Does God Adequately Avail Himself to Man?

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@John_Harshman

No need to be so defensive.

Hahaha. Okay…

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@John_Harshman

But you wouldn’t if God wanted to be convincing. He could easily make a demonstration that he knew would work for you. He’s omnipotent and omniscient, after all.

Of course, God could do this. But then he would be sacrificing our free will. We would essentially be compelled to believe in him. Based on what the Bible reveals to us, God’s creatures have free will to reject God. Even his angels, who could see God directly in all of his glory, were not all faithful. Some of them still chose to rebel.

(Note that I don’t think it is possible for God to create free creatures who will always freely choose to believe in him. This seems to be a logical contradiction and thus a limit to God’s omnipotence.)

@John_Harshman

So God intervened to put a porta-potty there in order to save your life? I hope you realize how very self-important that sounds.

You’re basically saying that Christianity is full of self-importance. Why should God care about each of us personally, after all? But that’s precisely the amazing, crazy thing about Christianity, John. Instead of God as a distant, incomprehensibly perfect being, the Christian message says that God loves us and chose to degrade himself in the form of a human being in order to personally die for our sins. Instead of simply demanding us to obey and worship him (which he is certainly entitled to do so), he went to great lengths to show that he loves us, too!

@John_Harshman

Believe first, evidence later? This seems calculated to repel anyone who believes in rationality and evidence. On purpose, do you suppose?

Assuming God exists, why do you suppose that human rationality should be the highest good? Why should the small, limited human mind have any capability to comprehend the infinity of the Divine Mind? As God himself said to Job,

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?”

(Job 38:4-7, NIV)

If Christianity were true, it cannot afford to be based on the altar of human rationality. That would be idolatrous and incoherent. After all, the Bible says that we are fallen. We are corrupted and sinful, and thus have partially lost our sensitivity to the Divine. Certainly our rationality is affected too.

[DaleCutler]

I haven’t read through this thread yet, but certainly this is on topic – it’s a transcript of a six and a half minute video, so it should be readable in four minutes or less (the link to the video is at the end, if you would rather watch that):

Why Is There No Visible Proof of God?

I believe this is a valid question that atheists bring up. If God was real and if he loved us, why wouldn’t he make his presence known. The fact that he hides shows either God doesn’t exist or he doesn’t love us enough to make himself known to prevent us from going to hell.

However the more I studied this question from a biblical perspective, the more I realize that there is no visible proof of God is because he loves us. The fact that God doesn’t make himself known empirically shows how much he truly loves us. You should know Jesus already answered this question in the Bible when he gave the parable of the rich man in hell. The rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus back to warn his brothers of the terrible place he was in, yet Abraham denied the rich man’s request and told him, “They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.” Luke 16:29

Now, at first glance this doesn’t make sense. Why would Abraham deny the rich man’s request. Surely if any of us saw a ghost from beyond the grave who had come back to warn us of the dangers of hell, we would certainly be convinced that God exists and we should submit to him. But what Jesus is saying in this parable is, it is not a matter of ‘knowing’ that God and hell exist – it is a matter of how you feel about God.

Let’s just say that there was visible proof of God. Let’s say he sat on his throne in a palace somewhere in the Middle East and you go and see he exists and worship him there. Every human would believe in and accept that he was God and no one will go to hell, right? Actually, I think the opposite would happen – everybody would go to hell.

Here’s the point: if God was a tangible being on the planet with all his power and glory, you would worship him and be obedient to his laws because you’d be afraid of him and be afraid of being sent to hell for being disobedient. You would only be good because you’d be afraid that God might punish you. Your entire motivation for being good would not because you love God or were thankful for what he did for you on the cross, you would be good because he would be worried about yourself. In other words, you wouldn’t be good for goodness’ sake or for God’s sake, you would be good for your own sake.

And that’s the problem, because that’s the mindset that sends people to hell. When you are only thinking of yourself and only worried about taking care of yourself, you become filled with self-absorption. Fear only makes you only think of yourself, and thinking of yourself is what sends you to hell. See, when Jesus came into this world, he taught that salvation meant the opposite, he taught that his salvation was only for people who didn’t put themselves first. In Matthew 10:39 he said said “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.”

Then, in Matthew 25, he gave the Parable of the Talents, which is a story of servants. Two go out and serve their king with the money king gives them, and the third becomes filled with fear and buries the money the king gives him because he is afraid of what the king might do to him. And because this servant is only thinking of himself, he hides the money for his own safety, thus the king disposes of him, because the servant was self-absorbed, maybe not in the usual way we think of self-absorption, but nonetheless he was still self-absorbed.
See, in the parable of the rich man in hell, what Abraham is saying back to the rich man is “Fear will never work.” Sending Lazarus back to warn his brothers of the dangers of hell will only create fear. Fear doesn’t get you to stop focusing on yourself, it only makes you think of yourself even more.

And if God was a visible being on the planet, you’d be utterly filled fear. You wouldn’t change from thinking of yourself to thinking of a relationship with God, or start loving God and loving your fellow man, you would only be thinking of yourself and how to avoid hell. So your actions would change, but your heart wouldn’t – you would still be self-absorbed, just a different way, but still self-absorbed.

What changes your heart is learning what God did for you on the cross, knowing the most radical act of love that ever happened, which is when God went willingly to the cross to take our place, even though he didn’t deserve it. And where you find that is in reading about Moses and the prophets. When you learn about that and accept it as true, then your heart begins to change. When you see that even though you deserve hell, God took it upon himself. When you know the love of God, that is when your heart begins to change.

Many people have a misconception about the path to heaven – they think it’s just living a good life and following all the rules. So if God was real, he should make his presence known so I’ll know that heaven and hell exist and I can follow all of God’s commandments. But when people do that, the heart doesn’t change – you’re still self- absorbed because your attitude becomes “I’m doing good, I’m working hard, so God has to bless me!” You’re only thinking of yourself – you’re using your moral deeds to force God to bless you.

The only way to change the heart is through a radical transformation of love. And we see that love when we read about Jesus in what he did on the cross. If God was a powerful king on the planet, you wouldn’t see the love he gave for you there – all you would see is this mighty king, and you would never know love he has for you and what he really wanted for you. You would just be filled with fear and self-absorption. Many people have the misconception that God kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden because he didn’t want to be with them anymore, which is not true – Jesus had Adam and Eve leave the garden because he saw they had become self-absorbed. They were only thinking of themselves, and in such a state, if they were to stay with God, they would only try to please and form a relationship with him to see what they can get out of it. Their entire attitude would be, “I want to please you God, not because I love you, but because I love myself and want to be blessed.”

Because of their new sinful attitude, God had no choice but to make them leave his presence, not because he didn’t want to be with him, but because he knew what the relationship would be with them, and he could not look upon such a relationship. Instead, we needed to see the action of how much he truly loved us before we could begin escape our self-absorption. Now, in the relationship we have with him, he gives us everything, and in return he asks to give him everything back, not because he is selfish because he was utterly selfless. He came to our world in weakness and willingly died for you, because he loves you more than you can imagine. He doesn’t want to be in a relationship where you fear him for your own life’s sake. He loves and he wants you to love him back. So knowing the true nature of your heart, and the mindset you would have if he was here visibly, he instead reveals himself in ways that won’t assure your damnation.

(www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBu_Jw61UZE, produced by Inspiring Philosophy | Creating Christian Apologetic Videos | Patreon)

[SpareHeadOne]

We are God, so yes God reveals Himself adequately.

[DaleCutler]

@dga471

…Christianity is full of self-importance.

I think the transcript I posted (Does God Adequately Avail Himself to Man? - #127 by DaleCutler) complements your post well, especially with regard to love, self-importance and being self-absorbed.

[DaleCutler]

@Timothy_Horton

Why shouldn’t the physical evidence be the final arbiter?

Because there is more to reality than the merely physical, and the merely physical cannot arbitrate the immaterial.

[DaleCutler]

@John_Dalton

The question is, why hasn’t God chosen to communicate with us in a way that would be totally comprehensible to us, instead of the notably problematic way in which he is said to have?

See post 127, Does God Adequately Avail Himself to Man? - #127 by DaleCutler

[Ashwin_s]

@John_Dalton

The question is, why hasn’t God chosen to communicate with us in a way that would be totally comprehensible to us, instead of the notably problematic way in which he is said to have?

Sometimes, the questions we ask are not the questions God is answering and Gods purposes are not the same as ours.
The ultimate purpose of the bible is to guide people on how to live Godly lives and is about having a “covenant” relationship with God.
The bible is an invitation to have a relationship with God and guide on how to grow in that relationship. Its purposes are “revelation” of God to a community of those who are in covenant with him.
A lot of “miscommunication” happens because of not understanding what the bible is about…
and some of the misunderstanding happens because we are fallible creatures prone to error.
I feel you are barking up the wrong tree.

[John_Dalton]

@DaleCutler

See post 127, Does God Adequately Avail Himself to Man?

I still feel unavailed to after reading that I’m not of a fan of the idea that you need to somehow ask for understanding or desire belief. We know the mind is open to suggestion and most of us have been primed for it. I was indoctrinated thoroughly as a child for example. If evidence is available for something, I hope to be open-minded enough to accept it, but I am highly suspicious of the idea of having to ask to believe in something. My mind doesn’t work that way. I would respond to straightforwardness, and don’t see any good reason why it wouldn’t be forthcoming, notwithstanding explanations like the one above. To me it sounds like a rationalization at best and an attempt to encourage my belief in an unsupported idea at worst. I don’t think I should have to go out of my way to believe something–that strikes me as a good way to start believing in something that’s false and little more. Why would God want me to disregard what to me are obvious warning signs? I don’t see how I can be faulted for not doing so, personally.

@Ashwin_s

Sometimes, the questions we ask are not the questions God is answering and Gods purposes are not the same as ours.
The ultimate purpose of the bible is to guide people on how to live Godly lives and is about having a “covenant” relationship with God.
The bible is an invitation to have a relationship with God and guide on how to grow in that relationship. Its purposes are “revelation” of God to a community of those who are in covenant with him.
A lot of “miscommunication” happens because of not understanding what the bible is about…
and some of the misunderstanding happens because we are fallible creatures prone to error.
I feel you are barking up the wrong tree.

All I can say is any guiding, invitation, or what it’s about are indeed not clear to me, and there are some obvious problems and red flags with the approach used. Hence my question.

Mostly, it strikes me as the kind of thing people would cook up. This is one way of stating the reason for my atheism. I’m not aware of anything in various religions that strikes me as being otherwise. Not to say all the ideas are bad.

[Ashwin_s]

@John_Dalton

Mostly, it strikes me as the kind of thing people would cook up. This is one way of stating the reason for my atheism. I’m not aware of anything in various religions that strikes me as being otherwise. Not to say all the ideas are bad.

What would something that is not cooked up look like to you? I would counter that any idea that makes sense to and is comprehensible by human beings could be considered a product of our imagination.
But then, all that leaves out is gibberish of some kind or the other.
Are you making the argument that if God exists, he would be utterly beyond our comprehension and hence any “true” description of God among human beings would be impossible?

[John_Dalton]

@Ashwin_s

What would something that is not cooked up look like to you?

I don’t know. What if we had a totally new form of communication appear, or radically new and useful information appearing suddenly.

I would counter that any idea that makes sense to and is comprehensible by human beings could be considered a product of our imagination. But then, all that leaves out is gibberish of some kind or the other.

I don’t think so, necessarily.

Are you making the argument that if God exists, he would be utterly beyond our comprehension and hence any “true” description of God among human beings would be impossible

No. I’m saying when I see things that look like they could be thought up by people, I figure the most likely scenario is that people thought them up.

[Ashwin_s]

@John_Dalton

I don’t know. What if we had a totally new form of communication appear, or radically new and useful information appearing suddenly.

Isn’t the incarnation just that?
God becoming a human being to perfectly communicate who he is in a way we can understand.

@John_Dalton

No. I’m saying when I see things that look like they could be thought up by people, I figure the most likely scenario is that people thought them up.

Accept that you have no idea what something that is not “thought up” would look like.
If you can understand something, why can’t somebody have though it up? So the bottom line seems to be that, if something is comprehensible to human beings, it is possible for somebody to have thought it up.
You are essentially arguing that God is incomprehensible to human beings.

[John_Dalton]

@Ashwin_s

Isn’t the incarnation just that?
God becoming a human being to perfectly communicate who he is in a way we can understand.

No. That’s a perfect example really. If it’s intended to be a form of communication, it tells us nothing with any clarity. This is the kind of thing people think up, not a way that an infinitely superior being would interact with us. That’s how it looks to me anyway

@Ashwin_s

Accept that you have no idea what something that is not “thought up” would look like.

What? I just gave you a couple of examples.

@Ashwin_s

If you can understand something, why can’t somebody have though it up?

It’s not a question of it being understandable. It’s a question of it having some quality which would set it apart from ordinary human thought processes of any particular time.

So the bottom line seems to be that, if something is comprehensible to human beings, it is possible for somebody to have thought it up.
You are essentially arguing that God is incomprehensible to human beings.

No I’m not, as I’ve already said. It’s my turn to say you’re barking up the wrong tree, at least with regards to what I myself am arguing, which doesn’t seem like too much of a leap honestly.

[Ashwin_s]

@John_Dalton

It’s not a question of it being understandable. It’s a question of it having some quality which would set it apart from ordinary human thought processes of any particular time.

How do you evaluate something like this? Isn’t the whole point of good communication to find common ground?
On one hand, you are accusing God of communicating something which everyone does not understand the same way.
On the other hand, you are looking for something alien to regular human thought processes. I feel this is contradictory.
I see a lot in the bible that is very different from ordinary human thought processes. Jesus himself is a good example IMO.

@John_Dalton

What? I just gave you a couple of examples.

I feel the examples are too vague.
Though prophecy in the OT are a good example of something extraordinary.

@John_Dalton

No I’m not, as I’ve already said. It’s my turn to say you’re barking up the wrong tree, at least with regards to what I myself am arguing, which doesn’t seem like too much of a leap honestly.

Perhaps…
However, it seems to me that pretty much anything can be classified as thought up by human beings.

[John_Dalton]

@Ashwin_s

Though prophecy in the OT are a good example of something extraordinary.

I’m not aware of any compelling examples, though I know of some that some people find compelling.

@Ashwin_s

Perhaps…
However, it seems to me that pretty much anything can be classified as thought up by human beings.

Maybe. It could be that I’m just a cynic by nature. Or it could be that all of our religious knowledge was thought up by human beings I’m just telling you how it seems to me. I get that a lot of other people find various things to be more meaningful.

[John_Harshman]

@dga471

Based on what the Bible reveals to us, God’s creatures have free will to reject God. Even his angels, who could see God directly in all of his glory, were not all faithful. Some of them still chose to rebel.

I think you’re equivocating on the meaning of “reject”. The angels know God exists but choose not to obey him. I, on the other hand, don’t think he exists. Completely different things. I don’t see providing evidence as a violation of my free will, even assuming that there is such a thing as free will. And your point about angels in fact shows that; they know God but their free will is not violated. I see this as just an excuse to explain why God hides.

@dga471

You’re basically saying that Christianity is full of self-importance.

No, I’m saying that particular incident is. If God loved all of us, he’d provide porta-potties at need for all of us rather than just Michael. I will have to say also that either I don’t understand the concepts of dying for our sins and being entitled to worship, or those concepts don’t make sense.

@dga471

Assuming God exists, why do you suppose that human rationality should be the highest good?

Assuming. And who said anything about “highest good”? It’s just all we have available in trying determine truth. I presume it’s what you use when you do physics. I have never found “‘Shut up’, he explained” to be a powerful argument.

@dga471

Certainly our rationality is affected too.

Then you can’t trust that your belief in God is true either, right? Nor can you do physics. You’re pretty much out of luck and should abandon rationality altogether. So why are you still there?

[John_Harshman]

@DaleCutler

Now, at first glance this doesn’t make sense.

Exactly. At second glance too. Note that God’s love expresses itself in exactly the way it would if God didn’t exist.

@DaleCutler

Actually, I think the opposite would happen – everybody would go to hell.

God so loved the world that he set up a system in which large numbers of people are tortured for eternity, just not everyone?

@DaleCutler

you wouldn’t be good for goodness’ sake or for God’s sake, you would be good for your own sake

Plenty of Christians have told me that’s why they’re good. In fact I’ve been told that if not for their belief, they would be committing crimes all over. That’s even what Pascal’s wager is all about. Apparently they’re all going to hell.

@DaleCutler

you deserve hell

Why do I deserve hell? Why does anyone? It seems infinite punishment for at most finite sin. Do even the worst people deserve that? God, if he existed, would seem to be arbitrarily cruel. Further, your claim that only faith in Jesus can make you care about other people is falsified by observation of the world, and it’s also an insult to all non-Christians.

@DaleCutler

Many people have the misconception that God kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden because he didn’t want to be with them anymore, which is not true

And yet this is exactly what Genesis says. No wonder people have that misconception. Notice, by the way, that once upon a time God directly revealed himself. He only seems to have stopped that practice fairly recently.

Sorry, but that was another argument that makes no sense unless you really, really want to believe it.

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@dga471

Of course, God could do this. But then he would be sacrificing our free will. We would essentially be compelled to believe in him. Based on what the Bible reveals to us, God’s creatures have free will to reject God. Even his angels, who could see God directly in all of his glory, were not all faithful. Some of them still chose to rebel.

If we were compelled to believe in him, we would still have the free will to reject him, just as some angels did, right? The angels certainly believed in God, and were still free to reject him. Why couldn’t we be the same? I don’t think it would be a violation of free will to “force” us to believe in him, in the same way that I don’t consider it a violation of free will that I’m “forced” to believe that the sky is blue and that grass is green.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

If nothing else, if God is real, this does to tell us something about his character. If He is real, He probably isn’t as pushy as he is made out to be, and I suppose that is a good thing.

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@dga471

If you read the gospels closely, it gives you a far different story.

What I had in mind was John 20:24-29, where Thomas doubts Jesus’ resurrection, and then Jesus gives him physical proof in order to get him to believe. It even ends with Jesus basically saying “I’ve given you proof to believe, but other people won’t have proof, so will have to believe on faith, and that’s better (somehow)”. Some people get proof, others are expected to believe on faith, that was my point. The same goes for examples like healing people - why single out a couple of people to heal (and simultaneously convince)?

On the free will point again: it is a violation of free will to give that kind of proof to someone by healing them miraculously, such that they basically have no choice but to believe you’re a deity?