Given the inadequacy of so many “old” philosophical arguments against God’s existence, atheists are increasingly turning to the “hiddenness of God” (HoG) to argue that God does not exist (or that His existence is highly improbable). The essence of this argument is that God’s existence is not as obvious as it should be. If God existed, we would expect to find more evidence of His existence than we in fact do. Given the inadequacy of the evidence, rational persons should conclude that God (probably) does not exist. Some HoG proponents go so far as to argue that if God existed He would prevent unbelief by making His existence obvious and undeniable. He does not do so, therefore, He does not exist, or if He does exist, the fault of human unbelief is to be laid at His feet.
There are a number of ways to respond to the HoG argument. One could agree with the HoG advocate that God’s existence is not as obvious as we might think it should be, but deny that the conclusion—“God (probably) does not exist”—follows from such an observation. After all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps there is insufficient evidence on which to conclude that God exists, but God may exist nonetheless. At best, an insufficient amount of evidence for God’s existence should result in agnosticism, not atheism. To conclude that God does not exist one needs positive evidence against His existence, not a mere lack of evidence for it.
Secondly, the HoG argument presupposes that God is desirous that all people believe He exists. Maybe God is indifferent to what humans believe or fail to believe about Him (although admittedly, this would rule out the existence of the Christian God). Maybe God purposely hides Himself from humanity so that those who do believe in His existence must do so via a blind leap of faith.
Thirdly, perhaps God has predestined that only select humans come to a saving knowledge of God, and thus God provides evidence of His existence discriminately. To the elect God makes His existence obvious, but to the unsaved God is hidden. One might contest that such a discriminate provision of evidence is unbecoming of a just God, but this is not obvious either. Perhaps God knows how each individual would respond to Him if provided with (more) evidence of His existence, and He provides evidence accordingly. For those whom He knows would respond in faith to evidence of His existence, He provides such evidence. For those whom He knows would not respond in faith to such evidence, however, He does not provide them with any evidence (or evidence sufficient to convince them of His existence). While such individuals will complain that there is no/insufficient evidence for God’s existence, the fact remains that they would not be persuaded by it even if presented with it because they do not want to believe there is a God to whom they are subject.
Fourthly, the premise that God’s existence is not as obvious as it should be can be challenged. After all, who is to say what the appropriate level of obviousness is? How much evidence is needed? These are subjective questions. What one person considers sufficient evidence, another may not. Indeed, theists would argue that the field of natural theology provides an abundance of evidence for the existence of God. As William Lane Craig asks, should we expect more evidence than the contingency of the universe, the origin of the universe in the finite past from nothing, the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life, our apprehension of an objective realm of moral values, the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and the ability to experience God immediately without recourse to rationality (one could also throw miracles and answered prayers into this mix as well)? I have no reason to believe we should. There are many sound, cogent arguments/evidences for God’s existence—enough to convince those who are open-minded on the issue.
Fifthly, it is possible that the defender of the HoG argument is expecting the wrong kind of evidence. Perhaps God has provided metaphysical rather than physical evidence for His existence (given the fact that He is an immaterial being). If so, then surely it is pure hubris to claim He has failed to provide enough evidence of His existence simply because He has not provided the kind of evidence we might prefer. To conclude that an immaterial being such as God does not exist because there is no physical evidence of His existence makes as much sense as concluding that there is no invisible man in your house on the basis that you have not seen him. If he could be seen, he would not be invisible. If one is going to detect or invalidate the presence of an invisible man, one must appeal to metaphysical rather than physical evidence.
To be continued….
Thinking to Believe 
October 12, 2010 at 7:31 am
[…] For the previous installment, click here. […]
LikeLike
January 10, 2011 at 2:51 am
Proof That There Is A God
Or
Proof that God has not kept Himself hidden
A, Properties of a Whole Thing
If at the beginning there was something at all, and if that something was the whole thing, then it can be shown that by logical necessity that something will have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. This is by virtue of that something being the whole thing. Something is the whole thing means there cannot be anything at all outside of that something; neither space, nor time, nor matter, nor anything else. It is the alpha and omega of existence. But, if it is the whole thing, then it must have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. Otherwise it will be merely a part of a bigger whole thing. Now let us denote this something by a big X. Now, can this X be in any space? No, it cannot be. If it is, then where is that space itself located? It must have to be in another world outside of X. But by definition there cannot be anything outside of X. Therefore X cannot be in any space. Again, can this X have any space? No, it cannot have. If we say that it can have, then we will again be in a logical contradiction. Because if X can have any space, then that space must have to be outside of it. Therefore when we consider X as a whole, then we will have to say that neither can it be in any space, nor can it have any space. In every respect it will be spaceless. For something to have space it must already have to be in some space. Even a prisoner has some space, although this space is confined within the four walls of his prison cell. But the whole thing, if it is really the whole thing, cannot have any space. If it can have, then it no longer remains the whole thing. It will be self-contradictory for a whole thing to have any space. Similarly it can be shown that this X can neither be in time, nor have any time. For a whole thing there cannot be any ‘before’, any ‘after’. For it there can be only an eternal ‘present’. It will be in a timeless state. If the whole thing is in time, then it is already placed in a world where there is a past, a present, and a future, and therefore it is no longer the whole thing. Now, if X as a whole is spaceless, timeless, then that X as a whole will also be changeless. There might always be some changes going on inside X, but when the question comes as to whether X itself is changing as a whole, then we are in a dilemma. How will we measure that change? In which time-scale shall we have to put that X in order for us to be able to measure that change? That time-scale must necessarily have to be outside of X. But there cannot be any such time-scale. So it is better not to say anything about its change as a whole. For the same reason X as a whole can never cease to be. It cannot die, because death is also a change. Therefore we see that if X is the first thing and the whole thing, then X will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness by virtue of its being the whole thing. It is a logical necessity. Now, this X may be anything; it may be light, it may be sound, or it may be any other thing. Whatever it may be, it will have the above four properties of X. Now, if we find that there is nothing in this universe that possesses the above four properties of X, then we can safely conclude that at the beginning there was nothing at all, and that therefore scientists are absolutely correct in asserting that the entire universe has simply originated out of nothing. But if we find that there is at least one thing in the universe that possesses these properties, then we will be forced to conclude that that thing was the first thing, and that therefore scientists are wrong in their assertion that at the beginning there was nothing. This is only because a thing can have the above four properties by virtue of its being the first thing and by virtue of this first thing being the whole thing, and not for any other reason. Scientists have shown that in this universe light, and light only, is having the above four properties. They have shown that for light time, as well as distance, become unreal. I have already shown elsewhere that a timeless world is a deathless, changeless world. For light even infinite distance becomes zero, and therefore volume of an infinite space also becomes zero. So the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
Another very strong reason can be given in support of our belief that at the beginning there was light. The whole thing will have another very crucial and important property: immobility. Whole thing as a whole thing cannot move at all, because it has nowhere to go. Movement means going from one place to another place, movement means changing of position with respect to something else. But if the whole thing is really the whole thing, then there cannot be anything else other than the whole thing. Therefore if the whole thing moves at all, then with respect to which other thing is it changing its position? And therefore it cannot have any movement, it is immobile. Now, if light is the whole thing, then light will also have this property of immobility. Now let us suppose that the whole thing occupies an infinite space, and that light is the whole thing. As light is the whole thing, and as space is also infinite here, then within this infinite space light can have the property of immobility if, and only if, for light even the infinite distance is reduced to zero. Scientists have shown that this is just the case. From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light even infinite distance becomes zero, and that therefore it cannot have any movement, because it has nowhere to go. It simply becomes immobile. This gives us another reason to believe that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
I know very well that an objection will be raised here, and that it will be a very severe objection. I also know what will be the content of that objection: can a whole thing beget another whole thing? I have said that at the beginning there was light, and that light was the whole thing. Again I am saying that the created light is also the whole thing, that is why it has all the properties of the whole thing. So the whole matter comes to this: a whole thing has given birth to another whole thing, which is logically impossible. If the first thing is the whole thing, then there cannot be a second whole thing, but within the whole thing there can be many other created things, none of which will be a whole thing. So the created light can in no way be a whole thing, it is logically impossible. But is it logically impossible for the created light to have all the properties of the whole thing? So what I intend to say here is this: created light is not the original light, but created light has been given all the properties of the original light, so that through the created light we can have a glimpse of the original light. If the created light was not having all these properties, then who would have believed that in this universe it is quite possible to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless? If nobody believes in Scriptures, and if no one has any faith in personal revelation or mystical experience, and if no one wants to depend on any kind of authority here, and if no one even tries to know Him through meditation, then how can the presence of God be made known to man, if not through a created thing only? So, not through Vedas, nor through Bible, nor through Koran, nor through any other religious books, but through light and light only, God has revealed himself to man. That is why we find in created light all the most essential properties of God: spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness.
Footnote: If the universe is treated as one whole unit, then it can be said to be spaceless, timeless. I first got this idea from an article by Dr. Lee Smolin read in the internet. Rest things I have developed. This is as an acknowledgement.
B. CLIMAX
I think we need no further proof for the existence of God. That light has all the five properties of the whole thing is sufficient. I will have to explain.
Scientists are trying to establish that our universe has started from nothing. We want to contradict it by saying that it has started from something. When we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that there was something. We are not saying that there was some other thing also other than that something. Therefore when we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that at the beginning there was a whole thing. Therefore we are contradicting the statement that our universe has started from nothing by the statement that our universe has started from a whole thing.
I have already shown that a whole thing will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness, immobility (STCDI). This is by logical necessity alone. It is logically contradictory to say that a whole thing can have space. Let us suppose that the whole thing is having space. Then the so-called whole thing along with the space that it is having will constitute the real whole thing. If my arguments that I have offered so far to show that the whole thing will always have the above five properties by virtue of its being the whole thing are sound, and if they cannot be faulted from any angle, then I can make the following statements:
1. In this universe only a whole thing can have the properties of STCDI by logical necessity alone.
2. If the universe has started from nothing, then nothing in this universe will have the properties of STCDI.
3. If the universe has started from a whole thing, then also nothing other than the initial whole thing will have the properties of STCDI. This is only because a whole thing cannot beget another whole thing.
4. But in this universe we find that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, is still having the properties of STCDI.
5. This can only happen if, and only if, the initial whole thing itself has purposefully given its own properties to light, in order to make its presence known to us through light.
6. But for that the initial whole thing must have to have consciousness.
7. So, from above we can come to the following conclusion: the fact that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, still possesses the properties of STCDI, is itself a sufficient proof for the fact that the universe has started from a conscious whole thing, and that this conscious whole thing is none other than God.
LikeLike
February 27, 2013 at 11:55 am
[…] have blogged on this issue previously (here and here), so I won’t rehearse the arguments again. Instead, I’ll simply assert that I do not […]
LikeLike
February 10, 2015 at 2:40 pm
[…] The Hiddenness of God Objection to Theism, Part I […]
LikeLike