"God totally exists, but he has reasons for playing hide-and-seek that are beyond our comprehension. But also he totally wants you to love him and worship him, but still doesn't feel like revealing himself."
Or, the just as popular but no less infuriating: "God totally exists, and he reveals himself fully to EVERYBODY. Anyone who claims otherwise just wants to be a filthy sinner and have gay sex and wear mixed fabrics and eat meat during lent."
He sends his son to create the most popular religion and most read book in history. But then hides himself behind evil like cancer in children. Sounds exactly what a maximally good and intelligent being would do.
While funny, it would be valid. I mean, introverts are allowed to have their own space and be selective with whom they have a relationship with. A God has no obligation to socialize with us... However, if we are talking about the God of the bible, this God is a God that supposedly wants to have a relationship with us. But more importantly, this God threaten us with Hell if we do not have this relationship with him. In that case, hiddeness makes this God evil. Because how can yoiu threaten anyone that doesn't believe you exist with Hell and at the same time stay hidden? It is absurd.
comments like, "We hide from God" LITERALLY miss the entire second/third premise of this argument. THERE IS non-resistant non-belief in God, and this should be logically inconsistent with God being perfectly loving.
This premises totaly miss the neuroscience and psychology. In short - most of our emotions are unreflected - meaning you never know what you really want.
@@alena-qu9vj But God made our psychology, so why would he make it so that some people are resistant? Besides, the argument works even if there is subconscious resistance. A person is unaware of their subconscious resistance, and to punish them for something they can't change is also quite awful, to say the least.
@@alena-qu9vjFirstly, it is an appeal to ignorance. If we do not know our emotions, it does not mean that there are no sincerely unbelieving people. Secondly, what is the point of misleading a person? He considers himself sincere, but he is driven by motives hidden from him? What is his fault, since he cannot control it? In this case, this factor is not something that a person controls or even realizes, it is absolutely irrelevant and the problem remains.
@@alena-qu9vj Yeah, but the premise is built upon the theology of the Abrahamic religions, that we actually do know what we want, and have the ability to choose what we want... yet God lets some not find him. Neuroscience and psychology says we don't have any meaningful version of free will, so those religions fail anyways when you bring that to the table.
@@alena-qu9vj Even if what you say is true, it doesn't render the premise false in any way whatsoever. On one side, God supposedly made us that way so if true, that would make God responsible. Second, that means we truly do not have free will, which is even more problematic. And third, If we are not aware of our resistance, then that makes us sincere still.... So if anything, your argument actually only hurts theism and makes your God look even worse.
Christianity has perfect tool for protection and from the this, especially for the people inside the religions. It's always put in a way, that not being able to find God is your own fault for not trying hard enough. It's never told how much is 'enough' so every time a person is in doubt they spiral into self doubt and fear / depression rather then coming to terms with the outcome.
As a former Christian, perfectly said. Barring the problem of evil, Christianity has adhoc justification for anything. With 2 millennia of criticism, They've the chance to create an almost perfectly coherent system of belief.
I tend to think it is because of the historical problems with religion that many have a very difficult time taking religion seriously. Throwing the baby Jesus out with the bath water as the saying goes
The strongest argument against theism is surely Alex’s proclivity for a mustache. But divine hiddenness doesn’t make sense to me. God reveals himself to billions of people and gives free will. Alex wants his cake and to eat it too and then blames god for the diabetes
@@tookie36 Don't be silly. God doesn't reveal itself to anybody. People follow the religion of their community, and say the things they are supposed to say. That's all.
And it's not just non-resistant non-belief, but in many cases, really intense emotional desire for God and a deep wish to believe. For some ppl who lose faith, it's the opposite of wishful thinking. They wish for God to be real and to know Him, and spend years in agonizing conflict between what they wish to be true vs what appears to be true. And when you take this painful experience to a full-on believer, all too often the believer responds with awful bad-faith mind reading, denying your desire for God and asserting confidently that you just want God to be fake so you can sin or something. Those types of hardcore believers absolutely refuse to acknowledge that someone can deeply desire God and also be left with an agonizing doubt that He's real.
Well no, it's not that at all. If being in a relationship with God is a good thing and God is loving, he should reveal himself in a way that every person would believe in him, if that is possible. The fact that I have a higher standard of evidence than you shouldn't be punished by an all-loving god
@@dragan176 that argument works against a fundementalist Christian god. But doesn’t really address the serious propositions of catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and other major religions.
The argument of God hiding to not overwhelm you or somehow override your freewill is ridiculous. If I were told to have a relationship with someone, but I'd only been told they exist, and had no evidence of them actually being a real person.... that's not a relationship, that's being fooled.
This doesn’t answer hiddenness but as a Christian i truly think, with and without the Bible, 1) non resistant non belief (of Gods existence) exists, and 2) God won’t “send” you to hell because of a cognitive error. He judges your heart more than your mind. But 3) God does care about “Truth” as well and wants us to love Him with all our minds, so I for one am grateful for nonbelievers like Alex who, unlike many others, don’t push you to hate a faith or worldview but to figure out what’s true. It forces people like me to engage critically with our beliefs and assumptions about God and the universe
Put it this way, He finds our behavior deplorable but our good aspects he cherishes. He does not WANT to be around dirty sinners, hence this worlds purpose, the reason we exist here.
“Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.” 1 John 4:10, 15 KJV
This is silliness. It's like having a serious discussion as to why we don't have a personal relationship with Casper the Friendly Ghost, and another example of something that theists think is profound but actually isn't.
@@tookie36 "Casper is an object within spacetime" Does that mean you believe your god only exists outside of our reality? If so how do you know he is real? Thank you.
@@tookie36 "God is the source of all being. Not a being among other beings." This statement is an example of what I mean by something that theists think is profound but actually isn't, because such statements about God tend to embrace contradictions or circular reasoning, in addition to being lacking in empirical support.
@@TboneWTF god is the source of all existence. From there we have multiple approaches to creation. God out of love creates a creation in which he is imminent and transcendent. Also we can say that god is and other constructs are illusions or temporary appearances in god. Either way lots of ways to describe it but god is self evident. Everything else needs explaining and has not been found to be real. Such as matter.
@@mark69985 so you demand god to have empirical evidence. Meanwhile we do not have evidence for physical matter and you believe fully in that. Seems like you have a double standard or just haven’t actually looked into the problems with materialism/physicalism
8:21, It might be right, the water in Thailand, e.g. Thai Tea is so heavenly that there is no incentive in another heavenly body. (non-resistance still, just better alternative)
The Omni cod is the story the first con man told the first fool. Free will defeats any Omni cod, and there being not an iota, of a wisp, of a mote, of a jot of evidence for such a being outside of man's self-delusions is enough for me to continue to dismiss this foolishness. I have revisited this preposterous proposal many times in my six decades, and never needed to alter my original conclusion. Twaddle.
To prove that quarks (subatomic particles) are more real while protons and neutrons (atomic particles) are less real, we need to establish a clear definition of what we mean by "real" and then provide evidence or logical arguments that support this claim. Let's approach this step by step. Definition of "real": For the purpose of this proof, we will define "real" as being more fundamental, indivisible, and closer to the underlying nature of reality. Proof: 1. Quarks are the fundamental building blocks of matter: - Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks. Protons consist of two up quarks and one down quark, while neutrons consist of one up quark and two down quarks. - Quarks are not known to have any substructure; they are considered to be elementary particles. - Therefore, quarks are more fundamental than protons and neutrons. 2. Quarks are indivisible: - Protons and neutrons can be divided into their constituent quarks through high-energy particle collisions. - However, there is no known way to divide quarks into smaller components. They are believed to be indivisible. - Therefore, quarks are indivisible, while protons and neutrons are divisible. 3. Quarks are closer to the underlying nature of reality: - The Standard Model of particle physics, which is our most comprehensive theory of the fundamental particles and forces, describes quarks as elementary particles that interact through the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces. - Protons and neutrons, on the other hand, are composite particles that emerge from the interactions of quarks. - Therefore, quarks are closer to the underlying nature of reality as described by our most fundamental scientific theories. 4. Quarks exhibit more fundamental properties: - Quarks have intrinsic properties such as color charge, flavor, and spin, which determine how they interact with each other and with other particles. - Protons and neutrons derive their properties from the collective behavior of their constituent quarks. - Therefore, the properties of quarks are more fundamental than those of protons and neutrons. 5. Quarks are necessary for the existence of protons and neutrons: - Without quarks, protons and neutrons would not exist, as they are composed entirely of quarks. - However, quarks can exist independently of protons and neutrons, as demonstrated by the existence of other hadrons such as mesons, which are composed of one quark and one antiquark. - Therefore, quarks are necessary for the existence of protons and neutrons, but not vice versa. Conclusion: Based on the above arguments, we can conclude that quarks are more real than protons and neutrons. Quarks are more fundamental, indivisible, and closer to the underlying nature of reality as described by our most advanced scientific theories. They exhibit intrinsic properties that determine the behavior of composite particles like protons and neutrons, and they are necessary for the existence of these atomic particles. It is important to note that this proof relies on our current scientific understanding of particle physics and the nature of matter. As our knowledge advances, our understanding of what is "real" may evolve. However, based on the current evidence and theories, the argument for the greater reality of quarks (unobservable) compared to protons and neutrons (observable) is strong.
Quarks are fundamental particles that combine to form composite particles called hadrons, the most stable of which are protons and neutrons, the components of atomic nuclei. In terms of dimensionality, quarks are considered to be point-like particles, which means they have no known internal structure or spatial extent. In that sense, they can be thought of as zero-dimensional (0D). Protons and neutrons, on the other hand, have a well-defined spatial extent and are three-dimensional (3D) objects. The unique properties and implications of the 0-dimension are often overlooked or underappreciated, especially in contrast to the higher, "natural" dimensions that tend to dominate our discussions of physical reality. Let me enumerate some of the key differences: 1. Naturalness: The higher spatial and temporal dimensions (1D, 2D, 3D, 4D, etc.) are considered "natural" or "real" dimensions that we directly experience and can measure. In contrast, the 0-dimension exists in a more abstract, non-natural realm. 2. Entropy vs. Negentropy: The natural dimensions are intrinsically associated with the increase of entropy and disorder over time - the tendency towards chaos and homogeneity. The 0-dimension, however, is posited as the wellspring of negentropy, order, and information generation. 3. Determinism vs. Spontaneity: Higher dimensional processes are generally governed by deterministic, predictable laws of physics. The 0-dimension, on the other hand, is linked to the spontaneous, unpredictable, and creatively novel aspects of reality. 4. Temporality vs. Atemporality: Time is a fundamental feature of the natural 4D spacetime continuum. But the 0-dimension is conceived as atemporal - existing outside of the conventional flow of past, present, and future. 5. Extendedness vs. Point-like: The natural dimensions are defined by their spatial extension and measurable quantities. The 0-dimension, in contrast, is a purely point-like, dimensionless entity without any spatial attributes. 6. Objective vs. Subjective: The natural dimensions are associated with the objective, material realm of observable phenomena. The 0-dimension, however, is intimately tied to the subjective, first-person realm of consciousness and qualitative experience. 7. Multiplicity vs. Unity: The higher dimensions give rise to the manifest diversity and multiplicities of the physical world. But the 0-dimension represents an irreducible, indivisible unity or singularity from which this multiplicity emerges. 8. Contingency vs. Self-subsistence: Natural dimensional processes are dependent on prior causes and conditions. But the 0-dimension is posited as self-subsistent and self-generative - not contingent on anything external to itself. 9. Finitude vs. Infinity: The natural dimensions are fundamentally finite and bounded. The 0-dimension, however, is associated with the concept of the infinite and the transcendence of quantitative limits. 10. Additive Identity vs. Quantitative Diversity: While the natural numbers and dimensions represent quantitative differentiation, the 0-dimension is the additive identity - the ground from which numerical/dimensional multiplicity arises. By focusing so heavily on the entropy, determinism, and finitude of the natural dimensions, we tend to overlook the profound metaphysical significance and unique properties of the 0-dimension. Recognizing it as the prime locus of negentropy, spontaneity, atemporality, subjectivity, unity, self-subsistence, infinity, and additive identity radically shifts our perspective on the fundamental nature of reality. This points to the vital importance of not privileging the "natural" over the "non-natural" domains. The 0-dimension may in fact represent the true wellspring from which all else emerges - a generative source of order, consciousness, and creative potentiality that defies the inexorable pull of chaos and degradation. Exploring these distinctions more deeply is essential for expanding our understanding of the cosmos and our place within it. Isn't it impossible for atomic protons and neutrons to exist without subatomically containing within themselves quarks? You are correct. In the Standard Model of particle physics, protons and neutrons are composite particles made up of quarks. Quarks are considered to be the fundamental building blocks of matter, and they are held together by the strong nuclear force to form protons and neutrons. Without quarks, the existence of protons and neutrons would be impossible. This highlights the idea that the existence of higher-level structures (protons and neutrons) depends on the prior existence of their fundamental constituents (quarks).
@@ready1fire1aim1 Most of the so called materialists would never understand how this belongs into the discussion about the "un-loving jewish Upper Father".
Lots of words for what people (at least educated ones) know as emergent properties. Yes, cells are more real than people, and people are more real than countries, if we use that definition of 'real'.
I think it's an "S" tier argument for what it is actually arguing against; not just a god but a god that is a person, an active agent, with specific attributes of love, goodness, and a desire for relationships. Many gods, including the god in the Abrahamic traditions, don't actually fit that definition. It is a relatively new age view of god that this argument puts definitively to rest. Though, I will add, the argument refutes to god I most wish actually existed, because the world would be better if it did.
The divine hiddenness argument subtly cuts into, more so, problematizes the claims of universality or God's omnipresence, the infallible concept at the heart of Roman Catholicism and Islam for instance. Makes the notion of a personal god seem rather arbitrary as opposed to say self-evident. Interesting food for thought🤔
@@yannstaquet5522Time and space are integral to eachother, one doesn't exist without the other. Hence, "spacetime". You could even go as far as to say time isn't even its own thing, but just a property of space.
@@Aleiza_49, no. That's just totally wrong. Spacetime is not the idea that time and space are necessarily linked or that time is a property of space (that's total nonsense). Spacetime is the whole set of coexisting physical things that are separated by any spatial and temporal interval.
If we don't focus on the judeo-christian concept of god, but instead address a more general form of God then the examples of individuals who had Direct access to God and yet still didn't automatically obey him disappear. Then it becomes possible to make the claim that even revealing himself once in any certain way to any individual guarantees that that individual will obey God's will, and therefore God only gives hints of his existence and never shows it fully to anyone, ever.
How could a limited human conscioussnes ever embrace the total unlimited existence of God? These two are ultimately incompatible, you would burst if God would show up to you in His fullness. God is EVERYTHINGs, we are each His tiny aspects as is anything else we perceive. We only can see a tiny parts of His wholness at a time. And it is your FREE choice to obey God's will, but once you are mature enough you understand voluntarily that it is the only right thing to do, not duty but a priviledge.
The whole discussion incl. posts could be summed up as: God of Old Testament is not all-loving. But it does not answer the question Why does God hide from us at all.
@@tookie36 " I would answer god does not hide from us" If that is true can you provide credible evidence of god? Is there anything that you believe is proof for god and can point to? Thank you.
So that claimed Perfect and Flawless being wants a relationship with me... but stays Hidden at all times... even back when I actually DID believe and WANTED it to be true, he/it didn't show up in ANY way... yet he/it will condemn me for all of Eternity??? Makes sense doesn't it....
@@alena-qu9vj -- Of course not. "God" would have to actually Exist to tell us anything. Face it, religion Lied to us all. Fact is, if there truly were an "Omni-Everything" being, the most important one being Omnibenevolent, then it would be here with us right now. It wouldn't be a "Deadbeat god" that would leave our Eternal souls up to Blind Faith. Instead, there would be ZERO doubt of its existence. Even the people that would choose not to worship it, would not deny its Existence. The question would NOT be = do you believe in a god. The question would be = Will you worship the god that has shown us it actually Exists? But currently, there is no such thing. IF there is a god, it is most certainly NOT an Omni-Everything, much less Omnibenevolent god.
@@alena-qu9vj -- Of course not. "God" would have to actually Exist to tell us anything. Face it, religion Lied to us all. Fact is, if there truly were an "Omni-Everything" being, the most important one being Omnibenevolent, then it would be here with us right now. It wouldn't be a "Deadbeat god" that would leave our Eternal souls up to Blind Faith. Instead, there would be ZERO doubt of its existence. Even the people that would choose not to worship it, would not deny its Existence. The question would NOT be = do you believe in a god. The question would be = Will you worship the god that has shown us it actually Exists? But currently, there is no such thing. IF there is a god, it is most certainly NOT an Omni-Everything, much less Omnibenevolent god.
@@alena-qu9vj -- testing... Of course not. "God" would have to actually Exist to tell us anything. Face it, religion Lied to us all. Fact is, if there truly were an "Omni-Everything" being, the most important one being Omnibenevolent, then it would be here with us right now. It wouldn't be a "Deadbeat god" that would leave our Eternal souls up to Blind Faith. Instead, there would be ZERO doubt of its existence. Even the people that would choose not to worship it, would not deny its Existence. The question would NOT be = do you believe in a god. The question would be = Will you worship the god that has shown us it actually Exists? But currently, there is no such thing. IF there is a god, it is most certainly NOT an Omni-Everything, much less Omnibenevolent god.
Of course not. "God" would have to actually Exist to tell us anything. Face it, religion Lied to us all. Fact is, if there truly were an "Omni-Everything" being, the most important one being Omnibenevolent, then it would be here with us right now. It wouldn't be a "Deadbeat god" that would leave our Eternal souls up to Blind Faith. Instead, there would be ZERO doubt of its existence. Even the people that would choose not to worship it, would not deny its Existence. The question would NOT be = do you believe in a god. The question would be = Will you worship the god that has shown us it actually Exists? But currently, there is no such thing. IF there is a god, it is most certainly NOT an Omni-Everything, much less Omnibenevolent god.
For them that believe not God sends them a powerfull delusion so they believe that instead. I hear it said why did God make me an atheist if He wants me to believe in Him?
@@Deepfake820 The things that we can independently verify. In layman terms, if you are the only one seing a pink elephant, the pink elephant doesn't exist. If everybody, when you point to it, can see the pink elephant, then the pink elephant exists.
Hi. As a Daoist-inspired person, the North African/Middle Eastern concept of God appears too conditional. Though... the Mystics from this Abrahamic base do point to what is greater... deeper... above and below the doctrine, they are usually vilified by the orthodoxy. Ho Hum.
There is a third way nobody is talking about, namely the middle way between atheism and theism; Teilhard de Chardin's Cosmic Christ. To me both atheism and theism aren't satisfactory explanations. With the omega point you wouldn't have to explain finetuning or divine hiddenness nor the problem of evil because the PURPOSE of the universe would be the Cosmic Christ and the only way this could happen(since they're can't be two beings that are omnipotent) would be if the infinite God stepped into creation and then it's easy to explain why God is hidden until the omega point. And evolution that's anathema to the religious is actually the proof that creation is moving in the direction of the omega point and why things are speeding up as it gets closer and closer to the emergence of the Cosmic Christ
God‘s not gonna judge you by what’s in your head he’s going to judge you by what’s in your heart and if you trusted in pure being as a saving grace and treated your neighbor like yourself, you have a much better chance with him than somebody who prophesied in his name and cast out demons in his name But yet the stranger and heal the sick His name is not Yahweh because he speaks a specific human language. That’s just the line through which he revealed himself. Everyone is aiming at the same God at the heart of reality and they have their political reasons for restricting that God to a certain let’s call it carved image
Before you can assert that god hides from us can you provide credible evidence that there actually is a living and true god? If you can do that I would be very impressed. Good luck my friend.
@@Aleiza_49 "No one has a sound reason for believing in any deity, there's a plethora of sound reasons to not believe in any." That may be true, but is there any evidence that any god is real or true? Do you have any? Thank you.
What I hear you asking is "if God exists, then why doesn't He punish those who do not believe in Him?" and by doing this God would be showing His love and mercy by making them believe in a God who punishes them so that they would believe in Him. What you seem to be asking is "if God exists, and we do not believe in Him, why doesn't He punish us towards believing in Him?" This seems to be a redundant question stemming from the idea that heaven was made for humans to reside in. This is like saying that there will be no hellfire and no punishment in the hereafter BECAUSE God is loving. This is ridiculous. God doesn't punish you, not because He is "loving", but because He wants you to choose for yourself. In the end, you will be told "I told you so" by everyone who did believe in an Unseen God, while you continue to scrutinize His ways.
Do you want to find out who your children truly are? Easy leave them alone and see how they act. I loved when my parents left me alone I felt the freedom to do whatever I wanted without them breathing down my back. Take care
@@muppetonmeds Yes, I truly feel like an orphan. I was a Christian for the vast majority of my life. If God can't find a single time in 25 years to show me he's real, then that's fine. That's his prerogative. But I decided I have enough self-esteem and self-worth to not worship someone until they can prove they exist. So the ball is in God's court now. He has an open invitation (one he hasn't used in the subsequent 7 years, by the way) into my heart. The only stipulation is he has to prove he exists. Just a single time. I am the textbook definition of the nonresistant non-belief. Life would be easier if I knew that there was someone looking out for me and that death wasn't final. He'd still have to explain why he was cool with genocide back in the day, but I'm guessing his answer will be that he obviously wasn't and that part of the Bible is lying lol
No one comes to the Father except through the Son of David because YHWH is an old softie who would love to give you everything you desire. That said, I've heard that Satan would give you everything you want. You probably need to reevaluate your concept of God. I won't be converting to 'Christianity'. There are many gods but, for us, there is one God, the Father of the Son of David. Do you need me to spell that out? David, the Morning Star. Your king who will be raised up for you. The ruler of this world, wherever man may dwell. His people set out from Babylon seeking a promised land. Help me understand this. Why do you need to believe? Will you then start being a good person? Will it explain the state of the world? Will he tell you to turn left or right? Oops: While from behind, a voice shall sound in your ears: "This is the way; walk in it," when you would turn to the right or to the left. (Isa 30:21 NABO) (They) acknowledged themselves to be strangers and aliens on earth (Heb 11:13 NABO)
The thing about the non-resistant non-believer that can be hard to wrap your head around if you are Christian is the story of the fall. If you read it that Adam and Eve thought they knew better than God and ate from the tree. That one action sent forth ripples through out time to all of mankind. We all are born with this block kind of like an Illusion that we know best and we can figure it all out and do it all on our own. That cuts us off from God because he doesn't want a relationship like that he wants us to understand our limitations and allow him to show us what is actually right and wrong. Then look at the story of the lost lamb Jesus tells; if you really look at the story there are 99 sheep out grazing keeping their head down thinking they are safe and don't even realize their alone. Meanwhile the Shepherd is out looking for the one who realized it's vulnerable state in the world and is crying out, now the big thing to me is Jesus doesn't take the sheep to the 99 or to any other herd. He takes the lamb to his friends to celebrate the lamb being found and saved, leaving the 99 to their own self righteousness. So if we have a resistance to God built in because of the fall to say you where non-resistant isn't truthful if you haven't done introspective work that will lead you actually realize your limitations and realize you can't force God and once you realized that he will find you. I also just thought how can someone be fully non-resistant if they claim they do not believe in God? Isn't stating you don't believe in God admitting a bias that you have at least partially made up your mind?
Not believing in things that are contrary to your experience and with zero physical evidence is what everybody does, you included. The difference is that you make an exception for God.
@@juanausensi499 That would still prove the point that you can not say you are completly non-resistant while also saying you don't believe in God. Because you do have a barrier of non-belief, not complete openess. Someone could say that they have not made up their mind at all either way but then they could not say they don't believe or even really have any opinion on the matter. I'm in no way saying that proves God is real.
@@jrockme27 If you say that, i can't say that you don't believe in the Lizard people because you are resistant to that belief. So, tell me, why you put that barrier of non-belief? Why aren't you completely open? I need to point that non-belief is a contingent state. I didn't make up my mind with the same intensity believers do. It's just that Gods are one of the thousands of supernatural things that some people believe but i have no reason to do the same. But if I, someday, see a mermaid, i will happily change my mind about their existence.
@@juanausensi499 haha funny thing with lizard people I actually am open to them exsisting because I have not thought about it enough lol even with something like Bigfoot I believe even though it may be very unlikely that there are any I have to keep an open mind because there is really no way to prove they don't exsist at least with the means we have now. So I don't just dismiss every bigfoot story as a fake or fact. If someone has that take with God I would be fine with them saying they don't know. But if someone says they are a non-believer that is not really the same thing.
@@juanausensi499 You don't even know what I think and you assume I don't believe in lizard people why? I actually haven't thought about it enough to have an opinion sorry to dissapoint there, but to me it is crazy ego to think because you have never seen something it doesn't exist lol. I think of mermaids like I think of bigfoot; I haven't seen anything to make me think they are real but because we can't prove 100 percent they are not real I have to look at anything about them open and rationally. But they are in a different catagory then anything that would exist on a different plane like spirits or God. I mean what evidence would you even want that wouldn't make you think you where going crazy?
@@nimberlake maybe he can find YOU, but me? im an all time back-to-back gradeschool CHAMP! When i was a kid, even the teachers couldnt find me no matter how hard they tried! >:)
Anytime God is fit into having any form whatsoever, it doesnt last. God is never hiding, always existing. Its just our own hubris with forms and duality that we struggle with. That is why God can feel elusive.
Testimonies that can be explained by much simpler things than a supreme divine being. There are as many testimonies of gods you do not believe in, as there is in the god you believe in.
@@nimberlake But why should they be explained by anything else than a supreme divine being when they are enough for the believer? Thats the problem with you sceptics - you do not understand that faith is not about some "objective truth" but solely about the very own subjective experience. And if you cannot "see" God its the ultimate problem of YOUR eyes, not mine...
Yeah, good question. Why IS God hiding from people? You asked a very good question but didn't provide an answer. Why does God love some people enough to reveal himself but not love others enough to do the same? 🤔
@@JD-wu5pf Why can some people see God and others not? Because the first ones opened their eyes while the other not (yet). Love does not mean your every whim will be answered without any endeavour from your side. If you want to listen to the radio, you have to turn on and tune the receiver.
@@alena-qu9vj So all of the Christians who have opened their eyes, recieved radio silence in return, and then abandoned their faith. What about them? Why didn't God reveal himself to those people who opened their eyes? Follow up question, how hard does someone have to try opening their eyes before God is willing to spare them from eternal hellfire? The bar seems to be arbitrarily placed for different people.
@@nimberlake Reminds me of a child who blames parents for not loving them when not expressing their love according to the child's spoilt whims. Why would you think love is the same for God as is for you?? But I also think that the god of Old Testament is not all-loving, thats selfevident.
you can not find what is not there; but you can also make yourself believe you found something that is not there and have peace with yourself as it is a belief not something in realm of truth
As far as Christianity is concerned this argument does need really hold because many Christians in history claimed God does not save everyone: Let us then consider the whole of the human race, as we consider the whole universe. God wills to manifest His goodness in men; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means of His mercy, as sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of His justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others. - Thomas Aquinas
Then he is not all loving, but a being that will only love those who love him first. BUT he will NOT provide ANY sort reasonable evidence for his existence let alone reach out to people, THEY have to somehow believe he exists and then WANT to form that relationship with him. And if they don't he tortures them eternally after they die, which fits with his not all-loving character.
@@DeludedOne Almost. The doctrine proposed in this quote by Aquinas (and many other theologians but not universal) is called Unconditional Election. That is, God has predestined some to salvation by giving them faith, and some to reprobation by simply leaving them as they are (in their original sin). And who receives faith and salvation is entirely dependent on God's own will, not men's efforts. If that were true, I think it would undermine our intuition that God automatically wants everyone to be in a relationship with him, and that he is supposed to reveal himself to people equally. Lastly, I want to point out that this doctrine is highly debated within Christianity. Maybe the majority does not even hold to it. But the medieval scholastics as well as the (most of thr) reformers were definitely teaching them.
@@EmilTennis00 But it makes perfect sense in the frame of pantheism. God so to say plays chess with Himself, with "black and white" figures. The figures being "of Him" are in relationship with Him by definition under any circumstances. Negative relationship is also relationship (just observe Alex for the evidence). Hinduism has a nice story of a man hating and turning down Krshna being among the first accepted by Him just because of the intensity of their passion. Sure this will not be accepted by most of the fundamental Christians under the influence of Old Testament, but those open minds in history anticipated this notion.
@@EmilTennis00 This results in the double predestination problem which not only still reveals God as an asshole who, far from wanting a relationship with humans and wanting to save them, is simply having them as puppets on a stage with their predetermined roles that they cannot escape from whereby some will be punished and others will be rewarded simply because he has determined them to be thus. Such a thing also results in the removal of accountability which makes sin toothless since sin is only actually of any significance with accountability and this sort of predetermination removes any sort of accountability. It also makes basically everything meaningless with regards to the "final reward" that Christians speak of too. Why bother to live a good life or follow god's commands if you're going to be eternally tortured after you die anyway? And why do so if you're going to e saved anyway? If your ultimate fate is already determined, then no actions will have any impact or consequences upon it, so why bother with life as a whole? This is why most Christians outside of Calvinists will insist that this sort of predestination cannot be true (but if their god is truly omniscient then predestination MUST be true!)
@@DeludedOne I understand your critique. That is also why it is a controversial doctrine among Christians. However, the idea that God predestines some to salvation and allows others to remain in their sin is not also a doctrine calvinism, but also medieval catholicism (see the quote from Aquinas) as well as Lutheranism. The details are debated though. And as I said, nowadays this doctrine is highly controversial even among Christians.
