If God is Real, Why Won’t He Show Himself?

The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard said that “just as important as the truth, and of the two the even more important one, is the mode in which the truth is accepted, and it is of slight help if one gets millions to accept the truth if by the very mode of their acceptance they are transposed into untruth.”

God hides himself so we will come to him in the right mode. He is not an object. He is not an old man in the sky, available to our observation, nor a slight grease on the surface of all things, available to our scientific probing. God is love. What merit is it to know of God’s existence as a man knows the existence of his right foot? God doesn’t want our observation, nor our pitiful attempts to “prove” his existence — he wants our love. He wants to be known in truth, as he is, as love, which is only known in the act of loving.

If we’re going to speak of “knowing” God at all, we must mean to know him in such a way that we infinitely strive for him, in which our knowledge and our panting after him are one in the same, for love is not known disinterestedly, rather, love is interest. We cannot know God cooly, as an object is known.

The knowledge of this tree or that apple sets myself and the object apart. I and the tree are divided into the categories of observer and object, because all knowledge is knowledge of something – some thing we refer to — apart from ourselves. But God is not a thing. God is love, and love will tolerate no separation.

Observation brings certainty. We see the tree and are certain of it. Our relationship is simple, call it I-thing. But with God, what’s needed is precisely uncertainty.

Uncertainties are known — not by knowledge, for knowledge attains certainty and thus eradicates uncertainty — but by belief, and belief always has the quality of hurling us upon another person.

For instance, my father calls, and before he hangs up, he says “I love you.” I do not know this to be an objective fact. I do not observe it with the certainty I observe the tree, because the words “I love you,” are an outward expression of my father’s subjective, interior life — a life I cannot know. From my perspective, his kindness to me may have been born out of no more than duty, the pressures of his surrounding moral society, or the desire to raise a child in such a manner that he does not become an embarrassment. In short, the words “I love you” may not be true, and no objective knowledge can eradicate their uncertainty. Even if I were to add up all the constituent parts – his expression, his tone, our history, etc. — I could not arrive — with objective certainty — at the conclusion, “Yes, it all adds up to love,” and this is apparent in the fact that no one bothers to engage in such arithmetic. I cannot know love as an objective fact, existing outside of myself and available to my objective verification. I can only believe in it.

But this is the point! My believing in the love of my father and my entering into that love are one in the same, for in believing — which embraces the uncertainty precisely as an uncertainty — I fling myself entirely on him. I trust in his word. I trust him as I would myself. This blurring of he and the I in the moment of love’s expression; this taking on of the other’s hidden, subjective, interior life as if it were my own; this taking for myself as true what only he can know is true — this is love. In believing I participate in the life of the one I trust to believe. What a pitiful, boring world which elevates objective knowledge over belief! By belief I attain a greater certainty of what cannot be known than the certainty I have of those things that can.

Now we approach, with trembling hearts, the infinite uncertainty of God himself. God is invisible, and this terrible absence, this awful gap in our ability to attain certainty, and this necessary possibility of atheism is also the way in which we come to know God as he is, in truth and in right relation to him. By being objectively uncertain, yet communicating himself to us in beauty, in truth, in the goodness that inexplicably guides our lives, and ultimately in the fullness of revelation, through his only begotten Son, he offers us a qualitatively different type of certainty that would not be possible were he visible in the way a tree is visible. He gives us he opportunity to believe, to know him in such a manner that our knowledge of him is simultaneously a total reliance on him, indeed that our “knowledge” — which we should refer to as faith, for it maintains the objective uncertainty by never rendering Eternity objectively visible — is a participation in the life of God himself.

“If God had taken the for, for example, of a rare, enormously large green bird, with a red beak, that perched in a tree on the embankment and perhaps even whistled in an unprecedented manner–then [the modern man] surely would have had his eyes opened,” says Kierkegaard, but then we would not have related to him in truth, but in untruth. But since God is hidden, we must believe, and in belief we approach God in truth, as we approach love.

That this is truly the proper mode for “knowing God” seem evident in that difference between belief and simply knowing a visible something is that the former requires eternity while the latter requires a moment. Once the green bird is seen, it is known. No further effort is required. We may walk away from the embankment, close our eyes, and still know that the green bird exists. All that was required was the singular moment of perception. But when it is precisely an objective uncertainty that is being offered, an invisible reality expressed to us, the effort to know this uncertainty must be an eternal effort. At no point do we master God. At no point can we walk away. At no point do we attain a certainty by which we are “finished” with the project of belief. Belief is knowledge that comes from a participation in the life of another, and thus our belief in God only remains insofar as we, in every moment of our life, actively participate in the life of God. “I must continually see to it that I hold fast to the objective uncertainty, see to it that in the objective uncertainty I am “out on 70,000 fathoms of water” and still have faith.”

This is precisely why the Christian says he is saved through faith. To be saved means to become the self who you are, the self you are for all eternity, and only by faith do eternal selves act eternally. Only by faith do we participate in the self-offering of God, do we freely and eternally participate in the life of Love himself, do we attain that reality which, in religious tradition, is referred to as Salvation, or Heaven.

But this is hardly a distant mystery: As goes life so goes love, for there are few distinctions between the two. The words “I love you” — spoken in truth and by their very nature — tend towards relationships that last forever. Man and woman marry to express with a lifetime what cannot be expressed in a moment. The one requirement of erotic love is faithfulness, not simply in reaction to the evil of its opposite, which we call adultery, but because the very essence of love is belief in the other, a participation that renders adultery unthinkable. Theirs the eternal, theirs the ritual, theirs the belief in the other’s love that is simultaneously a participation in that love. And what lovers would prefer objective knowledge over the infinite strive of faith? What lovers would demand the singular moment that forever establishes certainty over a lifetime of active love, over the ecstatic comedy of forever proving the unprovable and rendering visible the ever-invisible?

God wants us to relate to him in love, for only by relating to God in love do we relate to him as he is — love himself — and only in this relation are our finite frames expanded and exploded with the infinite. God does not want our validation of his existence any more than the lover wants the beloved to simply say “You exist.” He wants us all swept up in love, forever and ever, amen.

 

  • Jon P.

    Boom. Thus, once again, Marc hits one right out of the park! Great post, man!!

  • Sara

    Thank you, this really moved me to see things in a new and better way. God bless you!

  • Ro

    Your first statement is confusing, because under my understanding of matter, it is neither visible nor invisible by definition.

  • Obliged_Cornball

    Full disclosure: I sense no tension between the objective and subjective dimensions of knowledge. I’d go as far as to say the two are complementary. I have proof that my parents and friends exist, and I also subjectively know them in a fuller sense through love. To have only the objective knowledge would be to lead an empty life, yet to have only subjective knowledge of their love without proof of their existence would be absurd. Their existence cannot be the whole story of our relationships, but it is the groundwork on which I can build a framework of subjective knowledge through love. If I can’t love God in the same way, then I’m afraid I am in the dark as to how I should come to love Him at all.

    Ironically, I think my complementarian account of objective and subjective knowledge would be more compatible with Catholicism. Otherwise, the work of many of your greatest theologians (who tried to prove God using *objective* methods) was in vain. They were barking up the wrong tree, just like us nonbelievers. The way forward should have been Pascalian – encourage people to seek God instead of demonstrating his necessity. The one thing I always admired about Catholicism is that She strove to do what the pragmatic theists said wasn’t possible. She sought objective proof and deeper subjective knowledge together, as if both were necessary to complete each other. This new variant that loves first and knows later is of admittedly little interest to me.

    • Mr. Kruse

      I have to agree. Much of what Marc is saying has a very valid point but becomes muddled in the false dichotomy of knowledge vs faith. Knowledge has multiple (often categorized into four) sources. Faith is one of those sources of knowledge, not something opposed to it. OC rightly points out that much of the Catholic tradition has stood opposed to such faith vs reason thinking. Kierkegaard wasn’t Catholic. Those of us that do theology must remember that as useful as Kant, Kierkegaard, Lao Tzu, or any other non-Catholic is in developing our understanding, they must be adapted to the tradition and not merely echoed. Rahner is criticized today often for that error (he left far too much to a form of mystery that can only be defined as the unknowable as he worked Heidegger into Thomism). That puts Marc in good company as Rahner may be the greatest Catholic theologian of the 20th century, but he should still be careful when adapting Protestant thought to Catholic teaching.

      • nanomanoman

        How about Simone Weil? She was “almost” Catholic….

        • Mr. Kruse

          Simone Weil and C.S. Lewis are popular writers amongst Catholics but are not used in developing Catholic theology. They are usually enjoyed as they are very quotable in the same way MLKJ or Ghandi is, but they all have their moments of contraCatholic thinking. A Catholic like G.K. Chesterton is very similar as he is abundantly quoted but never used as a source in developing a theological position. As a theology teacher, I pluck their quotes as they affirm the tradition and move on.

          I very strongly recommend Kierkegaard, but the false dichotomies that come with virtually all Protestant thought are not very useful. Descartes was Catholic and is of little to no use when compared with philosophers such as Kant and Kierkegaard. Camus is great, but as he was an atheist one should go in expecting some errors and false assumptions.

          • Korou

            What would those errors and false assumptions be?

          • Mr. Kruse

            First, I should point out that I was saying that they’re errors if one is doing Catholic theology. There are some mistakes in logic and philosophical methodology found in every philosopher and theologian regardless of religious or ideological affiliation. Nonetheless, Catholic theology develops rather organically from its root (the Deposit of Faith / tradition) without novel insertions.

            Who I was particularly speaking of though was Albert Camus. He is an atheist philosopher with a great number of insights and thoughtful treatments on ethics and morality. He battled nihilism (good) while dismissing hope (not so good). His highest value is very arguably subjective though and his idea of the absurd sets the human condition as opposed to reality. Underlying isms such as Humanism and Subjectivism are contrary to tradition and, as they would be novel insertions, would be errors in developing theology. There is also the argument that Camus’ idea of the absurd fails logically as man’s desire being a part of reality, it cannot oppose reality (a real desire must have a real end). I still use him virtually any time I’m working on morality and/or ethics… He’s brilliant (his buddy Sartre had nothing on him).

          • Korou

            Mr. Kruse, that is a thoughtful answer. Thanks for clarifying the situation.

  • Theresa

    Love this, Marc. Thanks for writing; it’s a beautiful and thoughtful exposition!

  • Guest

    I guess you should put right glasses to overcome lies concerning invisibility issue:
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=467479236673612&set=gm.506457982741503&type=1&theater

  • Rick_K

    Yep – the beauty of belief is that all the benefits outlined in this article can be achieved by belief in God without any prerequisite that God actually exists.

    Would you believe in your father’s love if you never met him or spoke to him? Would you believe in your father’s love if millions of people searched for him but nobody ever found him?

    As with Sam Harris’s giant diamond in the back yard, it is the belief in the diamond that brings the family and the community together, it is the faith in the diamond that gives their lives meaning. But the diamond itself never need be found.

  • Gabriel Blanchard

    Good stuff, sir. :)

  • Invictus_Lux

    Very well spoken Marc. I think its also true that God veils Himself behind Creation so that no one can claim He forced us to love Him by the awe of His overwhelming magnificence.

    With the aid of amazing technology (e.g. Hubble telescope) humanity has looked deep into the cosmos and seen uncountable galaxies of amazing grandeur. But these images are not lived – they are tucked away and put into photo albums or a colorful book which we then place on a shelf after we are fatigued and overwhelmed with all that wonderment. There’s only so much impressing a human mind can suffer without a person feeling his own mortality and seeming too insignificant. It’s not our nature to desire to feel small and insignificant. . Why I think so many just “move on” and occupy ourselves with the pursuit of mere babbles and worldly allures ( ‘cool stars – but hey its two for one night at the pub’).

    I’m beginning to think that the human capacity for boredom and indifference in the face of what we can directly see and should appreciate is one of the greatest examples of proof of our fallen nature. It is also a means by which through reason and self reflection one can gauge exactly where on our side of the relationship we stand with God.

    The other practical thing about God hiding in plain sight is there’s really no safe place to run and hide to if you don’t know where he’s hiding; we’re libel to run snack into Him when we least expect to.

  • JohnE_o

    “For instance, my father calls, and before he hangs up, he says “I love you.” I do not know this to be an objective fact.”

    No, but you then have some evidence about your father’s existence – I don’t see that is unreasonable to expect proof that someone exists before considering the question of whether or not that person loves me.

    • Zeke

      Bingo John. And what else is the Bible other than God “showing himself”?
      It boggles the mind that Christians attach no significance to the fact that miracles ceased when modern photography and video technology was available .

      • dan

        Uh, who says that miracles ceased when modern photography and video technology became available? Where have you been, Zeke?

        • Korou

          Is there somewhere I can go, maybe a website, where I can see videos and photos of miracles happening?

          • Mr. Kruse

            If you begin with a false definition of miracle (something that occurs in opposition to nature) then no. The word only means “wonderful thing.” Miracles refer to supernatural, not unnatural. In that light, there are endless photos and videos – all scientifically explicable in process, supernatural (immaterial) in causation, resounding with deeper meanings than the physical parts. A child being born can qualify, man!

            There are plenty of “miracles” caught on film, but like so many UFO photos, they will never convince you of a thing. Anybody that rests their faith or lack thereof on miracles is naive.

          • Korou

            No, Mr. Kruse, a child being born does not qualify. But your saying so does expose – and rather neatly summarise – the weakness of your position.

            I’m afraid you’re going to accuse me of being naïve and simplistic here, but quite simply you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that there is plenty of evidence on the one hand and on the other say that evidence proves nothing. If you did have the evidence you need to prove your claim I’m sure you’d be happy to use it; you don’t. Other people aren’t so coy, of course – look at this, for example:

            http://listverse.com/2008/07/14/top-10-astonishing-miracles/

            As you quite correctly pointed out, these are all comparable to UFO sightings in levels of credibility. You can see that, I believe, and that’s why you’re reduced to having to say that babies being born and other heartwarming occurences are examples of miracles.

            I hope you won’t take offence at my blunt tone; I simply have to say that if you expect someone to believe a claim you need to have evidence for it; and you can’t blame them for not believing you if you don’t. Whether you’re a Catholic or a UFO-ologist.

          • Mr. Kruse

            Again, I think you’re missing my point. Miracles are not a valid part of evangelization or apologetics. We do not try to convert people with tales of miracles (I have worked with several RCIA programs and have a degree in catechesis).

            The reports will not convince you. That, I do not doubt. People talk about miracles in the context of their faith. As you are atheist, you will interpret them accordingly. That is not “having it both ways.” Put simply, if you do not recognize God’s existence, you won’t recognize His works… DUH. So first, we must establish God as necessary (that’s on us).

            This brings us back to the best part of Marc’s article. The miracle is such a subjective matter, why you can’t see it is firmly established above. You can’t effectively poke holes in a concept that you aren’t able to simultaneously see and be an atheist. For our part, you can always tell the foolish that would try to convert you with tales of miracles that they are in fact fools. If they (these hypothetical people) can convince you of God’s existence on the other hand, the miraculous becomes apparent – If not, well there’s still the awe-inspiring stuff all humans can appreciate.

          • Korou

            Hello again,
            I sympathise with your problems with Disqus! I don’t know if you’ll read this now. I’d be interested in carrying on this conversation. Let me know if you’re still checking in on it.

          • Mr. Kruse

            I got the e-mail regarding your reply last night. I have no problem discussing this further, but I don’t know if Marc’s blog thread is the appropriate place for it. I kinda feel like I’ve already taken up too much space.

          • Korou

            Well, fair enough. I think we can leave it for now – I’m sure we’ll meet up again to discuss these or similar issues the next time a thread like this comes up.

      • Mr. Kruse

        It boggles the mind that atheists keep trying to disprove that there is an old man on a cloud that performs magic tricks. If that’s the ‘a’ in your atheism, you’re as ill-informed as anyone that believes such nonsense. You might want to learn the definition of God. I recommend Anselm’s… Its a good starting point. Aquinas will help get rid of the body parts and magic performing if you’re still confused.

        • Zeke

          Please, it is precisely these “magic tricks” that Christians offer up as proof of God’s existence. The Vatican itself is in the business of “verifying” miracles in the process of canonization. Not surprisingly, they are unfailingly ordinary reports of medical cures. You can’t have it both ways Mr. Kruse. Must it also be pointed out that your boy Chesterton also believed that Aquinas routinely levitated?

        • Korou

          (1) There are plenty of Christians – even Catholics – who believe, or who act as if they believe, that God is just “an old man on a cloud doing magic tricks,” so atheists often have to be prepared to argue against them at that level. Levitating people, incorruptible corpses, dancing suns, manifesting Marys and spontaneous bleeding are certainly examples of “cheap magic trick” miracles, and are used to argue in favour of Catholicism.

          (2) The enlightened beliefs that you claim Catholics hold are not, in truth, all that much less silly than the idea that God is an invisible man in the sky.

          (3) being an atheist simply means that you lack beliefs in any kind of God, whether Quatzalcoatl, a Protestant Rapturing Bible-Belter, or Anselm’s ineffability. Atheists have so far seen the same kind of evidence for each of these, and so the default position – that none of them exist – is not just sensible, it’s inevitable. What would you have us do? Believe something without reason?

          • Mr. Kruse

            Sorry about the delay… Disqus kept failing in my browser. Lets agree that there is a difference between Catholics and Catholicism. If your issue isn’t with Catholicism, you’re only arguing that Catholics need to be more Catholic.

            Anselm didn’t believe in atheists for the same reason I struggle with this conversation… I don’t believe your definitions are valid. In the end, I don’t believe we are talking about the same thing.

  • Pofarmer

    “By belief I attain a greater certainty of what cannot be known than the certainty I have of those things that can.”

    Teh crazy is strong here.

  • Pofarmer

    “but because the very essence of love is belief in the other, a participation that renders adultery unthinkable”

    I’m sorry, but that’s just crud, and pretty easily dispensed with by statistics and studies.

  • Pofarmer

    So, is the operating theory here that God is unknowable?

  • http://bigthink.com/blogs/daylight-atheism Adam Lee

    For instance, my father calls, and before he hangs up, he says “I love you.” I do not know this to be an objective fact. I do not observe it with the certainty I observe the tree, because the words “I love you,” are an outward expression of my father’s subjective, interior life — a life I cannot know. From my perspective, his kindness to me may have been born out of no more than duty, the pressures of his surrounding moral society, or the desire to raise a child in such a manner that he does not become an embarrassment. In short, the words “I love you” may not be true, and no objective knowledge can eradicate their uncertainty.

    It seems to me, Marc, that you’re contradicting yourself here. By your own argument, for your father to make himself known to you, provide definitive proof of his existence, and vouchsafe his love for you, does not remove the necessity of faith. So why doesn’t God do the same thing?

    • MrRoivas

      Because SHUUUSSSSSHHHH!!!! That’s why.

    • badcatholic

      Ah, I see. My point is not that I am lead to believe in the existence of my father through faith, my point is that I am lead to believe in the existence of his love for me through faith, love which is, by its nature, invisible. Now God IS love, and so the father comparison muddies the waters a bit, I think. As I know that the existence of my father’s love I know God.

      • Korou

        Faith is not just invisible. It is undetectable – invisible to any means of perception. If you believe because of faith then you are, in essence, choosing what to believe.

      • Figs

        But you’re just getting into a definition issue here. If I say that my father loves me, and that love equals unicorns, then through my father’s expression of love I can know unicorns. But that’s silly, and it doesn’t get at anything. Saying God is love doesn’t say anything about the creation of the universe, about Jesus and his birth and death and resurrection, etc.

  • Korou

    Marc speaks eloquently of love. He speaks beautifully. and he misses the whole point.

    It may well be that God is love. It may well be that loving God is the most sublime experience imaginable. Marc has certainly done a good job in describing that. So good a job, indeed, that one might overlook the fact that he has not resolved or even addressed, the main point of his post – why can’t we see God?
    Where is the evidence or reasoning to show that our seeing God would (contrary to all of our experience with other things and people we love, and contrary to every story in the Old Testament in which people met or talked to God) stop us from loving Him?

    “What a pitiful, boring world which elevates objective knowledge over belief! ” Marc says. Yes, Marc, sure. I’ll now believe that I have a million dollars in my bank account. I’m sure that will solve all of my financial problems.

  • Pofarmer

    Looks like maybe this thread is Dead?

    Here is the problem the Catholic Church has, it seems to me. I suppose Marc is a member of the “New Theology” of the church? The old church, you had the miracles, and the relics, and the Sacraments to “know” God. Especially the Sacraments. So now, the Church is taking on the “God is infinitely good”, “God is Love”, tack, rather than, or simultaneously with, the “Do all the Sacraments or God will damn you to hell” tack. It seems to me that they are now promoting separate theologies that are mutually contradictory. They are not going to exist easily in the same sphere. If all you need to do is “love” and “believe” then the sacraments have no place.

    • GorettiSD

      I think you misunderstand the meaning of the sacraments. A sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible reality, for example the water in Baptism is a sign of us being washed clean of original sin, and reception of the bread and wine is actually the reception of Christ. The sacraments are given to us as gifts, meant to allow us to draw closer to Him, to participate in His love, as Marc says, and be fortified in the sufferings and difficulties of this life. If you believe that through the sacraments, our Creator is pouring out His love and grace on you, why wouldn’t you receive the sacraments?

      You say “If all you need to do is love” as if loving is something easy. I would argue that it is not easy at all. In fact, one of Christopher Hitchens main arguments against Christianity was that it was literally impossible to love your neighbor as yourself. It is not easy to put another’s good before your own, it was not easy for Mother Teresa to serve and love the dying, it was not easy for Christ to be crucified. Love is difficult because it requires suffering, it costs us something. And if God is love and by receiving the Eucharist, you are literally receiving Love itself, than that would appear to be the most efficacious means of learning to love.

      There is no new Church and old Church, this is what has always been taught. “God is love” is a direct quote from John, an apostle of Jesus.

      • Pofarmer

        If all that were true, the Catholic Church wouldn’t use them as a cudgel to enforce compliance with doctrine.

        • GorettiSD

          It doesn’t use them as a cudgel, it just respects their infinite beauty and worth and understands that they shouldn’t be received if someone doesn’t actually believe in what they’re receiving. If I actively disagree with a doctrine of the Catholic Church, than I obviously don’t really believe that the Church was instituted by Jesus Christ and I thus couldn’t really believe that the sacraments, which are dispensed through the Church are valid. If I don’t believe than I shouldn’t receive them; it makes a mockery of the sacraments themselves and it would also be dishonest on my part.

          • Pofarmer

            Well, that’s what I mean, the sacraments are used to enforce doctrine and dogma, rather than as a good in themselves. You MUST believe X,Y,Z in the eyes of the church, or you are cutoff from all that love. So, see, if all that is required is that you believe, love, believe, then it renders the doctrine of the sacraments putting you in line with the church, and therefore in line with God, rather obsolete.

  • John Carpenter

    He has. First, there’s the incarnation. Then He even left a book. That’s pretty high-profile showing of Himself.

    • Pofarmer

      Yes, He, left a book, written over several hundred years by multiple authors.

  • John Carpenter

    God has revealed Himself. He came as a man and then left us a book. That’s high-profile disclosure!

  • tehsilentone

    My parents say “I love you”. They make appearance in my life and supply occasional encouragement and assistance. And despite detesting my atheism and disrespect for their christianity have so far not tried to burn me. My parents are more love than is your god. What loving Father would allow his children such pain when he could so easily stop it.

  • Micheal Planck

    “God hides himself so we will come to him in the right mode.”

    This is a sentence that can only be written by a person so steeped in privilege, so overwhelmed with the choices he can make in his own life, that he does not realize for many, many people there is only one mode: to somehow survive the famine, holocaust, illness, or natural disaster for one more day, perhaps even one more hour.

    Sorry, dude; I couldn’t make it past that sentence.

  • SecularPatriot

    What a pitiful, boring world which elevates objective knowledge over belief!

    A simple thought experiment. Choose the stronger statement between each pair:

    1) I believe that the area of a circle is pi times the radius squared.
    2) I have measured the area of many circles and to within the error of the instruments the area of a circle is pi times the radius squared.

    1) I believe Christopher Columbus voyaged to the “Indies” in 1492.
    2) I have read Christopher Columbus’s Spanish charter for his 1492 voyage. I have read Columbus’s reports and letters to the Queen of Spain regarding his initial voyage and prospects of the island of Hispaniola (originally Espanola) for colonization. I have seen the results of his voyage.

    1) I believe X.
    2) I have objective evidence for X.

    Belief is always inferior to objective evidence.

    Always. Every time.

    Belief should be informed by evidence, even changed through the addition of evidence. But it should never be held in higher regard.

  • thekpa

    If god show himself to us every thing will stop willingness. this is the only matter.

  • Akshay Pande

    I think, that in order to love God, we need to “know” that God exists even though his existence cannot be objectively verified.

  • Eduardo Velez

    God hides himself because he wants to see faith. If he showed himself, it’d become a fact that God is real, and it requires zero faith to believe a proven fact.

  • David En Renate Sorensen

    I made a website that shows without a shadow of a doubt that God is extremely real and He does show Himself all over the world. Have a look: http://www.godisreal.info/proof-god-exists/


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X