Divine Hiddenness

[LadyForCamus]

I’m thinking there’s a bit of equivocation here (in the bit I posted) between knowledge and presence. I can’t think of a scenario where more information about a subject would limit someone’s intellectual freedom rather than the other way around. God making himself known is different from being constantly present, as others have mentioned. I know my parents exist which provides me with information and context for my choices, but they aren’t constantly in my presence. I’m sure I’d behave differently if they were.

If your parents threatened to burn you alive if you behave incorrectly then it might crimp your style.

The problem there is the threat delivered, not that it is delivered in-person.

I didn’t think hell was tenant of Judaism? I’m not very familiar with it, tbh.

[LadyForCamus]

I can’t think of a scenario where more information about a subject would limit someone’s intellectual freedom rather than the other way around.

Almost every psychological study involves withholding certain information from the subjects, otherwise their choices are compromised and the research is invalid.

You’re talking about an experiment in which the researchers are indeed gaining information and increasing their knowledge on whatever psychological phenomenon they’re studying.

[LadyForCamus]

“Just as God's purpose does not allow man to be a physical prisoner, neither does it permit him to exist in an intellectual prison. How would man behave if God were to constantly reveal Himself? Would he really be free? If man were constantly made aware that he was standing in the King's presence, could he go against His will? If God's existence were constantly apparent, this awareness would make man a prisoner.“

As I understand it, belief in God's existence has never been the most important variable:

"You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!" (James 2:19, NKJV).

And in one of the parables the analogy was given of a dead man asking to be sent back from the grave so that people might see him and repent. The response was this:

"He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead" (Like 16:31, ESV).

Obviously this is New Testament and your friend is Jewish, but it echoes his point in a sightly different way. It argues that nothing of value changes by believing He exists. Almost every story in the Bible, from Adam and Eve onwards, involves people who saw or experienced God in some way, and nevertheless betrayed Him.

So this adds to your friends argument, which I think is good as well.

Within the framework of Christianity knowledge of God’s existence should matter. Sure, believers disobeyed and rebelled, but one has no ability to either obey or disobey an entity that they aren’t convinced exists in the first place.

[John 6IX Breezy]

You’re talking about an experiment in which the researchers are indeed gaining information and increasing their knowledge on whatever psychological phenomenon they’re studying.

Hmm isn't that similar to how the Bible presents itself? Not as an experimental trial necessarily, but as a judicial one? To further corroborate your friend's point, consider that there is research in which people unconsciously donate more to charities when there are pictures of eyes nearby.

[Angrboda]

You realize, of course, that in fiction characters may act in whatever way their author wants them to act, don't you?

Great; and do you realize that religious people, regardless of being convinced of God's existence, nevertheless act in ways inconsistent with that belief?

You do as well—its normal human behavior. You procrastinate despite knowing your work is due. You don't eat right or exercise despite knowing the consequences. The list goes on—knowledge does not equal behavioral change. This work of fiction seems to have nailed it on the head don't you agree?

The point is that in the context of a discussion about an argument for God's existence, assuming the verisimilitude of these stories is textbook begging the question. You can't make predictions about how people would react to actual perception of God's existence based upon assuming mythology and folksy analogies. People both do and do not behave consonant with knowledge they possess. How they would act in specific situations is why psychology involves research. Additionally, you're attempting to argue the norm via the exception. That's logically invalid.

Maybe it just goes to show the actual insincerity of theist belief instead of some grand truth about human nature?

And neither procrastination nor eating/exercising are parallels. Your analysis is so facile that it's embarrassing coming from a student of the human mind.

[Fake Messiah]

If our parents followed us around everywhere we went, would we ever really be free to break the rules? ...
How would man behave if God were to constantly reveal Himself? 

He is contorting the argument: we are talking about a God who is always hidden which is different from occasionally revealed, and not to mention constantly revealed. He said "constantly reveal Himself" as if God ever revealed himself like once a year, or over the holidays, or on weekends, or whenever he sees his parents.

Or maybe this guy never saw his parents?

[The Architect Of Fate]

1.There is nothing about more present knowledge that takes away free will. It could alter decisions but those decisions are still the persons.

2.As for the infinite being argument. The idea a god couldn't find any way to communicate his own creation seems absurd.

(Edited for clarification because some people are determined to use my words in a way i did not intend )

[R00tKiT]

1.There is nothing about more knowledge that takes away free will. It could alter decisions but those decisions are still the persons.

Attaboy.. Helios. Therefore God's foreknowledge doesn't contradict free will. Tell that to our Grand Nudger! 

2.As for the infinite being argument. The idea a god couldn't find any way to communicate his own creation seems absurd.

God can't do what's logically impossible. It's logically impossible for an infinite being to physically reveal itself to a finite being.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Within the framework of Christianity knowledge of God’s existence should matter. Sure, believers disobeyed and rebelled, but one has no ability to either obey or disobey an entity that they aren’t convinced exists in the first place.

I don't think that's entirely true. Consider the following verses—the entire premise implies that a Christian who knows about God can be lost, while an atheist that's never heard about God or His laws can be saved:

"For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus" (Romans 2:15, ESV).

[The Architect Of Fate]

Attaboy.. Helios. Therefore God's foreknowledge doesn't contradict free will. Tell that to our Grand Nudger! 

I said nothing about foreknowledge. I was clearly talking about present knowledge. God having Foreknowledge is completely contradictory to free will as Grand has informed you multiple times. But I totally see you stretching my words to bolster your absurd conclusions. You are a very silly person 

God can't do what's logically impossible. It's logically impossible for an infinite being to physically reveal itself to a finite being.

That doesn't seem to follow, And I never said anything about it physically reveals itself. Again very silly