Solving Divine Hiddenness in 60 seconds #shorts

#shorts

Dr. Andrew Cullison offers two unique solutions to the Problem of Divine Hiddenness. For the full interview click the link below.

[philosophyofreligion]

1) if the you're hallucinating a person then they don't exist, hence not Personal relationship. 2) probabilistic hiddenness arguments don't need the possibility assumption.

[Stuffingsalad]

I completely reject the first argument. At the very least in the case of an unbeliever. If an unbeliever does not believe in god, they do not somehow believe they have have relationship with him. This really seems to have no merit at all.

The second argument seems to be a bit inconsistent. Why does god then reveal himself to some if this would affect their decisions to do good such as sacrificing themselves? And why should we think that unbelievers would not do good for goodness sake even if god revealed himself to them?

Not to mention, if you believe in orthodox Christianity where only believers go to heaven, this would be in direct conflict with god’s goals and requirement for heaven. An unbeliever sacrificed themselves to save another and still goes to hell. I would say that god would need to get his priorities straight if that’s the case.

Lastly, if you are conceding that god is hiding, then are we not justified in our unbelief given that is god’s intention that we do not believe? Especially considering that a hidden god is indistinguishable from a non existent one.

[positivechange]

Well, you could also add in that millions upon millions (maybe even billions) of people throughout all time - have claimed to have had a personal relationship with God. Now this might cause the skeptic to push back on the specifics, such as "which God." But it would remove the divine hiddeness objection, and waters it down to merely being God might still be hiding - but it's only from certain people for whatever reason. Again, this only addresses the "God Hiding" objection.

[melchiordeduser]

Halucination is an experience. Hallucinated person is not hidden.

[jochannan]

I simply don't get your argument. How the heck can you be "in a loving relationship" with someone in whose existence you don't believe?

"Lots of good examples"? Why don't you name a single one?

If you are having in mind imaginary friends of children:

1. For the children, those imaginary friends are real. They believe that they exist.
2. Do you realise that your implication is that God is just as must imaginary as the kid's imaginary friend?

Do how do you solve anything?

If this problem could indeed be solved in 60 seconds, it would have been done with millennia ago.

[fuse]

Not with the Christian God though. In order to get into a relationship with him (salvation) one must believe certain things. In addition to this, the attributes of God, such as righteousness and justice, come into question if God is willing to allow reasonable nonbelief in his existence, and that the 'greatest good' is the temporary death of someone and resurrection into eternal glory and honour over the eternal fate of some.

[alistairkentucky-david]

1. Surely *ideal* relationships require belief in the existence of the related (and on a hallucination account, it seems that the person does not exist, so I deny you can be in any relationship with them. On the wife example from the good Dr. Daniel Speak. I'd say you *do* have a de re belief in your wife's existence).
2. These value judgements about sacrifice don't ring biblically true to me. I see no hint of the superior virtue of some faithless acts over acts empowered by Faith, Hope and Love. Indeed, the Christian tradition is clear that without Faith it is impossible to perform meritorious works. This is of course consistent with performing objectively good deeds, but it seems unlikely that any unmeritorious work is of greater value than meritorious works emanating from the grace of the Holy Spirit in a person's life.

To the extent that we must recognise any "problem" of divine hiddenness, I simply like to assimilate the problem to the POE, and apply the same epistemic manoeuvres from that context (skeptical theism), or a greater goods defence based on Swinburnian reasons of spreading the gospel and not being overwhelmed by divine light in a way that obliterates freedom. (Or, considering the Bible again, if it's known that you would nevertheless be damned, then withholding His presence is a gift of God, at least insofar as it minimises the evil of sinning despite great knowledge and graces)

[Adam-mjhl]

Lol, so I can have a loving personal relationships with my imaginary girlfriend?