The Divine Hiddenness Argument for Atheism

[Rational Agnostic]

It is obvious to anyone (including theists) that if God exists, then he's certainly not doing everything he can to make his existence obvious. For instance, he could write bible verses in the sky, shout in a loud voice, or perform immediate and unambiguous miracles in response to prayers. But, we don't see these things occur, and any event attributed to being an "act of God" is both rare and ambiguous. If God exists and is omnipotent, then it's clear he could be doing more to make his existence an obvious fact. This implies that either God is purposely hiding himself or (the simpler explanation) he doesn't exist. And, when there are two competing explanations for a phenomenon, the simpler one is typically correct.

Some theists attempt to answer this argument by claiming that if God made his existence obvious, then people would no longer have the freedom to make the choice to worship him or rebel against him i.e. everyone would be forced to worship God and free will would no longer exist. But this certainly doesn't follow. Consider the fact that the majority of theists also believe in supernatural beings called demons, as well as a "Satan" which once were angels of God but chose to rebel against him even after observing his unambiguous existence in all of its glory and power. If theists believe that the free will of these demons was not violated by seeing unambiguous evidence for the existence of God, then humans' free will to accept God or rebel against him would not be undermined by God making his existence more obvious. So, this explanation fails.

The only other explanation a theist would offer is that God works in "mysterious ways" and that he must have a good reason for making his existence less than obvious. But, this is not an explanation. A god that acts as if he doesn't exist is functionally equivalent to being non-existent. It is more reasonable to assume that God doesn't exist rather than to assume that God exists and purposely hides his existence, just as it is more reasonable to assume that my closet does *not* contain invisible fairies that hide their existence from me than it is to accept that these invisible fairies exist.

 

[England my lionheart]

It is obvious to anyone (including theists) that if God exists, then he's certainly not doing everything he can to make his existence obvious. For instance, he could write bible verses in the sky, shout in a loud voice, or perform immediate and unambiguous miracles in response to prayers. But, we don't see these things occur, and any event attributed to being an "act of God" is both rare and ambiguous. If God exists and is omnipotent, then it's clear he could be doing more to make his existence an obvious fact. This implies that either God is purposely hiding himself or (the simpler explanation) he doesn't exist. And, when there are two competing explanations for a phenomenon, the simpler one is typically correct.

Some theists attempt to answer this argument by claiming that if God made his existence obvious, then people would no longer have the freedom to make the choice to worship him or rebel against him i.e. everyone would be forced to worship God and free will would no longer exist. But this certainly doesn't follow. Consider the fact that the majority of theists also believe in supernatural beings called demons, as well as a "Satan" which once were angels of God but chose to rebel against him even after observing his unambiguous existence in all of its glory and power. If theists believe that the free will of these demons was not violated by seeing unambiguous evidence for the existence of God, then humans' free will to accept God or rebel against him would not be undermined by God making his existence more obvious. So, this explanation fails.

The only other explanation a theist would offer is that God works in "mysterious ways" and that he must have a good reason for making his existence less than obvious. But, this is not an explanation. A god that acts as if he doesn't exist is functionally equivalent to being non-existent. It is more reasonable to assume that God doesn't exist rather than to assume that God exists and purposely hides his existence, just as it is more reasonable to assume that my closet does *not* contain invisible fairies that hide their existence from me than it is to accept that these invisible fairies exist.

You know it's just a test right,well that's what they tell me.

 

[McBell]

You know it's just a test right,well that's what they tell me.

For who?

 

[Kenny]

It is obvious to anyone (including theists) that if God exists, then he's certainly not doing everything he can to make his existence obvious..

19 But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is!
20 By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can't see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse.

I think it is a matter of opinion

Sometimes we just don't want to admit to what we see, even when the elephant is in the room.

 

[England my lionheart]

For who?

For anyone who questions the existence of a god.

 

[England my lionheart]

19 But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is!
20 By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can't see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse.

I think it is a matter of opinion

Sometimes we just don't want to admit to what we see, even when the elephant is in the room.

So an unwanted child who lives and begs on the streets in India for example just can't see the elephant?.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't know where I heard it from, but a lot of these things have to do with the catholic church (before the split). I guess it was said after awhile people were "getting smarter" about the supernatural (maybe because of the age of reason?) and the church needed to keep its reputation by hiding the real nature of miracles. It seems like a psychological thing that believers have been indoctrinated in. So, if you asked them (as I have couple days ago here) what if god told her... she couldn't answer the question. It was "of course not, why would god do such a thing..." almost as if she was so indoctrinated by whatever she couldn't imagine outside of her box (but we can with aliens and movies).

Most likely it's highly political.

Some theists attempt to answer this argument by claiming that if God made his existence obvious, then people would no longer have the freedom to make the choice to worship him or rebel against him i.e. e

Which is probably another way of saying "if you actually are right, our belief would be for nothing" and it will harm more people than it would help. Take away the chains and how would one survive if their whole lives they know nothing else.

Mind you, I've asked non abrahamic these things and I get similar answers. There are many ways to become indoctrinated just some are political and others are not.

I would like that comment explained, really. Why would one want to have faith in god as opposed to knowledge. I mean, I can have faith my mother loves me but if she says I love you directly why would I push that aside? Wouldn't that physical and intimate contact strengthen my relationship rather than weaken it.

Probably also it's a threat to the validity of one's experiences.

The only other explanation a theist would offer is that God works in "mysterious ways" a

People like mystery (god, consciousness, aura, spirit, energy, so have you). If they are certain, they could be proven wrong. Once they are wrong, their house collapses. So, it's easier to have faith that the house will stay strong than have knowledge they only have X amount of time before it collapses.

 

[dybmh]

Some theists attempt to answer this argument by claiming that if God made his existence obvious, then people would no longer have the freedom to make the choice to worship him or rebel against him i.e. everyone would be forced to worship God and free will would no longer exist. But this certainly doesn't follow. Consider the fact that the majority of theists also believe in supernatural beings called demons, as well as a "Satan" which once were angels of God but chose to rebel against him even after observing his unambiguous existence in all of its glory and power. If theists believe that the free will of these demons was not violated by seeing unambiguous evidence for the existence of God, then humans' free will to accept God or rebel against him would not be undermined by God making his existence more obvious. So, this explanation fails.

Honest Question: Is there a fault in reasoning for Theists who ( like me ) don't believe in Angels and Demons the way you have described them, and they ( me ) agree that free-will is greatly diminished if God were obvious and overt?

 

[sun rise]

If God exists and is omnipotent, then it's clear he could be doing more to make his existence an obvious fact.

An umbrella can hide the sun. If someone has his eyes closed, he won't see the daylight. In other words, the believer says that those who truly are ready to see that God is real will see that God is real.

Further, pantheists will say that everything is immanent God so God's existence is an obvious fact because their eyes are open.

 

[Deeje]

It is obvious to anyone (including theists) that if God exists, then he's certainly not doing everything he can to make his existence obvious. For instance, he could write bible verses in the sky, shout in a loud voice, or perform immediate and unambiguous miracles in response to prayers. But, we don't see these things occur, and any event attributed to being an "act of God" is both rare and ambiguous. If God exists and is omnipotent, then it's clear he could be doing more to make his existence an obvious fact. This implies that either God is purposely hiding himself or (the simpler explanation) he doesn't exist. And, when there are two competing explanations for a phenomenon, the simpler one is typically correct.

How long would it take before humans took those kinds of 'miracles' for granted? I mean the Israelites saw some awe inspiring miracles and still lost faith in God because their personal comfort was challenged. They had been subject to cruel slavery in Egypt, and yet it seems as if they would have preferred that to wandering in the wilderness for 40 years as a punishment for their disobedience. Despite his displeasure with their ingratitude, God supplied their food and water, and their clothing and footwear never wore out. He took a new generation into the Promised Land. The only faithful ones left from that ungrateful generation were Moses, Joshua and Caleb....

We have a sun and a moon that we see most days and nights without thinking too much about why they are there and how they benefit us.....yet our lives would be impossible without them. Then we have a vast universe where scientists have given us a glimpse of what is out there.....yet no Creator gets a mention. The universe didn't just appear out of nowhere for no reason....neither did life. No logical person could think that everything came from nothing. That purposeful design could just magically happen on its own.

Some theists attempt to answer this argument by claiming that if God made his existence obvious, then people would no longer have the freedom to make the choice to worship him or rebel against him i.e. everyone would be forced to worship God and free will would no longer exist. But this certainly doesn't follow. Consider the fact that the majority of theists also believe in supernatural beings called demons, as well as a "Satan" which once were angels of God but chose to rebel against him even after observing his unambiguous existence in all of its glory and power. If theists believe that the free will of these demons was not violated by seeing unambiguous evidence for the existence of God, then humans' free will to accept God or rebel against him would not be undermined by God making his existence more obvious. So, this explanation fails.

Perhaps you need to understand that the rebel angels (including their leader) have no choice but to cop their punishment because their rebellion has no excuse. Then compare that to Adam and his wife whose children were affected by their rebellion, but whose lives can be restored if they stay loyal to God and don't defect to satan's side of the issue. We are all given that opportunity.

Satan and his demons will not have that option. Perfect beings do not make mistakes due to a sinful nature. Their willful and deliberate defection will meet with permanent removal from existence.....and they know it. Their victory is gained by taking as many down with them as they can.....how many is that, do you think?

The only other explanation a theist would offer is that God works in "mysterious ways" and that he must have a good reason for making his existence less than obvious. But, this is not an explanation. A god that acts as if he doesn't exist is functionally equivalent to being non-existent.

I disagree.....the fact is 'God is functionally non-existent' only to those who demand that he give them proof of his existence, more than he already has. You don't seem to be able to see that God's adversary has managed to explain away creation so that those who are "educated and intelligent" (an appeal to ego) can see the natural world as being the product of "natural" means. So no Creator is necessary. But don't you have to wonder where "natural" came from? Where the universe came from and the natural laws that govern everything....and why this planet seems to be the only one teeming with life. But the "educated and intelligent" ones are those who are responsible for destroying it...so how intelligent are they really?

It is more reasonable to assume that God doesn't exist rather than to assume that God exists and purposely hides his existence, just as it is more reasonable to assume that my closet does *not* contain invisible fairies that hide their existence from me than it is to accept that these invisible fairies exist.

You know what they say about those who "assume"...? To me it is not reasonable to assume that all the lifeforms and Eco-systems that operate to keep all things functioning in a pre-determined manner perpetually, were just the product of fortunate accidents.....like the location and size of the earth, and the speed of its rotation.....the angle of its axis and the mixture of gases that make up it atmosphere.....the fact that we are the only planet with an abundance of water and yet all living land dwellers can't drink it. Is it just another fortunate accident that precipitation takes place because of evaporation of the ocean water by means of the sun, is absorbed into the clouds, (in sometimes incredible amounts) and deposited on land to sustain the life that was designed to live there?

God is not hidden at all.....the proof of his existence is right under our noses every day of our lives. He is only hidden from those who want an excuse not to believe in him and that gives them permission to live by their own rules......its our choice to believe whatever we wish....I believe that God gives each of us 'enough rope'....

 

[rational experiences]

If a male asked himself rationally, do you personally as a science self claim that you created the powers of God?

And he would say, no I am looking for God....for if I know God then I will own all powers in the cosmos...and own infinite.

Now he says as a mind infinite owns no beginning and no end. His science theme reactions is a beginning and an end. So it can never ever be infinite.

First applied self status, I tell lies as a science mind.

Spiritually a human who knows I live after the life of an animal as DATA inferred status.

Microbes he says, the Nature Garden by the billions of its diverse bodies....then animals by whatever amount of diverse presence, then humans.

Yet when he tries to say, when a human did not exist is when he should stop talking and thinking. For a monkey does not live on behalf of a human, nor does it talk on behalf of a human. So a monkey in its Nature is not where a human came from.

A human living making bodily and self bio life comparisons claims...closest form to my owned self. Yet no monkey will ever be a human. And if a monkey or an ape is applied as being a human being first parent in natural history...then the baby human owns no science rationality to claim...I will start thinking on my own baby human behalf.

Those sorts of truly evil realizations that science expresses as a human, self manifest meaning totally separate owned life, as a human and a self as a human, and never anything else.

Everyday however he tries to impose that he is everything else except his own self...and you would wonder at this form of thinking, for it is not a sensible statement.

The stories of science as the use, to impose DATA and stories upon the natural Nature.

Which does not own any God theories does it....as the statements of science.

So then you would ask spiritual religious ideals....so why do you talk science of creation, if you claim you are a scientist?

For you cannot talk God talk or Satan talk if science as the state science as agreed by human males to be the statements science say a human bio life only exists directly after a monkey or ape.

Animals do not own science.
Nature Garden does not own science as the 2 direct descendants that humans in science say our life evolved afterwards from those bodies existing.

Yet God scientists claim that they own the rights to make these forms of discussions as if they are the Creator of life their own selves....when they are rationally as a male and as a human and as an adult and as a Father.

Creator of a human life.

They are not Creator of any other form.....for in science of the Nature of power it already exists created.

So they claim that they are researching for the beginning to own it in a machine reaction….so how do they fit what they research inside of a machine reaction, when space holds it all inside of the body of space?

Irrationality in its expressions. What Satanism was described as.

Males always said that God the stone was the Creator in stone philosophy.

If males claim that they are looking for God, then they are knowingly researching for what they claim is the place where stone became stone....to remove its physical presence......and it involves theming about the Sun, the only body that owns the power to cause it rationally.

Yet males tried to coerce humanity to claim, no I am looking for a God particle....so that they would not realize what science has been confessing.

That it is trying to work out how to have God the stone removed physically as the body of planet Earth, as a truthful and rational human explanation.

Science has never achieved any status as science other than to take the physical natural created mass and convert it, by attacking it with Sun metallic radiation, which stone never was.

They taught humanity that the story Sun ejected its cold evolution of gases, that allowed stone to exist in the body of space as smaller bodies ejected. And we see that effect. So males always knew that the Sun had ejected out of its owned form the state of stone. And no longer supported the creation of stone...for hot metallic radiation forced stone to release its sealed gases.

And today try to coerce humanity in fake science themes that the Sun is the Creator and not God the stone, Creator of its own body and its own presence.

How the theme God was taught.

So science today as males in consciousness try to claim that God is hidden, as they research how to remove fusion or SION from existing in its natural state...claiming that they will create Sion their own selves in a machine reaction.

Makes no logical sense whatsoever as that God scientist....for a human being male is trying to claim that he invented fusion. When it is natural.

Science owns the artificial copying of fis SION....a different relevance to the word of what science says is the power of the Divine as SION.

So instead of rationalising information in its correct form....God is the held fusion of the body of stone.....he tries to convince his own person that God is hidden and he has try to find God in hiding.

Males as the speaking, thinking consciousness as a living human being is the inventor of the state SCIENCE. No body but his own self told him to apply that thinking condition and no body but his own self told him to build machines to react.

It was all his owned male human choice.

When he reacted the natural atmosphere, which owned in its past the creation of the attack and a vision THAT RECORDED that attack, the original image was of reactions.

And the reaction no longer existed....the Sun attack on God O Earth stopped.

Males in science reactivated that vision made in the image of reaction, got attacked and bodily physically converted the Garden Nature and natural life on Earth, and it was then given an IMAGE...as by God reaction causation...ground fission.

So he was then image recorded in the reaction attack conversion as a male speaking voice, changed and life sacrificed. Just as his scientific records told him.

So scientifically males as human beings always have known that to change the natural body of God life gets attacked....and know, have always known and still know today exactly what they cause to the life on Earth if they change the only body of GOD that was given the TITLE GOD...the body of stone.

In modern times, against the biblical male scientific aware documentation of life attacked, the book of the bible test I monials of the One O planet Earth the mono or one body said.....if you change the Name of God...which he has into an inference that God is a particle then life will be reattacked again.

And it was.

 

[Maximus]

It is obvious to anyone (including theists) that if God exists, then he's certainly not doing everything he can to make his existence obvious. For instance, he could write bible verses in the sky, shout in a loud voice, or perform immediate and unambiguous miracles in response to prayers. But, we don't see these things occur, and any event attributed to being an "act of God" is both rare and ambiguous. If God exists and is omnipotent, then it's clear he could be doing more to make his existence an obvious fact. This implies that either God is purposely hiding himself or (the simpler explanation) he doesn't exist. And, when there are two competing explanations for a phenomenon, the simpler one is typically correct.

Some theists attempt to answer this argument by claiming that if God made his existence obvious, then people would no longer have the freedom to make the choice to worship him or rebel against him i.e. everyone would be forced to worship God and free will would no longer exist. But this certainly doesn't follow. Consider the fact that the majority of theists also believe in supernatural beings called demons, as well as a "Satan" which once were angels of God but chose to rebel against him even after observing his unambiguous existence in all of its glory and power. If theists believe that the free will of these demons was not violated by seeing unambiguous evidence for the existence of God, then humans' free will to accept God or rebel against him would not be undermined by God making his existence more obvious. So, this explanation fails.

The only other explanation a theist would offer is that God works in "mysterious ways" and that he must have a good reason for making his existence less than obvious. But, this is not an explanation. A god that acts as if he doesn't exist is functionally equivalent to being non-existent. It is more reasonable to assume that God doesn't exist rather than to assume that God exists and purposely hides his existence, just as it is more reasonable to assume that my closet does *not* contain invisible fairies that hide their existence from me than it is to accept that these invisible fairies exist.

When you define God - the Creator of the universe, the ground of all being - in such a cartoonish, anthropomorphic manner it is easy to say such silly things as you did here.

 

[Kenny]

So an unwanted child who lives and begs on the streets in India for example just can't see the elephant?.

Does the child in India believe there is a God? Or is it you that we are talking about?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

19 But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is!
20 By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can't see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse.

I think it is a matter of opinion

Sometimes we just don't want to admit to what we see, even when the elephant is in the room.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that it is an absolute fact that God exists. I think that even you would admit he could do more to reveal his existence (frequently heal severed limbs, raise people from the dead, and write bible verses in the rocks of the Moon and Mars, to name a few examples). As I said before events deemed "acts of God" are both rare and ambiguous. Why are they not common and unambiguous? I assume that as a pastor, you must have some theological rationalization as to why God does not make his existence obvious and unambiguous to everyone.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

When you define God - the Crestor of the universe, the ground of all being - in such a cartoonish, anthropomorphic manner it is easy to say such silly things as you did here.

I never defined God in this post. How do you define God? Of course my OP does not apply to deistic gods.

 

[Maximus]

I never defined God in this post. How do you define God? Of course my OP does not apply to deistic gods.

Your definition is implicit in your silly questions about why He does not do what you asked about. He is not some being "up there" with a magic wand fixing this or that.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Your definition is implicit in your silly questions about why He does not do what you asked about. He is not some being "up there" with a magic wand fixing this or that.

Most Christians believe in an interventionist god. If you believe in a deistic god, then the post doesn't apply to you.

 

[rational experiences]

Rational thinking for human males.

Imagine that human sex was stopped, you would all age and die and no human male scientist would exist any longer on Earth.

Where is a God in that review?

If you say and God owns the creation, then you would say so God owns the creation.

Consciousness, as owned by the male human bio life expresser, no more.

Now if a male as a scientist says to his own self, I built modern day machines that own transmitting, recording of images of all forms of bodies, including out of space, then how is that condition Earth owned? When space is in space, bodies in space are bodies in space....how can you gain those images, if in fact the ability on Earth to form images came from out of space?

For it is proven it did....and we are not the image, the vision, the recording of image or vision or the transmitting of vision or image.

How isn't that logical self human advice in the sciences?

You human being male brother scientist are wrong. As the scientist.

For you are as a human being the chooser of what you as that human self imply you will achieve.

Now if you believed in God the Deity or God the Entity, then why would you scientist then claim that a human could take God and convert God into resource powers?

It would not make any common sense nor logic to make that claim.

But if you claimed self consciousness, the thinker was a God, just because your thoughts, and ideals science got recorded by machine conditions as the designer inventor of the God mass machines......design given by incoming UFO sun metal radiation, not of Earth.....then it is how you gave God a Deism that is human being male owned as the ONLY conscious self.

And encoded artificial intelligence claiming that self, the thinker is a God.

 

[Kenny]

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that it is an absolute fact that God exists. I think that even you would admit he could do more to reveal his existence (frequently heal severed limbs, raise people from the dead, and write bible verses in the rocks of the Moon and Mars, to name a few examples). As I said before events deemed "acts of God" are both rare and ambiguous. Why are they not common and unambiguous? I assume that as a pastor, you must have some theological rationalization as to why God does not make his existence obvious and unambiguous to everyone.

I think that raising Jesus from the dead was enough. After that, anything else and we would make up a reason why it really didn't happen.

Example: A cancer was instantly left - response -- it was spontaneous regression
A tumor disappears -- it was an error in diagnosis
A paralyzed person walks - somebody paid him off
John wrote the gospel -- he really didn't write it
Luke wrote down first hand witnesses of Jesus - it is just a myth

As one who wasn't a pastor -- I wondered (as I stared into a Tom Collins) - "What about all the supposed miracles".
After I gave my life to Jesus - it was one miracle after another -- maybe I was looking in the wrong place?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

It is obvious to anyone (including theists) that if God exists, then he's certainly not doing everything he can to make his existence obvious. For instance, he could write bible verses in the sky, shout in a loud voice, or perform immediate and unambiguous miracles in response to prayers. But, we don't see these things occur, and any event attributed to being an "act of God" is both rare and ambiguous. If God exists and is omnipotent, then it's clear he could be doing more to make his existence an obvious fact. This implies that either God is purposely hiding himself or (the simpler explanation) he doesn't exist. And, when there are two competing explanations for a phenomenon, the simpler one is typically correct.

Some theists attempt to answer this argument by claiming that if God made his existence obvious, then people would no longer have the freedom to make the choice to worship him or rebel against him i.e. everyone would be forced to worship God and free will would no longer exist. But this certainly doesn't follow. Consider the fact that the majority of theists also believe in supernatural beings called demons, as well as a "Satan" which once were angels of God but chose to rebel against him even after observing his unambiguous existence in all of its glory and power. If theists believe that the free will of these demons was not violated by seeing unambiguous evidence for the existence of God, then humans' free will to accept God or rebel against him would not be undermined by God making his existence more obvious. So, this explanation fails.

The only other explanation a theist would offer is that God works in "mysterious ways" and that he must have a good reason for making his existence less than obvious. But, this is not an explanation. A god that acts as if he doesn't exist is functionally equivalent to being non-existent. It is more reasonable to assume that God doesn't exist rather than to assume that God exists and purposely hides his existence, just as it is more reasonable to assume that my closet does *not* contain invisible fairies that hide their existence from me than it is to accept that these invisible fairies exist.

Ok, that’s a very nice argument.
Well stated.
Makes sense.
It all seems quite logical to me.
So, what’s the question?