Skip to main content

The Hiddeness of God

By WizenedSage (Galen Rose) ~

"I've never understood how God could expect his creatures to pick the one true religion by faith -— it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe." - Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein

According to Christian theology, an invisible god created the universe and sustains and rules it today, making this god the most powerful force in the universe. But, why then is he so hidden from us? We know of many lesser invisible things, such as gravity, electrons, and magnetism, which we have discovered, measured, and described by their effects on visible things, but such evidences of a god are highly ambiguous at best.

Amongst the apologists, there appear to be four main arguments for the “hiddenness” of god: the testimony of the Bible argument, the free will argument, the mysterious ways argument, and the “spiritual sight” argument.

Christian and fence-sitting visitors to this site should think seriously about these arguments, and learn what they can about both sides.

Testimony of the Bible Argument

The essence of this argument is this (from

“So why does God no longer speak audibly to us? There are several reasons for this. As noted above, God has already spoken, and His words have been miraculously kept for us down through the ages. Now we have the completed canon of scripture, and we need no further miracles to “validate” the Bible. In His perfect Word is everything we need “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible is complete and is perfectly able to make us “wise to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:15). . . “

But how can we be sure the Bible is the “word of god?” Surely the fact that the Bible says it is the “word of god” can’t be taken as proof. Anyone could write that. So, what evidence does this writer offer?

Well, here’s a bit of that evidence: “His first miracle – creation – was the primary evidence of God’s existence and exhibited many of His attributes. From what was made, man could conclude that God is powerful, sovereign, and good.”

There are a number of things wrong with that statement, but let me point out just one of them. The claim is that man could conclude that god is good from what was made. But, is cancer good? How about grotesque birth defects? Are murderous earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes and tornadoes good? It could be argued that nature is trying very hard to kill us. Why should we infer from this that god is good?

Personally, I think the very best argument against the Bible being the word of god is the enormous number of obvious tall tales in it. For example, there are talking snakes and jackasses, a magical fruit tree, 900 year-old men, a wooden boat which could carry multiple samples of all the animals on earth, and a man who walked on water, calmed a storm with a command, made food materialize, healed people with a touch, etc., etc. There is no evidence in the world today, which anyone can point to, that would prove any of these claims, not one. Perhaps these stories read like myth and legend because that’s what they are. After all, that is the simplest explanation, in keeping with Occam’s Razor.

Free Will Argument

It is often argued that if god were to clearly show himself, and prove his existence, that would remove our free will in the matter. My short version response is . . . so what? I have no free will in the matter of gravity or hunger, either. I know they exist. So what? That knowledge helps me to survive in this world, so why isn’t that a good thing? Why should we accept that a lack of knowledge about something is a good thing? This seems to be an all too common claim when it comes to religion.

One writer (at argues: “If God were to reveal himself in his awesome glory who would not come? All would fall on their faces, trembling in terror. Do you think that God wants a personal relationship with people who came to him because they were afraid of him? What God wants from you is your love.” This is clearly contradicted by Matthew 10:28, where Jesus says: “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” If Jesus isn’t saying in this passage that we should fear god, then what the hell is he saying? There is also Proverbs 9:10: "The fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom." And if god wants us to fear him, then why doesn’t he prove his existence to us unambiguously. After all, I am not going to be afraid of something I don’t believe to exist. And what kind of love is it that fears the object of that love, anyway? How does one bring himself to love a being that he fears? That is not a healthy love.

Why should the knowledge of the existence of a god who can hurt us be hidden? What could be more important for us to know? Why should it be a secret? Is it because it wouldn’t be a proper guessing game without this hiddenness? Is it that god simply wants to turn our salvation into a guessing game? Is god some kind of child? And if the New Testament god is the one true god, then why are the cards stacked so heavily against people who live outside of Europe and the Americas? Isn’t this unfair? So, god not only wants us to guess, but he stacks the cards against most of us? Why does this sound more like the work of a Satan than a god who loves mankind and justice?

How can we take seriously the argument that god wants to remain hidden when there is so much contrary evidence in the Bible? God spoke with many people in the Bible; Abraham, Noah, Job, and others. Why wasn’t their free will important? Also, god was once so anxious to show himself off and spread his message that he came down as Jesus and appeared to thousands of people, performing all sorts of miracles. What about their free will? Why is it important to preserve our free will in the matter, but not theirs? The free will argument is clearly chock-full of holes.

Mysterious Ways Argument

To my mind, this is perhaps the silliest argument of all. Essentially, this argument says that if there is something that makes no sense about a god’s ways, such as his hiddenness, then we should just ignore it, that we’re just not sufficiently intelligent to make judgments about such things. Does it ever occur to the proponent of this argument that he is just taking someone else’s word that he is dumb?

The faithful tell us that we can’t know the mind of god - that our puny minds can’t hope to understand him. Yet, this god supposedly wants us to believe in and worship him (or so the Bible claims). So this ultra intelligence, who created us and knows our every thought, can’t make himself understood by us? Does this really make sense? How could anyone expect to sell me a philosophy, a car, or a religion, if he can’t speak my language and make a sales pitch that I can understand?

Worse still, because most believers are satisfied with the “mysterious ways” claim, we have a world of hundreds of religions and thousands of sects, and we argue and fight and kill each other over who’s right. How can it make sense to infer from this that a real god, who loves people, is in charge? And how can I know which god’s “mysterious ways” I should believe? Should I accept Allah’s mysterious ways, or Ganesh’s, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s? If a god doesn’t have to make sense, then how can I possibly choose which is the real god, or even if there is one? Would a real god expect me to just guess, or take someone else’s word for it, that he’s the real one?

In the end, the mysterious ways argument is a red herring, designed to take our attention away from the nonsensical claim that there’s a god who desperately wants our worship, yet stays carefully hidden, providing only the most ambiguous signs. But it is the handiest argument of all. When the believer is pushed into a corner by logic, he can pull out this argument to show he is no longer interested in logical argument. Maybe believers are willing to accept that they’re too dumb to spot nonsense, but I’m not.

The “Spiritual Sight” Argument

According to this argument, god is not hidden at all, but is known through the human spirit. Here’s one explanation of this theory (from

“God made man with three parts - the spirit, the soul, and the body. The body is for contacting physical things . . . The soul is for contacting psychological things, such as thoughts, love, hatred . . . The spirit is for contacting God, who is Spirit. . . Maybe God tries to hide Himself so that only His true seekers will find Him.”

To begin with, no one has ever proven this “spirit” thing even exists. Try defining the word “spirit,” to get a sense of what I mean. It seems to be the kind of word that has as many shades of meaning as there are people. Also, I have five perfectly good senses, so why can’t god show himself thru at least one of these senses, instead of this so-called sixth sense of “spirit,” which can’t even be proven to exist? What better way for a god to leave me in doubt than to avoid using any of the more obvious senses? Now I believe in school spirit and team spirit, but these are just feelings. But many people have claimed that ghosts are spirits, or that they have been in touch with the spirits of long dead wise men, etc. An awful lot of nonsense has accumulated around this word “spirit,” and a very good argument could be made that spirit is nothing but feelings.

For example, the same site had this to say about connecting with god through the spirit:

“You Can See God . . . You cannot see God with your eyes, but you can see God with your spirit. To believe without seeing Him with physical eyes is more blessed.”

I’m betting that was written by a man who wanted desperately to see god, but never did. So he turns it into a good thing, that he never did. He continues:

“The way to use your spirit to see God is to talk to Him. Say, "Lord Jesus, I want to see You in my spirit. I want to contact You. I want You to reveal Yourself to me. I want You to come into me and live in me. Thank You, Lord." If you speak to Him in this way, He will be hidden from you no longer.”

Now isn’t this just telling us that if we try really, really hard to believe something, then we just might succeed? Might this approach work just as well for “seeing” Mohammed or Satan? How does this approach differ from self-hypnosis?

There are many cases on record of crime suspects being grilled for endless hours by police - the interrogators constantly suggesting how the crime was done, and insisting they knew the suspect was guilty - until the suspect confessed to a crime, and actually believed he was guilty. Later, DNA, eye-witness, or other evidence proved the original suspect could not have committed the crime.

Our minds, you see, respond amazingly well to the power of suggestion. One should remember that the point is not just to believe something (as the writer above suggests), but to find the truth. Through the power of suggestion, millions have come to worship Allah and dozens of Hindu or other gods. But their “spirits” didn’t find the truth, because they were merely responding to their feelings. Your feelings can tell you nothing about what exists outside your own head. For example, you may feel that you are deeply loved by someone, but that feeling may have more to do with your psychological need than with the facts of the matter. The “other” in this case may be merely acting a part. You would need to rely on concrete, external evidence to uncover the truth of the matter. And the same applies to gods.


The Bible insists, over and over, from beginning to end, that to believe in and worship this god is the ultimate obligation and meaning of man, and to not believe is the absolute worst thing a man can do, and assures him of misery and/or an early death (Old Testament), or everlasting torture in hell (New Testament). If god wants us to believe, and we don’t, then the ruler of the universe is not getting what he wants. Does this make sense? Otherwise (if we believe there is a god), we must accept that he wants us to play guessing games with our salvation. Does this make sense?

All we really have to go on are those ancient stories, those incredible tall tales of the Bible written by primitive, superstitious men. So, either we take their word for how the world works, or we are lost. Does this make sense? Those ancient scribes made many claims, but none of those claims can be supported by concrete evidence in the physical world. Under those circumstances, believing requires a leap of faith, but a leap of faith is just a guess by another name; it is merely presuming as fact something which can’t be proven.

Doesn't it seem reasonable that if a god truly interacted with this world, and wanted us to know it, then it would be obvious, and we would not be dealing with a god who hides? According to the Bible, he is all powerful and WANTS us to know it. So why are all the alleged signs of his existence so ambiguous? In fact, there in a nutshell, is a pretty decent argument that Bible-god does not exist.

Now, believers will often argue that we should believe something even when it makes no sense to us. In any other area of life, to believe something when it makes no sense would be considered stupid. Thus, to just believe, we risk stupid. Most folks seem willing to take that gamble, but I am not. And no god with a lick of sense or an ounce of compassion is going to fault me for honest skepticism. To me, the world appears to involve no gods. When I read the Bible, it's as if those primitive men with their endless tall tales are saying to me, "Who are you going to believe, us or your own eyes and mind?" No contest. I believe that my own mind, fortified with several hundred years worth of scientific discovery, is much the better suited to finding the truth about the world than those superstitious ancients.


Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not

On Living Virtuously

By Webmdave ~  A s a Christian, living virtuously meant living in a manner that pleased God. Pleasing god (or living virtuously) was explained as: Praying for forgiveness for sins  Accepting Christ as Savior  Frequently reading the Bible  Memorizing Bible verses Being baptized (subject to church rules)  Attending church services  Partaking of the Lord’s Supper  Tithing  Resisting temptations to lie, steal, smoke, drink, party, have lustful thoughts, have sex (outside of marriage) masturbate, etc.  Boldly sharing the Gospel of Salvation with unbelievers The list of virtuous values and expectations grew over time. Once the initial foundational values were safely under the belt, “more virtues'' were introduced. Newer introductions included (among others) harsh condemnation of “worldly” music, homosexuality and abortion Eventually the list of values grew ponderous, and these ideals were not just personal for us Christians. These virtues were used to condemn and disrespect fro