Bom jeito de fundamentar a sua cosmovisão dogmática. Porém, receio que qualquer coisa pode ser "refutada" através desse argumento estarrecedor. Eu poderia dizer literalmente a mesma coisa para os argumentos ateístas, "É um exercício fútil criar desculpas complicadas para a não existência de Deus".
I think this is a very valid argument. I myself fall into the category of a former Born-Again Christian (Bible, seminary college professor, senior pastor, and missionary) that seeks desperately to believe again. However, it is because of the Problem of Evil and the Problem of Divine Hiddenness that I no longer can.
“If we submit everything to reason our religion will be left with nothing mysterious or supernatural. If we offend the principles of reason our religion will be absurd and ridiculous . . . There are two equally dangerous extremes: to exclude reason, to admit nothing but reason.”― Blaise Pascal, Pensées
Evil exists because Adam sinned and corrupted God's creation. Jesus had to die to allow us to be born again to have the original nature of God once again. Evil also exists because God cannot take dominion away from humans. He gave control of this world to Adam originally. He can't go back on his word.
So you've laid out the Divine Hiddenness Argument fairly well and in my opinion gave much more compelling background as to why it is the case that the purported god (for me, Yahweh) does not appear to exist. Your defense seems to be, think about it for yourself and you might or might not figure it (God) out. Basically I judge all you've stated is that you have some implied esoteric view on what existence means and what love means. In the case of the mom not coming back to the kid, she has a mountain of explaining to do as to why she abandoned her kid. And in these types of thought experiments that you are calling us to do, we are the voice of the one explaining why. In the case of God, one is always left to conjecture the why, there isn't a way to confirm the why, only wait till heaven for a possible explanation, if this character would even humble himself to offer one.
They weren't trying to defeat the argument. All they were trying to do is to explain the argument and then show some ways in which one could begin thinking of responses. Faulting them for not offering any direct objections isn't fair since that was never their intent.
Not so persuasive, the entire argument was weak. It could be refuted by simply reading the Bible with an open mind. Light and truth will be revealed. That's what I did.
I am trying to find in which source of Schellenberg does he give the analogy of the mother and child playing hide and seek. Is anyone able to help with this?
I cannot find the following video you mentioned, about the responses that have been given to this argument. I have heard only about Kirkegaard's response, which is not really convincing, actually, can you give some examples of other responses?
If God exists, best not to worship him because you might be worshipping the WRONG GOD! Atheists have the advantage here because if a God exists, nothing would piss him off more than worshipping another God.
Hmm would have been better if you DID discuss at least some of the responses to the problem. Because responses to counter arguments to your argument are well... part of the argument! The argument doesn't succeed if the premises are not plausible.
This is a great summary of the argument, you do a great job capturing Schellenberg's main argument while hinting at some possible responses. I'd be curious to see what you make of Maitzen's demographics distribution problem (doi:10.1017/S0034412506008274)
Who's to say that a perfectly loving God would desire to let humans know that such God exists? Unless of course everyone is perfectly loving and fully deserves to know.
Couple issues, perfect is a qualitative term often inappropriately applied to God. A better way to put it so it has a semblance of philosophical integrity is to say the following: God is Supremely loving, or Most loving. Perfect is a subjective term that can't actually apply to an objective object and isn't even the claim of any biblical verse, unless you can think of one? Also, you make a large personal philosophical error. By taking a stance to judge objective love you are claiming to objectively know what objective love is, and what God displays doesn't fit to your subjective perspective of what defines objective love, so unfortunately, you defeated yourself before you even finished your sentence. I'm just the flashlight. Oh, and I think you missed the whole argument this video was addressing. A loving God by simple definition of him being loving WOULD want to let us know He is here and a moral God wouldn't cut off our choices before we made them, he would allow choice and judge justly. The God you apply to Christianity, sadly, is one constructed of pure ignorance, and inconsistent logic. Please reconsider you aren't throwing your soul away because one side was just "convincing." Think for yourself. We all stand before Christ for judgement as individuals and all those atheists that gave you all these terrible and philosophically deceitful arguments won't stand with you. You will answer alone for what you believed, and how important it was to actually seek out truth. If you can't overcome this world, you don't belong with those that did. Regards.
That would be within the infinite multiplicity of choices you would have. Of playing that you weren't God, because the whole nature of the godhead, according to this idea, is to play that he is not. So in this idea then, everybody is fundamentally the ultimate reality, not God in a politically kingly sense, but god in the sense of being the self, the deep-down basic whatever there is. And you are all that, only you are pretending you are not. - Alan Watts
The premise that there are nonresistant nonbelievers is dubious and requires a leap of assumptions and presuppositions that really undermine this argument completely. You can't prove that someone is nonresistant simply because they say so. Secondly, by the sheer fact that they argue against God on the basis of their nonresistance actually is a self-defeating claim. You can't resist God by using the argument that you are not resistant to him. That's a logical fallacy. Thirdly, what possible proof does the unbeliever have against the fact that it may be a lack of willingness or pursuit on his/her part of God that is the problem and not the hiddenness of God? Lot's to think about. This argument certainly is thought-provoking but in an ironically affirming way towards theism.
@@unturbe Wait a second. I need more information from you. How did you become an atheist? Was it the accumulation of supposed evidence against Christianity. If you always identified as an atheist, what accumulation of evidence are you looking for that would prove Christianity to you? or you don't know the answer for either.
If you showed christianity to be true i would believe it. But why should i become a christian then? If it were true this kind of god wouldn't deserve worship.
@@meerkatsk5170 *" ..become an atheist..."* You don't, you're born an atheist and chose not to be an atheist. Your chosen God is often determined by a certain set of circumstances EG where you were born, the beliefs of your social circles and indoctrination from exposure to religious texts and preachings. Funny thing being, many religious apologists claim a personal relationship with God but the minute they claim God is talking directly to them they find themselves sectioned under the mental health act. 😄
Kingsman Bro you just shot yourself in the foot real bad. You just said that you’re born an atheist and at the same time, beliefs are determined by where you’re born. If all beliefs are sociologically conditioned, then so is yours and thereby self-negating. If my parents are atheists, and my beliefs are determined by where I’m born, then how can I possibly justify my beliefs? According to you, I can’t. If you’re determined to be born an atheist then how on earth can that be an intellectual decision? By your definition, a cat is an atheist, a dog is an atheist, and even a rock is an atheist because none of them believe in God. In other words, I can be as dumb as a rock and still be an atheist.
If God would make himself known to everybody, Then everybody would know that The existence of an allmighty being of creation is a fact. This fact would infer that you should worship that being, and it would be something along The lines of forced love (not actual love). Thats my take anyways.
@@Iamwrongbut Is not the story of Lucifers fall an answer to that? According to the story he (and others) chose to rebel. I imagine they too have free will.
I actually think this as well in some way. So I think God does leave signs and we humans need to be curious to look and he will show himself after you are looking
@@Iamwrongbut you make a valid point, and I dont have a good answer for you. My first thought is that Angels were created in God’s realm for a specific purpose. Man was created in a separate realm for another purpose. But Man was made in the image of God, and Lucifer was jealous, as that was something that *he* could *never* be. So he rebelled.
one best example is Big Brother (by Endemol productions) they could hear the voice of Big Brother, yet they could never ever see him the same is true with UA-cam you know that you have subscribers, but you do not know who among them is watching your creative content it's in the same vein with TV shows, films, movies, news, etc. nobody knows who's watching what nobody has seen a space satellite floating up in the sky, yet this space satellite is capturing photos & videos about the going-ons of the earth every single day
Besides. Between the historical Jesus, The cosmological constants, The conundrum of consciousness, The improbability of anything existing at all, as well The kalam cosmological argument, I’d say God leaves ALOT of clues as to his existance. I think alot of this «carefully weighing The evidence and end up not believing» is actually more akin to stubbornness, pride and a lack of willingness to let go of atheistic convictions. Ex-atheist here
You are the arrogant one, to believe that you are created in his image and given dominion over the Earth. And God did not hide himself in the Old or New Testament, did he now? Apparently back then it was not obvious that He existed. The non changing God changed his mind (yet again) Sorry, it’s all just hearsay and jumping to conclusions here, using logical fallacies left and right. Pathetic , actually.
Josh Herbel Atheists only want good and logical reasons to believe. NO ARROGANCE INVOLVED. The arrogant ones are those who think they know so much about the universe that they have come to the conclusion that a God must exist to explain it. That, my friend, is arrogance.
Ah yes! So he's saying god hid himself so I would love my biological parents more than him. Then jesus comes along and tells us to shun our families and follow him. Yeah makes sense.
P1 eg. at 3:22 is not reasonable in my opinion. Why should love be perfect only under condition it enables relationship "at all times". Is my love for my wife any wronger for the fact I have not known her for half of my life and thus was not in any at all relationship with her? Or for my children? They did not know me for months they were already in existence in their mother's womb, such is the nature of nature.
When video says "at all times", it doesn't or shouldn't mean every second, it just means that God should provide everyone an opportunity to be certain God exists, so that we could decide then do we want a relationship with him.
@@colinross5074 @Colin Ross Wait a second. I need more information from you. How did you become an atheist? Was it the accumulation of supposed evidence against Christianity. If you always identified as an atheist, what accumulation of evidence are you looking for that would prove Christianity to you? or you don't know the answer for either.
@@meerkatsk5170 i was a bible believing christian for the first 25 years of my life. Literally any evidence would do, but there's none...which is why they call it faith
@@colinross5074 "i was a bible believing christian for the first 25 years of my life." Ok, I need you to tell me How you became an atheist then. Was it the accumulation of supposed evidence or objections against Christianity. If so, like what?
all knowledge about God is wrong because God is beyond the boundaries of knowledge. thats why this type of logic is meaningless. thats why the old time mystics like psuedo-dionysius employed negative theology to come to the end of their own knowledge to find God, who can only reveal Himself. and He does through Jesus Christ alone because Only God can be the way to Himself.
Both P1 and P2 are true, however, the first conclusion is in error. C1 Doesn't follow from P1 and P2 - a nonsequitur. If God constantly did small minor things or altered our mind in such a way so we feel His love at all times - so that we'd know that He exists would all but take away our ability to freely choose to love and be with God. The choice to deny that God exists, or at least to not follow Him would be null because Gods continuous love or whatever minor actions He performs to make Himself known would prevent us from doing so. On another note, this version of the argument assumes that God hasn't attempted multiple times to make Himself known in subtle yet very real ways in the world and in human history. Such as the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ as well as the Gospels that detail His ministry and related events for one example.
According to the Bible, there were people who SAW Jesus performing miracles and willingly rejected him. There's nothing about God making himself known that would affect free will.
Good work. Keep going! Apologetics on YT seems to be booming atm. The more calm and rational voices the better. What is interesting is that from God's perspective he is obvious from his creation that everyone experiences. Atheists can repeat the mantra "there's no evidence for God" all they like, but all God will say to them is "Really!?".
Nothing obvious, just logical fallacies and jumping to conclusions. Oh, what a beautiful sunset! That is proof of God! Give me a F...g break! Learn to think.
Ok, lets just get this one thing out of the way once and for all: ANY conversation, presentation, publication, statement etc., that speaks of "God" with a capital G and without a pronoun as if there was (only) one, just shows how prejudiced the author allready is possibly without even realising it. Such a person is allready in his mind dodging the question, of what he is really talking about. In fact, there is nothing else as personal as the idea someone can have of his very own god. The formulation "There are people, who dont believe in God, but it isnt their fault" also shows the prejudice the author is cought in. What fault may I ask?! Getting to Schellenbergs argument: Premise 1: "A perfectly loving God..." Why is the existence of Schellenbergs god mixed with his tendency to love? Isnt the question of the existence of any god relevant enough? Pascal made the same error when formulating his wager. Why should a god even feel love at all? After all, an (allmost) all powerfull beeing (thats the only common part in the definition of gods) can undo anything it may consider worth to be corrected, so why even care for anything emotionally? Premise 2: First it is formulated: "...only, if one believes, that god exists.", then it becomes: "...one needs to know, that he exists." The difference between knowing and believing, well, is exactly what this whole thought experiment is all about, isnt it? Especially how the verb believing is defined and used by religious groups and churches in particular is too much to draw any further conclusions. I can only sum up so much here - Schellenberg is putting in efford to prove that a particular god doesnt exist and thereby creates an unnecessarily complicated sub-case leaving open ends just as many religious have befor him trying to prove the opposite. All these effords are in vain when one looks at it with quite simple logic: - The existence of anything (including any god), that doesnt interfere with reality is indistinguishable from its non-existence.
"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."(Romans:19-20) Everyone was born with enough intelligence to know there is a Supreme Being (John 1:4,9) ; but many have been "educated" out of all the common sense they were born with. So if you don't know there is a Great God, you didn't get that stupid on your own: you had to have had help (Rev.12:9). And by the way, "Everyone who seeks, finds"(Mat.7:8). We were created to seek our Maker (Acts 17:26-28). "Draw near to Yahweh, and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded!"(James 4:8) “I love those who love Me; And those who diligently seek me will find me." (Proverbs 8:17) I hope this was helpful to some.
@Excuse me, but Well then, how do you reconcile me not being convinced that your not convinced while I'm also not convinced of you not being convinced that I'm not convinced that he's not convinced??
God isn’t playing hide and seek. God is everywhere but because of our sins we are blind. In our age god has given us the Holy Ghost. We have the Holy Ghost when we are living according to Gods will. When we sin we move ourselves away from the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is always there with his hand out. When we live darkness we can’t see, when we live in light we can see God. Just as in the Old Testament the priest had to be clean before entering the tabernacle. We ourselves need to be cleansed of our sins. God is all holy and righteous, it takes a state of Grace to identify God.
![respecting beliefs | why we should do no such thing [cc]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r_5yUXjXizQ/mqdefault.jpg)
"Coming up with convoluted excuses for God's bizarre behaviour is left as an exercise for the reader"
Bom jeito de fundamentar a sua cosmovisão dogmática. Porém, receio que qualquer coisa pode ser "refutada" através desse argumento estarrecedor. Eu poderia dizer literalmente a mesma coisa para os argumentos ateístas, "É um exercício fútil criar desculpas complicadas para a não existência de Deus".
My point is why should I care about a god that is hidden and does absolutely nothing for me?
Oh he definitely provides for you maybe you have been so un-mindful of blessings.
@@omaribnalahmed5967 and the starving children in Africa? Don't be such an idiot.
I think this is a very valid argument. I myself fall into the category of a former Born-Again Christian (Bible, seminary college professor, senior pastor, and missionary) that seeks desperately to believe again. However, it is because of the Problem of Evil and the Problem of Divine Hiddenness that I no longer can.
Don't believe know you are DIVINE.
@@SovereignSoulTV I know I DON'T believe that. My wife is a New Ager and she believes it.
“If we submit everything to reason our religion will be left with nothing mysterious or supernatural. If we offend the principles of reason our religion will be absurd and ridiculous . . . There are two equally dangerous extremes: to exclude reason, to admit nothing but reason.”― Blaise Pascal, Pensées
Evil exists because Adam sinned and corrupted God's creation. Jesus had to die to allow us to be born again to have the original nature of God once again. Evil also exists because God cannot take dominion away from humans. He gave control of this world to Adam originally. He can't go back on his word.
So you've laid out the Divine Hiddenness Argument fairly well and in my opinion gave much more compelling background as to why it is the case that the purported god (for me, Yahweh) does not appear to exist. Your defense seems to be, think about it for yourself and you might or might not figure it (God) out. Basically I judge all you've stated is that you have some implied esoteric view on what existence means and what love means. In the case of the mom not coming back to the kid, she has a mountain of explaining to do as to why she abandoned her kid. And in these types of thought experiments that you are calling us to do, we are the voice of the one explaining why. In the case of God, one is always left to conjecture the why, there isn't a way to confirm the why, only wait till heaven for a possible explanation, if this character would even humble himself to offer one.
They weren't trying to defeat the argument. All they were trying to do is to explain the argument and then show some ways in which one could begin thinking of responses. Faulting them for not offering any direct objections isn't fair since that was never their intent.
@@alfred9916 fair enough. But my response was just how I see and experience divine hiddenness.
@James Henry Smith - haha. That’s funny. Good one.
@James Henry Smith - you’re just a bundle of fun conspiracies. How many beautiful virgins for the believers?
I just found your channel. You're deserving of way more subs man. Keep making content!
You mentioned that you made another video about the arguments against the Hiddenness position. Where can I find that?
This was pretty good! Thanks!
Not so persuasive, the entire argument was weak. It could be refuted by simply reading the Bible with an open mind. Light and truth will be revealed. That's what I did.
God is hidden because he wants us to believe in him for bad reasons. Either that or he does not exist. So which is more likely?
Well said!
I am trying to find in which source of Schellenberg does he give the analogy of the mother and child playing hide and seek. Is anyone able to help with this?
I cannot find the following video you mentioned, about the responses that have been given to this argument. I have heard only about Kirkegaard's response, which is not really convincing, actually, can you give some examples of other responses?
If God exists, best not to worship him because you might be worshipping the WRONG GOD! Atheists have the advantage here because if a God exists, nothing would piss him off more than worshipping another God.
Good overview of the argument from divine hiddenness. Completely fails to cast any reasonable doubt of it.
@James Henry Smith
Meanwhile, in the real world....
Hmm would have been better if you DID discuss at least some of the responses to the problem.
Because responses to counter arguments to your argument are well... part of the argument! The argument doesn't succeed if the premises are not plausible.
It is not hiddeness of deity. It is lackness of evidence.
This is a great summary of the argument, you do a great job capturing Schellenberg's main argument while hinting at some possible responses. I'd be curious to see what you make of Maitzen's demographics distribution problem (doi:10.1017/S0034412506008274)
Who's to say that a perfectly loving God would desire to let humans know that such God exists? Unless of course everyone is perfectly loving and fully deserves to know.
Couple issues, perfect is a qualitative term often inappropriately applied to God. A better way to put it so it has a semblance of philosophical integrity is to say the following: God is Supremely loving, or Most loving. Perfect is a subjective term that can't actually apply to an objective object and isn't even the claim of any biblical verse, unless you can think of one? Also, you make a large personal philosophical error. By taking a stance to judge objective love you are claiming to objectively know what objective love is, and what God displays doesn't fit to your subjective perspective of what defines objective love, so unfortunately, you defeated yourself before you even finished your sentence. I'm just the flashlight.
Oh, and I think you missed the whole argument this video was addressing. A loving God by simple definition of him being loving WOULD want to let us know He is here and a moral God wouldn't cut off our choices before we made them, he would allow choice and judge justly. The God you apply to Christianity, sadly, is one constructed of pure ignorance, and inconsistent logic. Please reconsider you aren't throwing your soul away because one side was just "convincing." Think for yourself. We all stand before Christ for judgement as individuals and all those atheists that gave you all these terrible and philosophically deceitful arguments won't stand with you. You will answer alone for what you believed, and how important it was to actually seek out truth. If you can't overcome this world, you don't belong with those that did. Regards.
God isn't hiden you just need a infered lense to see the unseen lite energy
That would be within the infinite multiplicity of choices you would have. Of playing that you weren't God, because the whole nature of the godhead, according to this idea, is to play that he is not. So in this idea then, everybody is fundamentally the ultimate reality, not God in a politically kingly sense, but god in the sense of being the self, the deep-down basic whatever there is. And you are all that, only you are pretending you are not.
- Alan Watts
The premise that there are nonresistant nonbelievers is dubious and requires a leap of assumptions and presuppositions that really undermine this argument completely. You can't prove that someone is nonresistant simply because they say so. Secondly, by the sheer fact that they argue against God on the basis of their nonresistance actually is a self-defeating claim. You can't resist God by using the argument that you are not resistant to him. That's a logical fallacy. Thirdly, what possible proof does the unbeliever have against the fact that it may be a lack of willingness or pursuit on his/her part of God that is the problem and not the hiddenness of God?
Lot's to think about. This argument certainly is thought-provoking but in an ironically affirming way towards theism.
I can't resist something that doesn't exist.
Lying about the contents of other people's minds is heinous.
In that case, If I showed Christianity to be true, would you become a Christian by repenting your sins to obtain salvation?
Meerkat SK5 Of course! But it can’t be done, as far as I know. Give it your best shot. I am confident it will fall short just by experience.
@@unturbe Wait a second. I need more information from you. How did you become an atheist? Was it the accumulation of supposed evidence against Christianity. If you always identified as an atheist, what accumulation of evidence are you looking for that would prove Christianity to you? or you don't know the answer for either.
If you showed christianity to be true i would believe it. But why should i become a christian then? If it were true this kind of god wouldn't deserve worship.
@@meerkatsk5170 *" ..become an atheist..."*
You don't, you're born an atheist and chose not to be an atheist. Your chosen God is often determined by a certain set of circumstances EG where you were born, the beliefs of your social circles and indoctrination from exposure to religious texts and preachings.
Funny thing being, many religious apologists claim a personal relationship with God but the minute they claim God is talking directly to them they find themselves sectioned under the mental health act. 😄
Kingsman Bro you just shot yourself in the foot real bad. You just said that you’re born an atheist and at the same time, beliefs are determined by where you’re born. If all beliefs are sociologically conditioned, then so is yours and thereby self-negating. If my parents are atheists, and my beliefs are determined by where I’m born, then how can I possibly justify my beliefs? According to you, I can’t. If you’re determined to be born an atheist then how on earth can that be an intellectual decision? By your definition, a cat is an atheist, a dog is an atheist, and even a rock is an atheist because none of them believe in God. In other words, I can be as dumb as a rock and still be an atheist.
If God would make himself known to everybody, Then everybody would know that The existence of an allmighty being of creation is a fact. This fact would infer that you should worship that being, and it would be something along The lines of forced love (not actual love). Thats my take anyways.
Are angels forced to love God?
@@Iamwrongbut Is not the story of Lucifers fall an answer to that? According to the story he (and others) chose to rebel. I imagine they too have free will.
worldwidehypocracy yes, but he fully knew God existed and still rebelled. So God making himself known does not take away free will.
I actually think this as well in some way. So I think God does leave signs and we humans need to be curious to look and he will show himself after you are looking
@@Iamwrongbut you make a valid point, and I dont have a good answer for you. My first thought is that Angels were created in God’s realm for a specific purpose. Man was created in a separate realm for another purpose. But Man was made in the image of God, and Lucifer was jealous, as that was something that *he* could *never* be. So he rebelled.
one best example is Big Brother (by Endemol productions)
they could hear the voice of Big Brother, yet they could never ever see him
the same is true with UA-cam
you know that you have subscribers, but you do not know who among them is watching your creative content
it's in the same vein with TV shows, films, movies, news, etc.
nobody knows who's watching what
nobody has seen a space satellite floating up in the sky, yet this space satellite is capturing photos & videos about the going-ons of the earth every single day
Besides. Between the historical Jesus, The cosmological constants, The conundrum of consciousness, The improbability of anything existing at all, as well The kalam cosmological argument, I’d say God leaves ALOT of clues as to his existance.
I think alot of this «carefully weighing The evidence and end up not believing» is actually more akin to stubbornness, pride and a lack of willingness to let go of atheistic convictions.
Ex-atheist here
Definitely a god exists, I am still trying to figure out which of the over 4000 gods it is.
I love this. Great exposition of the Atheist arrogance to demand God reveal himself only on their terms. Great video!
Said the *arrogant* Christian that expects us to believe the piffle conjured out of imagination.
@@kingsman428 you just proved Josh's point. Lol "Kingsman".
@@somesoccerguy4817 lol someone gets it
You are the arrogant one, to believe that you are created in his image and given dominion over the Earth. And God did not hide himself in the Old or New Testament, did he now? Apparently back then it was not obvious that He existed. The non changing God changed his mind (yet again) Sorry, it’s all just hearsay and jumping to conclusions here, using logical fallacies left and right. Pathetic , actually.
Josh Herbel Atheists only want good and logical reasons to believe. NO ARROGANCE INVOLVED. The arrogant ones are those who think they know so much about the universe that they have come to the conclusion that a God must exist to explain it. That, my friend, is arrogance.
Ah yes! So he's saying god hid himself so I would love my biological parents more than him. Then jesus comes along and tells us to shun our families and follow him. Yeah makes sense.
P1 eg. at 3:22 is not reasonable in my opinion. Why should love be perfect only under condition it enables relationship "at all times". Is my love for my wife any wronger for the fact I have not known her for half of my life and thus was not in any at all relationship with her? Or for my children? They did not know me for months they were already in existence in their mother's womb, such is the nature of nature.
When video says "at all times", it doesn't or shouldn't mean every second, it just means that God should provide everyone an opportunity to be certain God exists, so that we could decide then do we want a relationship with him.
Well it’s more than he’s hiding. It’s that you have zero evidence for the existence of the god of the Bible.
In that case, If I showed Christianity to be true, would you become a Christian by repenting your sins to obtain salvation?"
@@meerkatsk5170 sure
@@colinross5074 @Colin Ross
Wait a second. I need more information from you. How did you become an atheist? Was it the accumulation of supposed evidence against Christianity. If you always identified as an atheist, what accumulation of evidence are you looking for that would prove Christianity to you? or you don't know the answer for either.
@@meerkatsk5170 i was a bible believing christian for the first 25 years of my life. Literally any evidence would do, but there's none...which is why they call it faith
@@colinross5074
"i was a bible believing christian for the first 25 years of my life."
Ok, I need you to tell me How you became an atheist then. Was it the accumulation of supposed evidence or objections against Christianity. If so, like what?
5:20 in this example child atleast know the mom exist we dont even know that
all knowledge about God is wrong because God is beyond the boundaries of knowledge.
thats why this type of logic is meaningless.
thats why the old time mystics like psuedo-dionysius employed negative theology to come to the end of their own knowledge to find God, who can only reveal Himself.
and He does through Jesus Christ alone because Only God can be the way to Himself.
John 20:29
Jesus said unto him, “Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.”
@James Henry Smith yes it’s true. God has designed every second of our lives
Both P1 and P2 are true, however, the first conclusion is in error.
C1 Doesn't follow from P1 and P2 - a nonsequitur.
If God constantly did small minor things or altered our mind in such a way so we feel His love at all times - so that we'd know that He exists would all but take away our ability to freely choose to love and be with God.
The choice to deny that God exists, or at least to not follow Him would be null because Gods continuous love or whatever minor actions He performs to make Himself known would prevent us from doing so.
On another note, this version of the argument assumes that God hasn't attempted multiple times to make Himself known in subtle yet very real ways in the world and in human history.
Such as the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ as well as the Gospels that detail His ministry and related events for one example.
According to the Bible, there were people who SAW Jesus performing miracles and willingly rejected him. There's nothing about God making himself known that would affect free will.
Good work. Keep going! Apologetics on YT seems to be booming atm. The more calm and rational voices the better. What is interesting is that from God's perspective he is obvious from his creation that everyone experiences. Atheists can repeat the mantra "there's no evidence for God" all they like, but all God will say to them is "Really!?".
Nothing obvious, just logical fallacies and jumping to conclusions. Oh, what a beautiful sunset! That is proof of God! Give me a F...g break! Learn to think.
*"...all God will say is really..."*
Yeah, problem being, that even that little thing *never* happens.
Bro, you are hiding your answers, therefore 100% they do not exist lol
Edit: sarcasm against the supposed problem of hiddenness
Ok, lets just get this one thing out of the way once and for all: ANY conversation, presentation, publication, statement etc., that speaks of "God" with a capital G and without a pronoun as if there was (only) one, just shows how prejudiced the author allready is possibly without even realising it. Such a person is allready in his mind dodging the question, of what he is really talking about. In fact, there is nothing else as personal as the idea someone can have of his very own god.
The formulation "There are people, who dont believe in God, but it isnt their fault" also shows the prejudice the author is cought in. What fault may I ask?!
Getting to Schellenbergs argument:
Premise 1: "A perfectly loving God..." Why is the existence of Schellenbergs god mixed with his tendency to love? Isnt the question of the existence of any god relevant enough? Pascal made the same error when formulating his wager. Why should a god even feel love at all? After all, an (allmost) all powerfull beeing (thats the only common part in the definition of gods) can undo anything it may consider worth to be corrected, so why even care for anything emotionally?
Premise 2: First it is formulated: "...only, if one believes, that god exists.", then it becomes: "...one needs to know, that he exists." The difference between knowing and believing, well, is exactly what this whole thought experiment is all about, isnt it?
Especially how the verb believing is defined and used by religious groups and churches in particular is too much to draw any further conclusions.
I can only sum up so much here - Schellenberg is putting in efford to prove that a particular god doesnt exist and thereby creates an unnecessarily complicated sub-case leaving open ends just as many religious have befor him trying to prove the opposite. All these effords are in vain when one looks at it with quite simple logic:
- The existence of anything (including any god), that doesnt interfere with reality is indistinguishable from its non-existence.
"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."(Romans:19-20) Everyone was born with enough intelligence to know there is a Supreme Being (John 1:4,9) ; but many have been "educated" out of all the common sense they were born with. So if you don't know there is a Great God, you didn't get that stupid on your own: you had to have had help (Rev.12:9). And by the way, "Everyone who seeks, finds"(Mat.7:8). We were created to seek our Maker (Acts 17:26-28). "Draw near to Yahweh, and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded!"(James 4:8) “I love those who love Me; And those who diligently seek me will find me." (Proverbs 8:17) I hope this was helpful to some.
Not convinced at all
I'm not convinced that you are not convinced.
@Excuse me, but Well then, how do you reconcile me not being convinced that your not convinced while I'm also not convinced of you not being convinced that I'm not convinced that he's not convinced??
God isn’t playing hide and seek. God is everywhere but because of our sins we are blind.
In our age god has given us the Holy Ghost. We have the Holy Ghost when we are living according to Gods will. When we sin we move ourselves away from the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is always there with his hand out.
When we live darkness we can’t see, when we live in light we can see God.
Just as in the Old Testament the priest had to be clean before entering the tabernacle. We ourselves need to be cleansed of our sins. God is all holy and righteous, it takes a state of Grace to identify God.