anything to add to that discussion?

 

[Flyingg]

Maybe because he does not exist? Or maybe you are the one who is so much blinded in darkness that you are not seeing God’s light or maybe because he doesn’t want to?

 

[jmoneyideas]

I tried to explain to you that those aren’t the only two options.

I told you that those are the only two options in my eyes…That’s why I am a believer and you are not. This Magical carousel can go around and around. I still am trying to understand what the total premise of this post was about. There has been a painful amount of reference material for you to cast your own judgement on. As I Christian I get what the others on this thread have said and it makes perfect sense to me. Like I said previous it all comes down to a Choice. Only you can make that Choice and GOD isn’t Going to make you believe in him, you will or you wont and the consequence of your choice well thats on you.

 

[EpicureanSimba]

I told you that those are the only two options in my eyes…That’s why I am a believer and you are not. This Magical carousel can go around and around. I still am trying to understand what the total premise of this post was about. There has been a painful amount of reference material for you to cast your own judgement on. As I Christian I get what the others on this thread have said and it makes perfect sense to me. Like I said previous it all comes down to a Choice. Only you can make that Choice and GOD isn’t Going to make you believe in him, you will or you wont and the consequence of your choice well thats on you.

Why is the theory that Jesus was sincerely mistaken not an option?

 

[Pieman333272]

Craig’s point is that…

OK, but again, WHY is B-Theory the truth?

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?

I already mentioned the problem of an unreachable past, which I learned on this forum, and the grim reaper paradox, which is used by Craig and Alexander Pruss.

Let me be blunt here…

All of this comes from the presumption of a naturalistic worldview in your analysis. If you presuppose naturalism in historical analysis, you are not performing objective historical analysis by definition. Nothing beyond the historical method and what it presupposes can be presupposed in objective historical analysis, otherwise you are simply writing dogma.

Now, you could modify your argument from improbability to not presuppose naturalism, but then you would have to be willing to throw out more or less all of ancient history with it.

In fact, that’s one of the reasons that I think God should appear to people in the modern day.

He does appear to people in the modern day. He just doesn’t appear specifically to non-believers just because they aren’t convinced by the arguments.

If He really expects…

Ridiculous. First of all, Jesus’ miracles are not “magic”. Second, we CAN “sift through” all the stuff with objective historical analysis. Numerous scholars have named criteria which we can use to verify what Jesus said and did, as well as similar criteria for ancient heroes… most of which the ancient heroes fail.

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.

Quite frankly, nobody cares if you’re convinced, they care if the explanation is the best. Can you give a better explanation for the empty tomb? Don’t forget to account for the visions the apostles experienced.

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, but if Jimmy appeared to me, I would. Or we found his tomb empty and there were no possibility of the people lying or being deluded.

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.

The majority of scholars also affirms the historicity of the exorcism and healing stories (though not necessarily a supernatural explanation). Do you agree with them there, just because they’re “most scholars”. And while it is the majority of scholars who support your position, it is a relatively small majority compared to the majority that makes a certain position inherently more probable as a result in most other cases, especially considering that most in the “majority” are in certain “camps” of scholarship to begin with, while in most cases a non-fallacious appeal to majority entails them being from various camps.

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.

Due to the unanimous internal and external attestation (i.e. Church Fathers) to authorship, the burden is on you to demonstrate that they are not who they are claimed to be by.

Really? How did you determine that?

See here, hit CTRL + F, and enter “critical scholars give”.

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.

Actually, it isn’t fallacious if the authority represents a majority, and that majority is vast and encompasses multiple camps in the field. It does, so it isn’t a fallacy. It’s an induction.

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.

No, you have to refute those scholars’ reasons.

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?

Because, unlike the cases you mention, devoted followers of Jesus who **actually saw him **were out and about at this time, and if they heard lies being spread about him, especially lies that “took out” from the amount of “limited glory” they believed in, they would want to quell it as best as possible. See tektonics.org/qt/secretmess.html for an explanation of context.

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.

So why don’t you care about modern public miracles like Eucharistic Miracles? Why don’t you change based on them?

 

[St_Francis]

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

Consider that Saul was already a very strong believer in God; he was just confused about the Christians. What God revealed was not Himself, in Whom Saul already believed, but the divinity of Christ and the correctness, not apostacy, of the Christians, whom Saul, renamed Paul, then joined.

Now, why would God not reveal Himself to people nowadays? I would say that first we need to determine whether it is true that He does not reveal Himself. Many people say He does reveal Himself in many different ways.

I myself believe He revealed Himself to me when I saw the absurdity of evolution. I believe He revealed Himself when He took away my angers and resentments once I started praying for those I was angry with. I believe He reveals Himself continually through the Church.

But you do not see His self-revelation, not that you are concerned for yourself. I would say that He reveals Himself continually, because people are continually converting.

So the problem is that He has not revealed Himself to anyone you trust in a way that you can believe, not that He doesn’t reveal Himself.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Here is one possibile form that I already mentioned above:

Are there any other forms you would accept? Other than being struck blind, that is.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Why is the theory that Jesus was sincerely mistaken not an option?

I refer you to CS Lewis: Mere Christianity. Logically, there are only 3 possibilities to explain the phenomenon of Jesus of Nazareth: None of these include a mistake by Jesus, nor can he merely be a “wise man,” or a “prophet.” Prophets and wise men did not act nor speak the way Jesus did.

1. He was crazy (because the things he said were rather insane at the time, only a crazy man would say such things)
2. Or, he was lying (about all the things he said as well as the miracles)
3. Or, he really was the Son of God.

CS Lewis proves in a very brief expository that answers 1 & 2 cannot fit the reality, so the answer must be 3.

 

[fhansen]

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.

In a sense, faith* is* that revelation, faith is a gift which counters doubt. We respond to this gift, as we receive it in small measure, by seeking God more, by getting over our resistance which is more often than not caused by pride, whether or not we realize it; pride and doubt are compatriots, as humility and faith are compatriots. So, from this perspective, we’re the wild card, we’re the hold-out, we can begin exercising faith, giving God the benefit of the doubt-or the benefit of our faith??-anytime we’re ready to ask, seek, and knock. Otherwise He “hides” himself, not wanting to directly interfere with the worlds affairs-at least interfere anymore than He has at points of times in the past-to allow us to proceed as we will. The doctrine of original sin claims that this is precisely what man prefers underneath it all-to be apart from God, to be his own god. We’re here to learn the futility of such a disposition- to learn of our need for Him-using the experience of a life here essentially cut off from God combined with the revelation He’s already given us and grace/faith we already possess.

 

[tonyrey]

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?

There is a relationship but you are unaware of the fact. It takes two to tango but not two to love!

The non-belief of “inculpable non-belief” refers to 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.

It is impossible to know to what extent belief or non-belief is influenced by our moral integrity. We may believe we are virtuous but we are not morally infallible - and that applies to believers as well as non-believers!

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

Not if the purpose of life is to choose what to believe…

 

[jmoneyideas]

Why is the theory that Jesus was sincerely mistaken not an option?

Claiming to be the Son of God is hardly a mistaken action.

I refer you to CS Lewis: Mere Christianity. Logically, there are only 3 possibilities to explain the phenomenon of Jesus of Nazareth: None of these include a mistake by Jesus, nor can he merely be a “wise man,” or a “prophet.” Prophets and wise men did not act nor speak the way Jesus did.

1. He was crazy (because the things he said were rather insane at the time, only a crazy man would say such things)
2. Or, he was lying (about all the things he said as well as the miracles)
3. Or, he really was the Son of God.

CS Lewis proves in a very brief expository that answers 1 & 2 cannot fit the reality, so the answer must be 3.

I still need to read that Book…

 

[Perplexity]

There is a relationship but you are unaware of the fact. It takes two to tango but not two to love!

It’s not possible for two individuals to be in a personal loving relationship with each other if one or the other doesn’t believe in the other’s existence.

It is impossible to know to what extent belief or non-belief is influenced by our moral integrity. We may believe we are virtuous but we are not morally infallible - and that applies to believers as well as non-believers!

I don’t think we need this degree of certainty.

Not if the purpose of life is to choose what to believe…

I don’t think a perfectly loving God would actualize a world in which (i) people exist which God desires to enter into a personally loving relationship with, (ii) these people are capable of being in a personally loving relationship with God, (iii) they haven’t chosen to reject God, but (iv) God doesn’t propose a personally loving relationship with them such that at the very least they know God exists.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Do you believe there are good reasons to believe we just happen

Do you find the “everything just happens to exist” hypothesis convincing? If so why?

2. 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?

Is it reasonable to believe that conscious **persons **with insight and understanding is derived from **things **which lack consciousness, insight and understanding?

3. 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.

There is no reason! Which raises the question of why rational activity is so reliable… Is that an accident?

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

When did I say “everything is unreasonable”?

Never! But you believe everything exists for no reason or purpose…

I’m sure that your apologetics books have asserted that the universe is unreasonable under atheism, but that does not make it so

I don’t read books on apologetics!

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

You would probably attribute such an experience to stress, worry, overwork, depression, mental illness or some other natural cause because it would conflict with your entire scheme of things…

 

[tonyrey]

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

Do you deny that you regard the universe as amoral? It is not my definition but a logical consequence of a Godless universe - unless you can explain why and how the universe is moral…

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.

If that is the case why do so many individuals succeed in overcoming their scruples?

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.

Speaking with is not seeing!

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.

Having worked in a psychiatric unit for two years I can assure you it would be extremely difficult for you to convince anyone you had a genuine vision - and you would finish up by doubting it yourself!

 

[St_Francis]

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?

I have no problem with your asking. What happened was I saw a show on PBS which had a section on the fly’s eye–very complex. This was before the ID movement was started and really I have always thought that this was given to me by God, because it wasn’t a leaning I had by any means!*

And many atheists have told me that this line of thinking is insufficient for them. What can I say? I was not seeking at that point in my life, I had given up. I never watched those types of shows–I didn’t even like it when they had nature shows on the Disney show when I was a kid. I didn’t have a science background at all. There was no reason for me to even have that experience.*

And since then I have looked into it more. Nothing I have seen from a scientist has given me any reason to doubt what I believe about evolution. It’s all stories! I look at what they feed us and totally relate to the man who said he found it took more blind faith to believe in materialist evolution than to believe in God. The materialist evolutionists give us theories about how this or that could have evolved, and they have not a shred of evidence. Not one single shred that it did. And when some scientists seriously propose pan-spermia, well, then I have to laugh!

I’m sure there are people out there who are edudcated in science who could discuss the ins and outs of this with you. I am not one of them. I just look at the logic of it all and see that there is something going on there.

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.

I do not think that one necessarily goes from a realization that Someone had to be involved to believing in the Christian Triune God, not by any means. It was 8 or 9 years before I considered Christianity, and that was probably only because as a person of the West, I had gleaned enough information to make it a reasonable place to start looking.

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.

I will look into it when I can get on a real computer; usually I have access only to the iPod.

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.
Well, I looked up the miracles of others, and found that most of the claims of miracles on the part of Moslems seem to consist of religious messages “written” in food, clouds, etc. Are these miracles? I don’t know Arabic writing so only one of the several I saw really looked like it might say something in Arabic.

Sri Sathya Sai Baba seems never to have allowed scientific study of his activities.

And the thing about the Catholic Church is that they are very wary of miracles! In the 130 years of operation, only 80 scientifically verifiable healing miracles have been documented at Lourdes, and even then with the underlying caveat of considering current knowledge.

The videoes I linked above I thought would be of interest to you because they are the story of an atheist scientist’s investigation into an event some considered miraculous. The investigations at Lourdes are very rigourous and often involve many scientists and doctors, including atheists. The Catholic Church welcomes, in fact requires these investigations, unlike*Sri Satya Sai Baba, who refused permission.

 

[shoe]

“Believable” is a rather subjective term.

In a way you’re right to say that “‘Believable’ is a rather subjective term.” But to believe as an atheist subjectively believes, people would have to believe in the unscientific assertion that matter was made without a cause by “nothing,” and that it came all ready to go and fully energized from nowhere. They would have to believe that chance, instead of design, is the reason for the complexities of the universe. They would have to believe that order comes from chaos. And they would have to believe that the objective morality of mankind (choosing between right and wrong) is just an accident of nature.

Science, however, has never observed anything coming from nothing in nature. Science has never observed an effect without a prior cause. Science has never observed life coming from non-life. Science has never observed chaos creating order. For that matter, science has never observed evolution (macro-evolution, not micro-evolution) taking place anywhere in the universe. Since the worldview of atheism is not grounded in scientific observation then, atheists cannot truly say that their subjective brand of logic is even reasonably believable.

 

[jmoneyideas]

What type of revealing are you looking for??? This whole subject perplexes me. I have a hard time understanding what really they want to see. If the Non Believers would like to enlighten me with what Revelation will do justice in there eye then maybe we can discuss. Since most people have a fundamental belief in GOD whether your Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or hindu ect ect. We may disagree on things such as general religious belief principal but the fact that we still agree that there is something far greater then our selves in control.

Great explanation of what I believe below
youtu.be/Xe5kVw9JsYI

 

[jmoneyideas]

Division is the work of Satan. It has happened in the Church and it is happening outside the church. The Greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.(from some movie i thing but cant remember,the words stayed with me) The Devil wants to fill eternity with souls as well. When did a true fundamental disbelief system in God truly start is the question? Did It happen in the 1500’s ? I think you will find picked up some serious steam in that time period.

Lets not forget this is a serious thing and my Atheist brothers and sisters need to really look at it. In my belief I do nothing wrong in my ideal of eternity but there is a really good chance you may be doing a serious consequence for your soul with your belief. So really think long and hard.