Why is God so secretive about his existence?

[wittgenstein]

Response to post 14. I was also raised Unitarian. My experience was different then yours. I did not find it to be a party church. However, I do agree that it lacked dogma and welcomed many views. It was very intellectual and more of a debating club for divergent beliefs.
However, Unitarianism is more of a northern thing. I am now in the south and Universalism is emphasized. Universalism is less intellectual and operates on a more emotional (spiritual?) level. And yes, I know that my church is called Unitarian \Universalism. It was only when I moved south did I realize that the terms are not interchangeable.
I also attend friend’s meeting (Quaker ).

 

[WesleyF]

wittgenstein, there is, however, something that might interest you.

Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?”
God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, `I AM has sent me to you.’”

Exodus 3:13-14

God reveals his name as I AM. There is no further commentary on this in the entire Bible! However, hidden in just these two words is a knowledge of philosophy that I doubt anyone at that time could have imagined.

God reveals himself as he who is, which means that he is a non-contingent being. No other culture of that time that I am aware of saw God in this way. Other “gods” were more like powerful alien beings, physical creatures. But in the Bible, God is revealed to be a non-contingent reality. It would take a couple of thousand years more before someone like Aquinas would come on the scene and offer rational proofs for God with “God” being the non-contingent reality, but that was already revealed many thousand years ago in the Bible. Think about it.

 

[wittgenstein]

I am exploring that possibility, see my thread," being". Ironically, my new found interest in existentialism dove tails with Exodus, existence precedes essence.

 

[robwar]

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?

what is evidence to you? When one looks at such a beautiful world we live in, isn’t that evidence? “The heavens declare the glory of God”. Looking at creation is evidence of a Creator? God is like wind. You can see wind but you know that there is wind, you feel it, you see it’s effects, you hear it blow. I am not sure what evidence will satisfy you but just looking at a beautiful sunset, or watching fall leaves, looking at a water fall and feeling wind blowing on one’s face.
About DNA, God reaches us at the level we are at and the times we live in. the Biblical times were obviously not as advance in understanding of science and how things work and are put together. Nor were their the tools available then. I am not sure if DNA was described in the Bible it would make any difference.

 

[Bradski]

I am not sure what evidence will satisfy you but just looking at a beautiful sunset, or watching fall leaves, looking at a water fall and feeling wind blowing on one’s face.

Or a kid with cancer or an antelope being eaten alive or a tsunami. Hey, cut out all the cute, gosh-gee-willikins bunny rabbit and fluffy puppy viewpoints, can’t you?

You have to look at the bad as well as the good and, trust me, there’s been a lot more bad in the world.

As someone said, if there was proof that could be from God, then there’d be no reason not to exclude intelligent aliens. So you can’t have it. What you need, as I’ve been told countless times, is the need to believe. You have to want to believe before it will actually happen.

But then again, if you want something that badly, we all know what can happen…

 

[Robert_Sock]

Or a kid with cancer or an antelope being eaten alive or a tsunami. Hey, cut out all the cute, gosh-gee-willikins bunny rabbit and fluffy puppy viewpoints, can’t you?

You have to look at the bad as well as the good and, trust me, there’s been a lot more bad in the world.

As someone said, if there was proof that could be from God, then there’d be no reason not to exclude intelligent aliens. So you can’t have it. What you need, as I’ve been told countless times, is the need to believe. You have to want to believe before it will actually happen.

But then again, if you want something that badly, we all know what can happen…

It’s through the power of the Holy Spirit that God reveals Himself to us. It’ won’t be until the second coming that we will have glorified bodies that are immune to harmful conditions. He shall write His name on our foreheads, and we will become His people!

 

[Sair]

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.

This reasoning does not apply to any other proposition for which we have actual and irrefutable evidence - no-one claims that their free will is restricted because they are unable to deny, without looking foolish or subjecting themselves to ridicule or extreme cognitive dissonance, that the Earth orbits the sun, for example, or the germ theory of infectious diseases, or that clouds tend to produce rain, or that water and sunlight are required for plants to grow, or anything sufficiently obvious. Why the special pleading for God’s existence?

 

[meltzerboy]

This reasoning does not apply to any other proposition for which we have actual and irrefutable evidence - no-one claims that their free will is restricted because they are unable to deny, without looking foolish or subjecting themselves to ridicule or extreme cognitive dissonance, that the Earth orbits the sun, for example, or the germ theory of infectious diseases, or that clouds tend to produce rain, or that water and sunlight are required for plants to grow, or anything sufficiently obvious. Why the special pleading for God’s existence?

For most Christians and Jews, free will is essential to our decision-making process regarding our love of G-d as well as of one another. If we were forced to acknowledge the existence of G-d due to manifest evidence, we would be denied the cognitive, emotional, and spiritual process of choosing to draw closer to G-d and His teachings via a loving relationship with Him and His creation. There would be no growth on our part, no achievement in the face of challenges, and no faith. Our lives would instead be determined by G-d as though we were soulless machines without human qualities. We would not know real love, which always incorporates both joy and sacrifice.

 

[Sair]

For most Christians and Jews, free will is essential to our decision-making process regarding our love of G-d as well as of one another. If we were forced to acknowledge the existence of G-d due to manifest evidence, we would be denied the cognitive, emotional, and spiritual process of choosing to draw closer to G-d and His teachings via a loving relationship with Him and His creation. There would be no growth on our part, no achievement in the face of challenges, and no faith. Our lives would instead be determined by G-d as though we were soulless machines without human qualities. We would not know real love, which always incorporates both joy and sacrifice.

Surely one must be aware of the existence of someone before being able to make any choice to invest love and commitment in that someone. The latter might still be a matter of choice if the former were a matter of knowledge (though I would dispute that love and commitment are entirely a matter of choice in any case). I have seen it claimed that if anyone were to be made privy to God’s existence in an unambiguous, undeniable manner, one could not help but be devoted and worshipful and so on, hence divine hiddenness so that belief becomes a matter of choice as well. How anyone can know this to be the case, given divine hiddenness, I have never seen convincingly elucidated.

 

[Faithdancer]

Some might say that beginning of space and time are described in the Bible.

 

[meltzerboy]

Surely one must be aware of the existence of someone before being able to make any choice to invest love and commitment in that someone. The latter might still be a matter of choice if the former were a matter of knowledge (though I would dispute that love and commitment are entirely a matter of choice in any case). I have seen it claimed that if anyone were to be made privy to God’s existence in an unambiguous, undeniable manner, one could not help but be devoted and worshipful and so on, hence divine hiddenness so that belief becomes a matter of choice as well. How anyone can know this to be the case, given divine hiddenness, I have never seen convincingly elucidated.

You’re framing the discussion in terms of knowledge, while I’m talking about faith which draws us closer to G-d. I contend that the choice is stronger and entails more of a commitment in the absence of knowledge. Moreover, what we call knowledge is often open to debate, both scientifically and philosophically, whereas true faith, although it may waver at times, cannot so easily be disputed.

 

[robwar]

Or a kid with cancer or an antelope being eaten alive or a tsunami. Hey, cut out all the cute, gosh-gee-willikins bunny rabbit and fluffy puppy viewpoints, can’t you?

You have to look at the bad as well as the good and, trust me, there’s been a lot more bad in the world.

As someone said, if there was proof that could be from God, then there’d be no reason not to exclude intelligent aliens. So you can’t have it. What you need, as I’ve been told countless times, is the need to believe. You have to want to believe before it will actually happen.

But then again, if you want something that badly, we all know what can happen…

that’s pretty depressing that all you see is the bad and not the good. If all you can think about is some animal being eaten alive and not look at the natural beauty around you is a pretty dark frame of mind and from that basis there is nothing that will prove God to you.

 

[Cristiano]

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?

Do you believe that your father is truly your father, or that your mother is truly your mother? I am ready to bet that you have no evidence to support such beliefs. However, you are satisfied with them because you desire them to be truthful and maybe you do not desire God to be true.

 

[fred_conty]

When I see a colorful sunset filled with color, I see God’s handiwork.
In a forest filled with beautiful leaves in the fall of the year, it points me to God.
Looking at a little baby with great big beautiful eyes and all that innocence, I think of God’s goodness.
I see him in my canoe floating down a river.

And on and on. I’ve seen him many many times.

Just a thought.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

The description of the creation of the universe described in Genesis is consistent with the modern theory of the Big Bang. That all space and time should be created out of Nothing, all at once, beginning with a primordial blast of light and energy, seems very natural as a creation story to us nowadays, but was unique. In the ancient world, no other culture had such an account for the creation. It’s described in poetic terms, appropriate for the understanding of the culture of the times, but that seems as much a revelation as a discussion of the functions of deoxyribonucleic acid in, say the Gospel of Mark would be.

Divine revelation gives us the information necessary to making the choices for personal salvation, not to pass a Bio 101 exam. Although the presence of coded information in all living things certainly implies the presence of the One who wrote the code.

That God is described as the Maker and Shaper of the universe tells us that he probably used natural processes (gravity, volcanism, erosion, natural selection, etc.) to shape the world in which we live. That he is described in the Bible as the Maker in three instances - the creation of the universe itself, the creation of life, and the creation of the human soul - is interesting in that these are the three processes for which a purely materialist conception of the universe has no good explanation. The creation of a universe from nothing by nothing fails. The beginning of life is not adequately explained by “chemical evolution” or abiogenesis. A strictly materialist conception does not adequately explain the human mind, or consciousness, or soul, that which I talk about when I refer to “me.”

You could also make the argument that there are some possible references to DNA in the Bible:

Psalms 139:151-3
For you yourself produced my kidneys;
You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother.
I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.
Your works are wonderful,
As my soul is very well aware.
My bones were not hidden from you
When I was made in secret,
When I was woven in the lowest parts of the earth.
Your eyes saw even the embryo of me,
And in your book all its parts were down in writing,
As regards the days when they were formed
And there was not yet one among them.

Which could be interpreted as us containing coded info in the womb.

Psalms 139:13
For Thou hast possessed my reigns: Thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb."

The word for “covered” in Hebrew can also mean “entwined,” as the double helix of DNA is itself entwined.

But those are just personal interpretations, I doubt that a belief in DNA is necessary for faith.

 

[mikee]

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

You can know that God exists through reason alone. The evidence is not the same as tangible evidence, but you can believe it on logic and philosophical evidence all the same.

There are other truths about God that we take by faith. That is, we cannot come to believe in them through reason alone, but rather through God giving us the capacity to accept what he has revealed on his authority (the theological virtue of faith). Believing in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is an example of this.

Now I’m not sure what you mean when you say “why believing something without evidence is more important than knowing”, but there is no conflict between faith and reason. The things we believe through faith we believe (and know) on the authority of God, who neither can deceive nor be deceived.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This reasoning does not apply to any other proposition for which we have actual and irrefutable evidence - no-one claims that their free will is restricted because they are unable to deny, without looking foolish or subjecting themselves to ridicule or extreme cognitive dissonance, that the Earth orbits the sun, for example, or the germ theory of infectious diseases, or that clouds tend to produce rain, or that water and sunlight are required for plants to grow, or anything sufficiently obvious. Why the special pleading for God’s existence?

Perhaps because God is, above all, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent Subject, not object. As such he cannot be “known” objectively but only as person to Person, subject to Subject. This is not the kind of knowing that is possible through a mediated lens such as vision or hearing, but through being itself. It is an encounter on the level of subjective being itself.

This is not special pleading but instead a special knowing because God, as the actualizing Subject of all, cannot be known as mere objects are known. To know God means that he must become the subjective means by which we know him at the same time as being the subjective “field” which is known. That can only be done with our assent or, alternatively, by the obliteration of our “self” as subject.

In a sense, because God is absolutely and supremely Personal, he can only be known obliquely otherwise he would overwhelm and replace the personal self that is the limited subjective self that makes each of us what we as individual subjects are.

 

[livingwordunity]

God himself isn’t visible, but his footprints are everywhere.

 

[ColdComfort]

wittgenstein, there is, however, something that might interest you.

God reveals his name as I AM. There is no further commentary on this in the entire Bible! However, hidden in just these two words is a knowledge of philosophy that I doubt anyone at that time could have imagined.

God reveals himself as he who is, which means that he is a non-contingent being. No other culture of that time that I am aware of saw God in this way. Other “gods” were more like powerful alien beings, physical creatures. But in the Bible, God is revealed to be a non-contingent reality. It would take a couple of thousand years more before someone like Aquinas would come on the scene and offer rational proofs for God with “God” being the non-contingent reality, but that was already revealed many thousand years ago in the Bible. Think about it.

This is one of those things that really confirmed my Catholic belief years ago. It was through Etienne Gilson’s books and he said much the same thing that you do. I would only add the amazing dove-tailing of Greek philosophy [an exercise in pure reason] and Jewish/ Christian Revelation that was apparent to many such as Philo and the Christian writers.

 

[ColdComfort]

I am exploring that possibility, see my thread," being". Ironically, my new found interest in existentialism dove tails with Exodus, existence precedes essence.

St. Thomas is the supreme existentialist philosopher.