I've noticed that there are at least few here who seem to subscribe to this view. It was crashfrog that pointed out some claim that God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated, because to do so would
eliminate the need for faith.
While I agree with the concept that some aspects of God are currently beyond our ability to directly experience, I wouldn't go so far as to say that he is determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence. Furthermore, I don't think that simply believing that God exists necessarilly equals having faith in him.
In short, my question is:
Do you think God is (or is not) determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence?
Whichever way you answer, I would like to also hear why you think this. I will interject my thoughts from my own Judeo-Christian perspective and also attempt to explain why I think God is actually determined to
allow proof and evidence of his existence -- and why thinking that he is determined to allow
no proof or evidence of his existence is probably a major error in our thinking based on our own limited experiences.
Although this discusion is primarilly targetted against the idea of God conceiling himself so as to generate "faith", I do believe that this discussion also has relevance to the whole "intelligent design" discusion as well. In addition to this, I welcome input from other faith systems that are not considered Judeo-Christian, including thoughts about God (or gods) from pantheistic, panentheisitic, agnostic or even other monotheistic faiths that I may not be aware of outside the scope of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-12-2005 04:52 PM
This message has been editted from it's original format.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-14-2005 09:33 AM