Argument from Hiddeness

[Ooberman]

This is my version.


God = Perfect Being that does what it does perfectly. (For example, If God is Loving, he loves perfectly)

God is not obviously apparent in the same way other things in the universe are obviously apparent.

1. If God chooses to hide in some way, he'd hide perfectly. If God chooses to reveal himself, he'd reveal himself perfectly.

2. God, evidentially, hides imperfectly, and reveals himself imperfectly

3. Therefore, God does not exist.


That is, it makes no sense for God to hide from some people, or at some times, but then do things that "sort of" reveal himself to people. Especially something as, allegedly, so public and global as coming to Earth, telling everyone he is God, and raising himself from the dead...

Miracles, revelations and other actions by God, even evidence of Creation, Consciousness, etc. - all arguments for God are only half measures of revealing himself to people and the world.

If God chose to reveal himself, he would reveal himself perfectly, not partially and questionably.

After all, any partial revelation only adds to confusion and becomes more evidence for no God, or an arbitrary and capricious God. (Which isn't defined as perfect).


So, the partial, spotty record of God revealing himself is evidence against God.


For example, a spotty and partial record of water boiling at 212 degrees would be evidence AGAINST the claim that water boils at 212 degrees.

As it is, water boils, perfectly, at 212 degrees.

[dusk]

Really, you have not seen the Bible?

Have you not seen the Qu'ran. If god revealed himself half decently those two books would be the same along with all the others. I am not even talking about perfect but not making a complete mess. Now which god revealed himself better Allah or Yahweh. The latter didn't even convince the Jews that he is now Christian, obviously because of mistakes in the Thora.
Somewhere the Indians and Eskimos have got to complain too. Why don't they get a Jesus and a Bible?
The bible is also only a testimony that must be accepted along with accurately interpreting what the initial authors intended to convey. That is a poor revelation. Second hand revelation really. Why no first hand?

[playhavock]

I want to see and understand.

If that is really truth, I am sure that you will see and understand. But it all may not come in one moment.

But if it is not then I never will. So this is in essance nothing more then a fucture contengent : "One day you will see this truth" is an easy way to get out of never having to offer any proof that (X) is true. "One day you will see (X) is true" and I can walk way leaving you with that and offering no real reasion for you to think (X) is true. If (X) is not true, I remain confandant in my own personal belife in (X) perhaps, but I've not convinced someone new that (X) is in fact true.

The fact that latter you then ask if someone has seen the Bible shows your whole stance is a circular one - you preasume the Bible that you have chosen to belive in is true without showing any reasion for it to be true, then sight it as evidance that your faith is true. Try harder.

[1213]

The latter didn't even convince the Jews that he is now Christian, obviously because of mistakes in the Thora.

Or because of mistakes in humans.

Second hand revelation really. Why no first hand?

Because it is enough for those who want to understand. Nothing would be enough for those who dont want to understand. And if person dont have right understanding, it doesnt help much even if he would be sure that God is.

[Clownboat]

The latter didn't even convince the Jews that he is now Christian, obviously because of mistakes in the Thora.

Or because of mistakes in humans.

Second hand revelation really. Why no first hand?

Because it is enough for those who want to understand. Nothing would be enough for those who dont want to understand. And if person dont have right understanding, it doesnt help much even if he would be sure that God is.

Nonsense.
Can you honestly say you know of people that would not want to understand a god if they were given the option to understand?

The evidence is lacking, stop trying to blame non believers for that shortfall.

Invisible unicorns are real, if you only wanted to see the evidence for them, then you would see it, but no amount of evidence for invisible unicorns will be enough for a person that does not want to believe in the existence of invisible unicorns. Don't blame me for your lack of belief!

[Ooberman]

Because it is enough for those who want to understand. Nothing would be enough for those who dont want to understand. And if person dont have right understanding, it doesnt help much even if he would be sure that God is.

Yes, this is complete nonsense.

Paul is held up as the greatest witness because he was the ultimate hostile witness. He used to persecute Christians until his vision.

I think it shows how little Christians think of their God if they think he can't provide the right kind of evidence to convince each non-believer.