Divine Hiddeness: A Christian Response

[izzy88]

I happened upon this video and thought it would be worth sharing here. I'll touch on some of the main points he discusses if you don't want to watch the full video, though he does get more in-depth and covers much more ground than what I'll be sharing here, so I encourage you to watch the video for yourself - and check out the other videos on his channel, several of which I've found to be very insightful and informative.

----------

What type of evidence could we have for God's existence, without removing our freedom, or inspiring the wrong type of knowledge of God?

If you suggest there ought to be a better way for God to reveal himself, and yet cannot explain what that better way is, then the objection is ad hoc.

The truth is, given the psychological state of mankind, it wouldn't matter how much evidence we had. Many would still reject God, or desire not to believe in him.

Furthermore, God's aim is not to simply have us believe he exists, but to assure that we have good underlying moral reasons for believing in him.

What God wants is cognitively robust theism, which is to lovingly believe in or trust God as the Lord of our lives. The goal is not basic theism - believing on an intellectual level that God exists based on propositional knowledge, but living as though God is our personal Lord based on filial knowledge.

The problem is our demand to know God on our terms. As Paul Moser puts it: "Many people proceed as if we have a right to know God on our preferred terms. This is, however, nothing more than a self-serving assumption."

The atheist is arguing for evidence based on a self-serving assumption, which, if given, would be contrary to the goals of God - to sanctify us and remove our selfish and prideful tendencies. God knows that the only way for us to come to him in a way that will actually save us from ourselves is to first realize our selfish nature. Otherwise, our knowledge of God would only serve selfish desires, and so work against God's ultimate goal for us.

The path to God does not start with a selfish demand that he reveal himself to us or else. To again quote Paul Moser: "...we truly come to know God only if we acknowledge our unworthiness of knowing God. It is thus illuminating to ask about the attitudes of people inquiring about God. What are our intentions in having knowledge of God? What do we aim to do with such knowledge? Do we aim to use it for our own honor and self-promotion, treating it as self-credit rather than as an unearned gift? Do we have a bias against cognitively robust theism, in particular against filial knowing of God as a personal Lord who lovingly holds us accountable and expects grateful obedience from us? I suspect that we typically do."

God's beginning work is to try to convict us and get us to realize that we are wholeheartedly selfish and prideful. Once we begin to humble ourselves and accept that we do not know how to run our lives, that our own pride and self-centeredness will slowly disintegrate us, only then can God slowly reveal himself through love.

Once we account for the selfish and prideful nature of humanity, the issue of Divine Hiddeness begins to make sense. It is necessary to help change us appropriately. God first has to convict us and get us to surrender our pride and become open to being humbled in heart and mind. Only then will he begin to reveal himself - not how we demand, or when we demand, but in the way that he knows best to truly change us individually. This is the way it has to be done.

"He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." - John 14:21

To all who ask in love and humility, it shall be given.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

I see some truth in much of this, but my question would be: how far can this go? I see nothing about Theosis, which is union with God. Do our desires stop short of Theosis? I know mine don’t.

Is it enough to have God revealed, be obedient, and then wait for a deeper connection at a later time after bodily death? Is it enough to endure a decadent world as a trade off for the comfort and certainty in a worldview that makes us wait?

 

[izzy88]

I see some truth in much of this, but my question would be: how far can this go? I see nothing about Theosis, which is union with God. Do our desires stop short of Theosis? I know mine don’t.

Is it enough to have God revealed, be obedient, and then wait for a deeper connection at a later time after bodily death? Is it enough to endure a decadent world as a trade off for the comfort of certainty of a worldview that makes us wait?

I guess I'm not really sure what you're asking. While the term "theosis" isn't directly used, that's exactly what he's talking about. In order for theosis to begin, the first step is not coming to believe God exists in a propositional sense, but a desire to submit your will to the highest good - to God. The desire to be humble must come before the humility is even possible.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I happened upon this video and thought it would be worth sharing here. I'll touch on some of the main points he discusses if you don't want to watch the full video, though he does get more in-depth and covers much more ground than what I'll be sharing here, so I encourage you to watch the video for yourself - and check out the other videos on his channel, several of which I've found to be very insightful and informative.

----------

What type of evidence could we have for God's existence, without removing our freedom, or inspiring the wrong type of knowledge of God?

If you suggest there ought to be a better way for God to reveal himself, and yet cannot explain what that better way is, then the objection is ad hoc.

The truth is, given the psychological state of mankind, it wouldn't matter how much evidence we had. Many would still reject God, or desire not to believe in him.

Furthermore, God's aim is not to simply have us believe he exists, but to assure that we have good underlying moral reasons for believing in him.

What God wants is cognitively robust theism, which is to lovingly believe in or trust God as the Lord of our lives. The goal is not basic theism - believing on an intellectual level that God exists based on propositional knowledge, but living as though God is our personal Lord based on filial knowledge.

The problem is our demand to know God on our terms. As Paul Moser puts it: "Many people proceed as if we have a right to know God on our preferred terms. This is, however, nothing more than a self-serving assumption."

The atheist is arguing for evidence based on a self-serving assumption, which, if given, would be contrary to the goals of God - to sanctify us and remove our selfish and prideful tendencies. God knows that the only way for us to come to him in a way that will actually save us from ourselves is to first realize our selfish nature. Otherwise, our knowledge of God would only serve selfish desires, and so work against God's ultimate goal for us.

The path to God does not start with a selfish demand that he reveal himself to us or else. To again quote Paul Moser: "...we truly come to know God only if we acknowledge our unworthiness of knowing God. It is thus illuminating to ask about the attitudes of people inquiring about God. What are our intentions in having knowledge of God? What do we aim to do with such knowledge? Do we aim to use it for our own honor and self-promotion, treating it as self-credit rather than as an unearned gift? Do we have a bias against cognitively robust theism, in particular against filial knowing of God as a personal Lord who lovingly holds us accountable and expects grateful obedience from us? I suspect that we typically do."

God's beginning work is to try to convict us and get us to realize that we are wholeheartedly selfish and prideful. Once we begin to humble ourselves and accept that we do not know how to run our lives, that our own pride and self-centeredness will slowly disintegrate us, only then can God slowly reveal himself through love.

Once we account for the selfish and prideful nature of humanity, the issue of Divine Hiddeness begins to make sense. It is necessary to help change us appropriately. God first has to convict us and get us to surrender our pride and become open to being humbled in heart and mind. Only then will he begin to reveal himself - not how we demand, or when we demand, but in the way that he knows best to truly change us individually. This is the way it has to be done.

"He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." - John 14:21

To all who ask in love and humility, it shall be given.

There is evidence. Many atheist are looking fore fairies. Many believes piggyback on their response thinking proving gods existence is the same idea of god for atheists as for the theist. You guys are arguing pass each other. Atheists. God isn't a man in the sky. Theist. Many atheist don't know the definitions of each of your individual gods you say is one. If you guys can't agree on the definition, how could atheists? That. And how can you prove to atheists god exists when the criteria and nature of the god you guys speak of are different and subjective?

It's a foregone conclusion


I'll watch the movie a bit later

 

[izzy88]

Many atheist don't know the definitions of each of your individual gods you say is one. If you guys can't agree on the definition, how could atheists? That. And how can you prove to atheists god exists when the criteria and nature of the god you guys speak of are different and subjective?

Can you share some of these contradictory definitions of God you claim are everywhere?

 

[Treasure Hunter]

I guess I'm not really sure what you're asking. While the term "theosis" isn't directly used, that's exactly what he's talking about. In order for theosis to begin, the first step is not coming to believe God exists in a propositional sense, but a desire to submit your will to the highest good - to God. The desire to be humble must come before the humility is even possible.

I would say a necessary step before submitting to God is to first be humble in admitting that the path to God is unclear. The way to honor that humility is to continue to doubt even after we have submitted to God, to continue to consider that we have errored.

 

[izzy88]

I would say a necessary step before submitting to God is to first be humble in admitting that the path to God is unclear. The way to honor that humility is to continue to doubt even after we have submitted to God, to continue to consider that we have errored.

You're still thinking in terms of propositions. This isn't about various ideas about what the path to holiness constitutes, what we have to do to achieve sanctification or theosis. The whole point is that there's nothing we can do to make ourselves holy, to make ourselves virtuous. The process necessarily requires God - only he can transform us, we cannot transform ourselves. All we must do - and indeed all we can do - is genuinely desire it, desire to be humble, to be virtuous. That desire is the first step on the path to theosis, and it's the only one we can take ourselves - God has to carry us the rest of the way, but the one thing he cannot do is force us to take that first step, to make us desire humility, because to do so would be to take away our freedom, which would render the entire process impossible.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

You're still thinking in terms of propositions. This isn't about various ideas about what the path to holiness constitutes, what we have to do to achieve sanctification or theosis. The whole point is that there's nothing we can do to make ourselves holy, to make ourselves virtuous. The process necessarily requires God - only he can transform us, we cannot transform ourselves. All we must do - and indeed all we can do - is genuinely desire it, desire to be humble, to be virtuous. That desire is the first step on the path to theosis, and it's the only one we can take ourselves - God has to carry us the rest of the way, but the one thing he cannot do is force us to take that first step, to make us desire humility, because to do so would be to take away our freedom, which would render the entire process impossible.

When you say, “God has to carry us the rest of the way”, is that not a proposition? Are you claiming your Theosis is complete? Are there not counterfeit paths to counterfeit gods?

I agree with much of what you are saying, but I’m purposely being challenging because it’s important and I believe you can handle it.

 

[Koldo]

I happened upon this video and thought it would be worth sharing here. I'll touch on some of the main points he discusses if you don't want to watch the full video, though he does get more in-depth and covers much more ground than what I'll be sharing here, so I encourage you to watch the video for yourself - and check out the other videos on his channel, several of which I've found to be very insightful and informative.

----------

What type of evidence could we have for God's existence, without removing our freedom, or inspiring the wrong type of knowledge of God?

If you suggest there ought to be a better way for God to reveal himself, and yet cannot explain what that better way is, then the objection is ad hoc.

The truth is, given the psychological state of mankind, it wouldn't matter how much evidence we had. Many would still reject God, or desire not to believe in him.

Furthermore, God's aim is not to simply have us believe he exists, but to assure that we have good underlying moral reasons for believing in him.

What God wants is cognitively robust theism, which is to lovingly believe in or trust God as the Lord of our lives. The goal is not basic theism - believing on an intellectual level that God exists based on propositional knowledge, but living as though God is our personal Lord based on filial knowledge.

The problem is our demand to know God on our terms. As Paul Moser puts it: "Many people proceed as if we have a right to know God on our preferred terms. This is, however, nothing more than a self-serving assumption."

The atheist is arguing for evidence based on a self-serving assumption, which, if given, would be contrary to the goals of God - to sanctify us and remove our selfish and prideful tendencies. God knows that the only way for us to come to him in a way that will actually save us from ourselves is to first realize our selfish nature. Otherwise, our knowledge of God would only serve selfish desires, and so work against God's ultimate goal for us.

The path to God does not start with a selfish demand that he reveal himself to us or else. To again quote Paul Moser: "...we truly come to know God only if we acknowledge our unworthiness of knowing God. It is thus illuminating to ask about the attitudes of people inquiring about God. What are our intentions in having knowledge of God? What do we aim to do with such knowledge? Do we aim to use it for our own honor and self-promotion, treating it as self-credit rather than as an unearned gift? Do we have a bias against cognitively robust theism, in particular against filial knowing of God as a personal Lord who lovingly holds us accountable and expects grateful obedience from us? I suspect that we typically do."

God's beginning work is to try to convict us and get us to realize that we are wholeheartedly selfish and prideful. Once we begin to humble ourselves and accept that we do not know how to run our lives, that our own pride and self-centeredness will slowly disintegrate us, only then can God slowly reveal himself through love.

Once we account for the selfish and prideful nature of humanity, the issue of Divine Hiddeness begins to make sense. It is necessary to help change us appropriately. God first has to convict us and get us to surrender our pride and become open to being humbled in heart and mind. Only then will he begin to reveal himself - not how we demand, or when we demand, but in the way that he knows best to truly change us individually. This is the way it has to be done.

"He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." - John 14:21

To all who ask in love and humility, it shall be given.

Let me clarify this: As an atheist, I do not demand evidence from God. I just haven't found nor been presented a compelling evidence that would change my mind.

When I get to demand evidence it is from fellow human beings making unsubstantiated claims. And that's not specific to God beliefs. Imagine someone were to come to me and tell me that injecting a desinfectant into my body would be a good way to make me stay health. I would most definitely demand evidence for that.

 

[izzy88]

As an atheist, I do not demand evidence from God. I just haven't found nor been presented a compelling evidence that would change my mind.

When I get to demand evidence it is from fellow human beings

You refuse to believe in God without evidence that you find satisfactory; whether that evidence is presented to you by another person or directly by God himself is an irrelevant distinction. The evidence for God ultimately must come from God, so what you said changes nothing.

 

[izzy88]

When you say, “God has to carry us the rest of the way”, is that not a proposition? Are you claiming your Theosis is complete? Are there not counterfeit paths to counterfeit gods?

I agree with much of what you are saying, but I’m purposely being challenging because it’s important and I believe you can handle it.

I just don't think I'm clear on the point you're making. Yes, claiming that you must first genuinely desire humility before you can attain it and thereby begin to know God is a proposition, but it's really the only one that matters. Once you take that first step, you've reached the end of your search for God and the beginning of your relationship with God, so it's no longer about analyzing propositions.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Can you share some of these contradictory definitions of God you claim are everywhere?

Christians define god as a deity, an experience, a spirit.

Atheist compare it to fairies, monsters, and actual person(s) that can or cannot talk to the believer.

The two definitions for god are not the same.

Both of you guys are talking pass each other. You can't prove that god exists to an atheist because the criteria of existence for "some" of them is not the same as yours.

They can't prove that god does not exist to you, because their criteria of "non-existence" references to beings (like Zues etc) in which most christians do not agree too.

Unless you can find out if "some" atheists are talking about the same god as you, you (and other theists) attempt to prove god's existence is null.

That. And what type of proof can one give of god's existences that's not based on something that needs to be experienced to understand?

 

[izzy88]

Christians define god as a deity, an experience, a spirit.

Atheist compare it to fairies, monsters, and actual person(s) that can or cannot talk to the believer.

The two definitions for god are not the same.

Both of you guys are talking pass each other. You can't prove that god exists to an atheist because the criteria of existence for "some" of them is not the same as yours.

They can't prove that god does not exist to you, because their criteria of "non-existence" references to beings (like Zues etc) in which most christians do not agree too.

Unless you can find out if "some" atheists are talking about the same god as you, you (and other theists) attempt to prove god's existence is null.

That. And what type of proof can one give of god's existences that's not based on something that needs to be experienced to understand?

What does any of this have to do with the thread topic?

 

[Koldo]

You refuse to believe in God without evidence that you find satisfactory;

Just like everyone else.

whether that evidence is presented to you by another person or directly by God himself is an irrelevant distinction.The evidence for God ultimately must come from God, so what you said changes nothing.

It does. You were saying that people, and atheists in particular, demand evidence from God. I am telling you as an atheist that I do not demand any evidence from God.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What does any of this have to do with the thread topic?

The original reply related to the topic. You asked a question that veered from it. I commented. RF tradition.

 

[izzy88]

The original reply related to the topic. You asked a question that veered from it. I commented. RF tradition.

What you just said was merely elaboration on your original comment, though; what does your original comment have to do with the OP?

 

[izzy88]

Just like everyone else.



It does. You were saying that people, and atheists in particular, demand evidence from God. I am telling you as an atheist that I do not demand any evidence from God.

You absolutely do; you demand evidence for God, which is something that can only come from God.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

I just don't think I'm clear on the point you're making. Yes, claiming that you must first genuinely desire humility before you can attain it and thereby begin to know God is a proposition, but it's really the only one that matters. Once you take that first step, you've reached the end of your search for God and the beginning of your relationship with God, so it's no longer about analyzing propositions.

I agree about getting past propositions, but the journey is only beginning at that point. Detaching from emotional responses disguised as truths is part of the work. There is the emotion that appeals to us by communicating that we are in deep relationship with God when our relationship is actually distant, and then there is the truth that calls to us to close the distance.

We cannot tell that the emotion is a deception; we can only recognize it by assigning truth to the call that says we are still too distant. In order to do that, we can’t deny the call when we hear it, and to be sure we don’t deny it, we need to actively listen for it, and to do that, we need to doubt the idea that we are in relationship currently. If we believe we are in relationship, we will not hear the truth that says we are not.

 

[Milton Platt]

I happened upon this video and thought it would be worth sharing here. I'll touch on some of the main points he discusses if you don't want to watch the full video, though he does get more in-depth and covers much more ground than what I'll be sharing here, so I encourage you to watch the video for yourself - and check out the other videos on his channel, several of which I've found to be very insightful and informative.

----------

What type of evidence could we have for God's existence, without removing our freedom, or inspiring the wrong type of knowledge of God?

If you suggest there ought to be a better way for God to reveal himself, and yet cannot explain what that better way is, then the objection is ad hoc.

The truth is, given the psychological state of mankind, it wouldn't matter how much evidence we had. Many would still reject God, or desire not to believe in him.

Furthermore, God's aim is not to simply have us believe he exists, but to assure that we have good underlying moral reasons for believing in him.

What God wants is cognitively robust theism, which is to lovingly believe in or trust God as the Lord of our lives. The goal is not basic theism - believing on an intellectual level that God exists based on propositional knowledge, but living as though God is our personal Lord based on filial knowledge.

The problem is our demand to know God on our terms. As Paul Moser puts it: "Many people proceed as if we have a right to know God on our preferred terms. This is, however, nothing more than a self-serving assumption."

The atheist is arguing for evidence based on a self-serving assumption, which, if given, would be contrary to the goals of God - to sanctify us and remove our selfish and prideful tendencies. God knows that the only way for us to come to him in a way that will actually save us from ourselves is to first realize our selfish nature. Otherwise, our knowledge of God would only serve selfish desires, and so work against God's ultimate goal for us.

The path to God does not start with a selfish demand that he reveal himself to us or else. To again quote Paul Moser: "...we truly come to know God only if we acknowledge our unworthiness of knowing God. It is thus illuminating to ask about the attitudes of people inquiring about God. What are our intentions in having knowledge of God? What do we aim to do with such knowledge? Do we aim to use it for our own honor and self-promotion, treating it as self-credit rather than as an unearned gift? Do we have a bias against cognitively robust theism, in particular against filial knowing of God as a personal Lord who lovingly holds us accountable and expects grateful obedience from us? I suspect that we typically do."

God's beginning work is to try to convict us and get us to realize that we are wholeheartedly selfish and prideful. Once we begin to humble ourselves and accept that we do not know how to run our lives, that our own pride and self-centeredness will slowly disintegrate us, only then can God slowly reveal himself through love.

Once we account for the selfish and prideful nature of humanity, the issue of Divine Hiddeness begins to make sense. It is necessary to help change us appropriately. God first has to convict us and get us to surrender our pride and become open to being humbled in heart and mind. Only then will he begin to reveal himself - not how we demand, or when we demand, but in the way that he knows best to truly change us individually. This is the way it has to be done.

"He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." - John 14:21

To all who ask in love and humility, it shall be given.

Well, apparently we could have at least as much knowledge of an angel in Heaven and still have freedom of choice....Satan, right?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What you just said was merely elaboration on your original comment, though; what does your original comment have to do with the OP?

Why didn't you ask this when I first commented?

I forget my point way down the line if you guys veer off with questions rather than stick to the OP. Then ask me out of the blue "how does this relate to the OP?"

It makes it seem like a purposeful diversion especially when topics usually go off OPs anyway.