If God Proved His Existence, Would That Eliminate Free Will?

[bluegreenearth]

When asked why God doesn't demonstrate his existence to every person in such a way that no one could ever reasonably argue for non-Christian theism, agnosticism, or atheism, a common Christian apologetic response is to say, "God desires for his people to have the free will to seek him rather than have his special creations exist as automatons." In other words, by directly revealing his existence to all people, the claim is that the Christian God would rob everyone of their free will to choose whether or not to worship and obey him. Is this a reasonable argument? There are a variety of examples in the Bible where the Christian God directly reveals himself or demonstrates his supernatural powers to individuals and groups of people who nonetheless freely refuse to acknowledge and obey him. This is where the "hardened hearts" excuse is often quoted by Christians as an explanation for why many non-Christians fail to become convinced by apologetic arguments. Therefore, such reasoning seems to fail as a refutation of the divine hiddenness objection.

What about the soundness of the apologetic argument claiming that God does not want to be worshiped by unrighteous people on account of their selfish desires or for them to have access to his kingdom in heaven? Apparently, God refrains from revealing his existence to everyone because doing so would motivate many undeserving people to worship and obey him for the sake of their own skin rather than for righteous reasons. However, since the Biblical path to salvation already has a method for distinguishing the righteous believer from the unrighteous believer, this apologetic excuse for divine hiddenness is irrelevant. In fact, it could be argued that the percentage of potential righteous believers would increase if the reasonable skeptics among them could be convinced of the Christian God's existence. Meanwhile, unrighteous believers still wouldn't be able to slip into heaven unnoticed. It should makes no difference if an unreasonable atheist becomes an unrighteous non-believer as result of God directly revealing his existence because the end result for those people would be the same as it is now. Conversely, it makes all the difference if a reasonable atheist becomes a righteous believer as result of having received convincing evidence of the Christian God's existence. Therefore, divine hiddenness seems to remain as a justifiable objection.

If anyone can demonstrate where the divine hiddenness objection is unjustified or where I may have unintentionally straw-manned the apologetic position, please submit that argument for evaluation. Thanks.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

Another argument against this apologetic:

Assuming that God exists and you happen to be 'righteous' and then end up in heaven: Is your freewill now suddenly gone? If you end up in heaven, would you not then be completely convinced God is real? Is your freewill still intact? If you get bored singing hymns to God all day, can you change your mind and leave?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

Correction:

In the OP, I wrote "It should makes no difference if an unreasonable atheist becomes an unrighteous non-believer as result of God directly revealing his existence because the end result for those people would be the same as it is now." The proper statement is as follows: It should makes no difference if an unreasonable atheist becomes an unrighteous believer as result of God directly revealing his existence because the end result for those people would be the same as it is now.

I apologize for the confusion.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

In other words, by directly revealing his existence to all people, the claim is that the Christian God would rob everyone of their free will to choose whether or not to worship and obey him.

Does this mean that the many Christians who claim that God has revealed himself to them have been robbed of their free will?

[Mithrae]

Conversely, it makes all the difference if a reasonable atheist becomes a righteous believer as result of having received convincing evidence of the Christian God's existence. Therefore, divine hiddenness seems to remain as a justifiable objection.

Your analysis seems reasonable, though it's worth noting that it applies only to the strand of Christianity which insists that 'belief' is the requirement for salvation. In stories such as the parable of the good Samaritan, the sheep and goats, and his response to those who say "Lord Lord" to him at the judgement, Jesus drops some pretty heavy hints that someone's religious beliefs are more or less irrelevant compared with their actions and particularly how they treat other people.

Perhaps what we need is convincing evidence that we really should start loving others as we love ourselves (which of course just as few Christians do as atheists, at least in the terms Jesus described)

[William]

William: The problem I see with this is that I have often asked non-theists who demand evidence that a Creator exists, as to exactly what they would regard as evidence.

I have never yet seen a response which cannot be disregarded based on the same arguments often given through non-theist reasoning for the non existence of a Creator.

How would a Creator reveal itself to us, that we could confidently know without doubt that it is the Creator?

What could possibly be the defining proof of a Creators existence?

I think that is a question which needs to be answered before one talks about how 'free will' would be eliminated by such an event.

[Stelar_7]

Is this the right place to point out that free will is usually nonsense?

[marco]

What could possibly be the defining proof of a Creators existence?

Nothing that we prescribe seems to fit the bill. But that is not the situation; our prescriptions and imaginative thoughts are irrelevant. If an omnipotent God wants to eliminate doubt, he does so.

[marco]

If God Proved His Existence, Would That Eliminate Free Will?

In the Bible tale God was personally involved with Adam and Eve but they defied him. In ancient religions where the Sun was undoubtedly regarded as God, people were not universally saints despite seeing a daily proof.

In fact, it could be argued that the percentage of potential righteous believers would increase if the reasonable skeptics among them could be convinced of the Christian God's existence.

What is being taken as the criterion for righteousness here? The missing factor seems to be belief in God. As Mithrae has pointed out it seems that giving a cup of water or clothing the naked is an adequate qualification for heaven, even if heaven was unexpected. The righteous atheist does not become more righteous simply because God stands on a mountain; he may become more afraid.

The motivation for our righteousness - fear or desire to do good - shouldn't really matter. If the motivation for our penitence, I recall from catechism days, is fear of hell, that apparently is theologically acceptable. Introducing a real God introduces real fear. But as you say some brave souls in the early bible pages managed to accept God's gifts and favour but ignored his commands. Had I been an Israelite who walked through the parted sea I would have thought ten times before sinning again. But I suppose I would still have had the option, were I bold enough.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

In other words, by directly revealing his existence to all people, the claim is that the Christian God would rob everyone of their free will to choose whether or not to worship and obey him.

Does this mean that the many Christians who claim that God has revealed himself to them have been robbed of their free will?

Only the freewill to believe the Christian God exists is removed (at least according to my understanding of the apologetic).