Why is God so secretive about his existence?

[wittgenstein]

Why is believing in a proposition (that God exists) without evidence ( faith is different then knowing) more important then knowing? Why (just one example) didn’t God simply describe DNA in the Bible? Even a small paragraph would be irrefutable evidence of his existence since no one 2,000 years ago could possibly have known about the double helix.
I expect to be misunderstood and attacked. I do not care, except that I want answers and not name calling (I’m an evil atheist etc. Actually I’m neither.).
Is it because if we know ( rather then merely believe). that God exists, we cannot be good. Because all our actions instead of being altruistic would be done out of a desire for reward and a fear of punishment?

 

[dshix]

Why is believing in a proposition (that God exists) without evidence ( faith is different then knowing) more important then knowing? Why (just one example) didn’t God simply describe DNA in the Bible? Even a small paragraph would be irrefutable evidence of his existence since no one 2,000 years ago could possibly have known about the double helix.
I expect to be misunderstood and attacked. I do not care, except that I want answers and not name calling (I’m an evil atheist etc. Actually I’m neither.).
Is it because if we know ( rather then merely believe). that God exists, we cannot be good. Because all our actions instead of being altruistic would be done out of a desire for reward and a fear of punishment?

The reason God did not give irrefutable evidence of his existence by putting modern knowledge into the Bible thousands of years ago, is because it would slightly restrict free will. Given such absolute proof, non-Christians would be marginalized for not being believers, because the proof is so obvious. God wanted us to choose Him and search Him out; not be forced into belief.

As to proofs of His existence, they are everywhere! However, they are all hidden in such a way that only one who truly searches for Him will find Him, and if they choose to be stubborn there is nothing forcing them to believe.

 

[fatimaoligist]

Why is believing in a proposition (that God exists) without evidence ( faith is different then knowing) more important then knowing? Why (just one example) didn’t God simply describe DNA in the Bible? Even a small paragraph would be irrefutable evidence of his existence since no one 2,000 years ago could possibly have known about the double helix.
I expect to be misunderstood and attacked. I do not care, except that I want answers and not name calling (I’m an evil atheist etc. Actually I’m neither.).
Is it because if we know ( rather then merely believe). that God exists, we cannot be good. Because all our actions instead of being altruistic would be done out of a desire for reward and a fear of punishment?

Very good point you raise, the existence of god has been debated for centuries, to me god is manifested in Jesus Christ if their was DNA mentioned in the bible would that be irrefutible evidence for gods existence no it wouldnt, you would have Dawkins and other new athiest thinkers pointing something else out, why isn"t their dinosaurs in the bible, how come their is no mammoths etc.

Bertrand Russel said that after he dies and god is there, he will ask god (where have you being hidimg).

God is not hiding, god is in jesus and jesus in god.

 

[WoundedIcon]

It’s not like God’s hiding. We’re just too impure in our fallen state to see Him. I mean, Adam and Eve could see Him, and after Purgatory your average person can too. It’s just that we’re too disordered.

And also, there is evidence of His existence, but it’s not of the empirical variety. Not all evidence is empirical, some of it is purely logical. In God’s case, philosophy shows His existence to be pretty much certain.

 

[stephe1987]

What kind of evidence are you looking for? God to be able to be tested in a lab? If that were the case, we would have discovered another property of the universe, not God.

God is transcendent. Why are we looking for materialistic evidence for a transcendent being? That is called a category mistake.

 

[meltzerboy]

It’s not like God’s hiding. We’re just too impure in our fallen state to see Him. I mean, Adam and Eve could see Him, and after Purgatory your average person can too. It’s just that we’re too disordered.

And also, there is evidence of His existence, but it’s not of the empirical variety. Not all evidence is empirical, some of it is purely logical. In God’s case, philosophy shows His existence to be pretty much certain.

That depends on which philosophy and philosopher one is talking about.

To the OP: what did the great philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein say about this subject, if anything?

 

[meltzerboy]

Why is believing in a proposition (that God exists) without evidence ( faith is different then knowing) more important then knowing? Why (just one example) didn’t God simply describe DNA in the Bible? Even a small paragraph would be irrefutable evidence of his existence since no one 2,000 years ago could possibly have known about the double helix.
I expect to be misunderstood and attacked. I do not care, except that I want answers and not name calling (I’m an evil atheist etc. Actually I’m neither.).
Is it because if we know ( rather then merely believe). that God exists, we cannot be good. Because all our actions instead of being altruistic would be done out of a desire for reward and a fear of punishment?

I think the free will argument is one you will hear most often. According to Judaism, free will is one of the important features that distinguish us from both the beasts and the angels.

 

[surritter]

God gives every person just enough of a glimpse of Himself to allow that person to reach out a little. This creates a loving relationship, which is the reason for our very existence.

If He gave too little revelation of Himself, it would be unfair and the individual would have no hope of salvation, other than an automatic ticket to heaven, which is not what God wants – He wants a love relationship. This seems to be the scenario that the OP paints.

If He gave too much revelation of Himself, it would be unfair because it would not require any effort on the individual’s part in returning love. It would reduce the person to a robot, which is not what God wants – He wants a loving relationship.

 

[JSAD]

This is indeed very mysterious. The best answer is- he may choose to reveal himself only gradually to those who seek him.

However, you’d think that here is a supreme being who has created you for a very specific purpose, of which you’d hear from very little in your lifetime, would want to try and be more clear and specific about things.

Instead you get so many voices in the world, it becomes truly hard to ‘listen’ to God, That coupled with the 'hard; Christian life…no wonder so many give up. I mean …we’re talking about eternity and the future of your soul…and yet God chooses to be very silent and ‘allow’ so many other disruptive voices to speak.

I’d wish he be more clear…and personal

 

[Ghosty]

If God had put some kind of scientific proof in the Bible, we wouldn’t assume He was real, but rather that ancient people were very scientifically advanced but lost their knowledge somewhere down the line after some kind of disaster. Free will doesn’t really enter into it, IMO, at least not when it comes to presenting more evidence in Scripture.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Perhaps God is secretive about his existence, in the way that the mountains are just part of the scenery when you grow up around mountains. Or perhaps in the way that crickets and frogs are secretive when you close the windows and turn on the A/C.

 

[wittgenstein]

Response to post 6. Witt would say that theological statements are a different language game. For example kissing a picture of my wife when interpreted scientifically makes no sense. However, even tho I’m ( obviously) a great admirer of Wittgenstein, I have trouble with that because I see nothing wrong with empirical evidence for God’s existence. Witt would also say that words have a purpose ( the meaning of a word is how you use it), but not a meaning, in the philosophical sense of the term. Most people use the terms “purpose” and “meaning” interchangeably. When they ask,“what is the meaning of life”, they are actually asking,“what is the purpose of life.”
PS: There is a great book about this subject,“Wittgenstein, a religious point of view” by Norman Malcolm.

 

[Waiting]

Response to post 6. Witt would say that theological statements are a different language game. For example kissing a picture of my wife when interpreted scientifically makes no sense. However, even tho I’m ( obviously) a great admirer of Wittgenstein, I have trouble with that because I see nothing wrong with empirical evidence for God’s existence. Witt would also say that words have a purpose ( the meaning of a word is how you use it), but not a meaning, in our everyday understanding of the term “meaning”. Most people use the terms “purpose” and “meaning” interchangeably. When they ask,“what is the meaning of life”, they are actually asking,“what is the purpose of life.”
PS: There is a great book about this subject,“Wittgenstein, a religious point of view” by Norman Malcolm.

Jesus said to Thomas, “You believe, Thomas, because you see. Blessed are they who do not see, but believe.” Actually, viewing the universe with its precise workings should convince anyone that this is no accidental happening, but the plan of a highly intelligent mind. In other words – God.

 

[Ruthie_again]

I think Bobby Jim has nailed it.

I was once a Unitarian. That is, I was raised in that church - but I never learned anything about the basic tenets of the Unitarian church. I didn’t even know that they don’t believe in the Trinity until long after I left. In Sunday School, I learned about Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and any faith other than Christianity. “Under the sky, all me are one family.” And in LRY (Liberal Religious Youth, the youth group) I was too busy getting stoned and looking for my next boyfriend to take anything in - if there was anything to take in.

It was years before I started seeing evidence for God. None of it was “scientific.” There was nothing that could be proven in a lab. Just questions, like “Why does beauty exist?” The best answer is that God is reaching out to us.

More questions came along. “Why haven’t any new species developed?” In spite of all our fossils, and claimed “missing links,” there is no proof of that kind of evolution. And, there are more than 400 separate breeds of dogs. Some of the breeds are ancient. All of them are proof of one kind of evolution; they evolved by a human-guided “survival of the fittest.” With all that variety, why hasn’t one of those breeds evolved into a new species? Why can a 4 lb. Chihuahua still impregnate a Great Dane?

Does that mean that we are not all descendants of some primordial slime, but belong to particular species that developed spontaneously? And what about the animals that, essentially, domesticated themselves? (Because it was safer and healthier to hang around with humans) Why is a horse so suited to being ridden? Why is a dog such a good and helpful companion? Most of all,why is it that we can develop a loving relationship with them?

Having a complicated brain, I find it good to look for the simplest answer. The answer to all my questions is God.

The clincher for me is DNA. Ain’t no way that all happened by accident!

I hope that helps…

 

[WesleyF]

Why (just one example) didn’t God simply describe DNA in the Bible?** Even a small paragraph would be irrefutable evidence of his existence** since no one 2,000 years ago could possibly have known about the double helix.

How would that prove the existence of God? Why, for example, would it not prove the existence of a powerful, very knowledgeable alien from a different galaxy who provided this knowledge to the writers of the Bible?

Do you see the problem with this kind of reasoning?

 

[wittgenstein]

Response to post 13,
Ironically,. I was about to also post John 20:29! It clearly implies that believing without empirical evidence is superior to actually knowing. Unfortunately, I did not have the time because the wife and I went out for the evening and she yanked me off the tablet (that is my excuse for my bad spelling and poor grammar, big fat fingers)!
I am currently reading Kierkegaard. He addresses the issues in this thread. And yes, one can be an existentialist and a devout Christian! Kierkegaard was both.

 

[WesleyF]

Why is believing in a proposition (that God exists) without evidence ( faith is different then knowing) more important then knowing?

One does not need faith to know that God exists (Aquinas’s 5 proofs for God’s existence). The Catholic church teaches that -

Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason, even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: “By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.” - CCC 286

 

[Ignatius]

Why is believing in a proposition (that God exists) without evidence ( faith is different then knowing) more important then knowing?

Virtually everyone who has ever lived with only a miniscule number of exceptions can clearly see the evidence that God exists. The number of people who have been unable to seethis spiritual reality is far smaller than the number who are unable to see the physical reality of light.

 

[Equites_Christi]

Why (just one example) didn’t God simply describe DNA in the Bible? Even a small paragraph would be irrefutable evidence of his existence since no one 2,000 years ago could possibly have known about the double helix.

I used to think the same kind of things, then I realized that the kind of people who would ask for these things probably would not be satisfied by them.

Any photograph would be called a fake.
Any video or sound recording would be called edited.
Any document would be called a forgery.

It would take for God to slap them squarely in the face. And even then, they would call it a hallucination.

 

[WesleyF]

I used to think the same kind of things, then I realized that the kind of people who would ask for these things probably would not be satisfied by them.

Any photograph would be called a fake.
Any video or sound recording would be called edited.
Any document would be called a forgery.

It would take for God to slap them squarely in the face. And even then, they would call it a hallucination.

especially for the last line!

You cannot give physical evidence for God’s existence. That would at best prove the existence of a powerful alien being. That’s why proof for God’s existence has to be philosophical in nature.