Professional Christian Philosopher Snafoo

  1. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    "The debate among contemporary philosophers has therefore moved beyond the facile presumption of atheism to a discussion of the so-called "Hiddenness of God"- in effect, a discussion of the probability or expectation that God, if He existed, would leave more evidence of His existence than what we have. Unsatisfied with the evidence we have, some atheists have argued that God, if He existed, would have prevented the world's unbelief by making His existence starkly apparent. But why should God want to do such a thing? On the Christian view it is actually a matter of relative indifference to God whether people believe that He exists or not. For what God is interested in is building a love relationship with us, not just getting us to believe that He exists. There is no reason at all to think that if God were to make His existence more manifest, more people would come into a saving relationship with Him. In fact, we have no way of knowing that in a world of free persons in which God's existence is as obvious as the nose on one's face that more people would come to love Him and know His salvation than in the actual world. But then the claim that if God existed, He would make His existence more evident than it is has little or no warrant, thereby undermining the claim that the absence of such evidence is itself positive evidence that God does not exist."  -William Lane Craig (my emphasis on the bold words).

    This contradicts every type of Christianity, liberal or conservative.  All flavors of Christianity would ultimately teach that God does want us to believe he exists.  It isn't a "matter of indifference."  Theists are always asserting that God desires a relationship with his children.  It seems as though Craig will say almost anything to avoid the divine hiddenness charge he is addressing.  It's also difficult to understand how we could have a relationship with someone without believing in that person's existence, which seems to be implied by Craig's subordination of belief in existence to having the relationship.

    Furthermore, Craig claims that if God's existence was "as obvious as the nose on one's face," people would not necessarily love God or desire that saving relationship.  I don't see how that is even possible!  If God's existence was more self-evident, why would a petty human being NOT desire to communicate with the divine creator of the cosmos?  It's an absurd leap of logic to suggest anything otherwise. 

    Now, Craig does have a point with regards to the "love and salvation" part of God.  There would be some who would question God on various aspects of the universe, and may not necessarily want to "love" him.  However...even in these cases, people would still believe God existed, and if someone believes God exists, the person is closer to salvation than one who denies his existence.

    On a side note, I only used he when referring to God because of the convention and there has been no consensus on a better way to express a pronoun when it comes to God, at least that I have seen.

    I also apologize for misspelling the word.  I rarely type it.  The correct spelling is snafu.

    What say you?

  2. kess profile image60
    kessposted 3 years ago

    What if God is already plain as the light of day...
    but since men insist of recreating Him in their own shades,
    the illusion that He is illusive dominates.

    This is the basis of all the confusion that is not God but ascribe to Him and as Him.

    1. pennyofheaven profile image82
      pennyofheavenposted 3 years ago in reply to this