The Hiddenness of God as Evidence for God

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

 

If God would give undeniable evidence for His existence, it would be a contradiction in terms of who He is. Why is that? The answer lies in free will and love.

The materialist often asked us for evidence for the existence of God. The request, and arguments rooted in a materialistic worldview. Thus, a request for scientific evidence. In materialism, it is often stated that scientific knowledge is the only true and reliable knowledge. The request would imply the evidence to be of a material and/or demonstrative nature e.g., verifiable, testable, repeatable evidence. However, this is a deeply flawed and serious category mistake. In this talk, I will address this form of evidence specifically though there are numerous other kinds of reliable evidence.

I will argue and demonstrate that free will and love are immaterial properties. And that free will and the freedom to choose to love imply that God exists, that is if the Judeo-Christian God does indeed exist. If He would reveal Himself fully as He is portrayed in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, the Bible, and it is true, one will be totally overwhelmed by who He is. So much so that we will not have the freedom to choose to love Him, and believe in Him. A contradiction in terms of who He is. God has to be hidden to allow the freedom to choose to love Him. Yet, He reveals enough of Himself to those who seek Him to be convinced of His existence, but He hides enough of Himself to those who do not want to be convinced, those who do not want God to exist. In the following talk, I will give my reasons and arguments as to why I say this.

What is love? Can it ever be forced? No, love per definition is free. Forced love is a contradiction in terms. If you are not free to choose to love, it can never be love. Right?

For the strict materialist free will is only an illusion (Sam Harris – ‘free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.’)1 and rightly so, because if we are but material, i.e., molecules in motion, electrochemical processes in and between cells – if nothing transcendent exists, and we are nothing more than material particles reacting to the laws of nature, free will is impossible. And love can only be an illusion. If everything that exists, can be examined and empirically proven given enough time and the necessary knowledge and nothing immaterial exists, free will and love can be not real. Physical objects behave by natural laws and inputs, and free will and love can only be an illusion.

Yet, we experience love as real. Love for a spouse, for a child, for parents? Can all of this be a mere illusion, an illusion so strong that we believe it, yet do not have it? Are we, and everyone ever born into this world, at all times, been deceived in believing that love is real? Can it be possible that we are being deceived by the material world that we live in and are part of?  Think carefully, do we not experience free will as real, and love as real? Or is our world a dishonest joke? The alternative is that there is more than the material world and love and free will is a reality and not a mere delusional product of the material brain.

Sam Harris writes1 that if he were to trade places with a particular individual, a criminal, atom for atom, he would be that criminal. There would be no extra part of him that could decide to see the world differently or to resist the impulse to victimise other people. ‘I cannot take credit for the fact that I do not have the soul of a psychopath’ if he was truly in the shoes of that criminal, that is, if he had the genes and life experience and an identical brain (or soul) in an identical state, as that criminal, he (and by implication ‘each of us’) would act exactly the same. I totally agree with Sam Harris if there is only a material world and nothing more.

But I put it to you that we have free will and can choose to love – more than our family and people important to us. We can also choose to love those who hate us, our enemies that might threaten our survival, and love them, with zero benefits to us, or to our own people. It is a choice, that we can take freely. There is nothing in this notion beneficial for the survival of the species, not to our particular people group, not even our personal selves. In fact, it might cost us dearly. But, we do have a choice, we are free to choose.

In the world of the strict materialist, there is no free will. The love of the mother for a child is not a free choice but a necessity for the survival of the species, even so amongst people. Free love does not exist as a reality, it is not a choice in the world of the materialist.

So, is the materialist trapped in the world of materialism? Yes, if there is no transcendent being, no God, he/she is trapped. And with this, all moral responsibility falls flat. One would lock up a criminal, not because he has done anything wrong – he had no choice, no free will after all – but to protect society against him. If there is no God, then morality and law lose their foundation and there is no objective good and evil. This was acknowledged by Nietzsche, Stirner, Ruse, Satre, Camus, Dostoyevsky and others.

This is not the reality that we experience in life nor what humans live out. It is not coherent with life, and we know it. We encounter free choices throughout our lives daily and, very importantly, we are responsible for our decisions. We experience love – free to even love our enemies, a decision that has nothing to do with the survival of the species but with profound transcendental significance.

Caught in this ‘box’ of materialism, caught in the ‘box’ where no transcendence exists, where no God exists, free will and love cannot exist or have any true meaning.

Free choices require that man is more than just a body, that there is more to reality than just the physical world. If more than the material world does exist, if transcendence, if God, does exist, free will and true love can exist. This would add one more argument to the collective evidence for God’s existence, in the larger palette of reasons to believe and one less reason not to believe.

So, we experience free will and true love as real. Materialism is incoherent and not in line with reality – lest you are willing to accept free will and love as deceitful illusions. Certainty is knowing that a truth aligns with reality.

We might ask then that if God exists, why is it not obvious to everyone? Afterall, the Judeo-Christian concept of God is that He is love. That He is the very essence of what love is. Love is not described as an attribute of God, but that love is what He is, the sole source of love. Why can’t we experience and see Him, why not definitive evidence for His existence, and we can know that He is a reality? Why His hiddenness?

Why do some people see God in everything and other do not see Him in anything? Blaise Pascal wrote “What can be seen on earth indicates neither the total absence, nor the manifest presence of divinity, but the presence of a hidden God. Everything bears this stamp.”

I’d like to put yo you two reasons for God’s hiddenness:

I. ‘If God had wished to overcome the obstinacy of the most hardened, He could have done so by revealing Himself to them plainly that they could not doubt the truth of His essence, … This is not the way He wished to appear when He came in mildness because so many men had shown themselves unworthy of His clemency, that He wished to deprive them of the good they did not desire. It was therefore not right that He should appear in a manner divine and absolutely capable of convincing all men, but neither was it right that His coming should be so hidden that He could not be recognised by those who sincerely sought Him. He wished to make Himself perfectly recognisable to them. Thus, wishing to appear only to those who seek Him with all of their hearts and hidden from those who shun Him with all of their hearts, He has qualified our knowledge of Him by giving signs which can be seen by those who seek Him and not by those who do not. There is enough light for those who desire only to see and enough darkness for those of a contrary disposition’ Pascal – Pensées

But Nietzsche (in Daybreak, 1881) finds the notion of a hidden God inconsistent with a God who holds us accountable for our unbelief. ‘A god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and does not even make sure that his creatures understand his intentions – could that be a god of goodness?’  But ‘Nietzsche’s objection labour under a false assumption: for God to be good and omnipotent, He must reveal Himself so clearly as to leave no doubt for all humans irrespective of their moral condition or attentiveness. But Pascal argues that God is available to those who seek Him and God has left enough clues to make the search warranted.’ – Douglas Groothuis2. He continues, ‘Pascal wants to kindle …. a passion to seek out God, for “it is well worth it”. But conditional epistemic access is involved in acquiring knowledge. Each kind of truth claim, or discipline requires appropriate skill for knowing. Certain qualities, (virtues), best suit a person for gaining knowledge are patience, tenacity, humility, studiousness, and honest truth seeking’.

Blaise Pascal, ‘He has willed to make Himself . . . appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart. He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not’.3

This allows for free will, the choice to seek, to love, to believe. God will not coerce us into loving Him.

II. Furthermore, if God would give us all the evidence, undeniable evidence for His existence, we will be left with no choice but to love Him. And it will not be love, as we will have no choice. Contrary as to what love is. God created us to love Him – but also gave us a free will to choose to love Him. That is what He wants, that is what love is.

If the Judeo-Christian God exists and would fully reveal Himself, as expressed in the Bible, mortal man will have no choice but to love Him.

God reveals enough of Himself in the Word of Scripture (Bible), and the Word of Nature (science), and on a personal level, to know that He exists and that we can live in a relationship with Him based on trust. And we can experience more evidence of His existense by seeing His action in our lives and developing a deeper trust daily.  Yet, He hides enough of Himself for us not to be overwhelmed by the fullness of His being. He leaves us with the choice daily to love Him and trust Him, or not. To seek Him or flee from Him.

If the Judeo-Christian God exists and what is written about Him is true, then,

  1. We would be so overwhelmed by His goodness, overwhelmed by His love and presence, more than we can ever imagine, or ever encounter in our experiences in human relationships, we would experience peace beyond imagination, and contentment that only a fool would walk away from it. The majority of Christians that live in a relationship with God experience this but not all of it all the time.
  2. We would realize and understand the purpose of the universe, the purpose of our existence. And not to choose Him would make no sense.
  3. We will believe the Scriptures, the Bible, and know that it is true. That we are sinful, that God is holy and righteous, the perfect righteous Judge that will punish every sin we ever committed lest in His love our sin is covered by Christ on the Cross, and we will be taken up into His presence. And if not, if we choose not to love Him, He will respect our free choice, and we will experience what our guilt earned,  now and with eternal torment (i.e., guilt, regret, experiencing nothing of the goodness of God; no beauty, friendship, love, light, warmth, or anything that is good). Only a fool would choose the latter – nobody in their right mind.

To grasp and realize this to its full extent, without a shred of the slightest doubt, and to experience the abundance of who God is in His grandeur, will leave us with no choice and love will be not free and thereby cannot be love.

‘I see as a trait of God that He always gives us plausible deniability. Every time He makes Himself known, He also says, ‘If you don’t want to believe in Me, you don’t have to. It’s your choice. If you don’t want to think this is the handout I’m showing you, you don’t have to. But if you’re willing to accept that it’s Me, we’re going to have a great time together.’ Guy J. Consolmagno, SJ – an American research astronomer, physicist, and director of the Vatican Observatory.

Without undeniable conclusive evidence for His existence, He leaves it open to us to believe Him or not believe Him – He would not bully us, coerce us nor force us. He desires true love, a completely free choice.

The ‘hiddenness’ of God and the lack of ‘final evidence’ for His existence are enveloped in the reality of the existence of the transcendent, of the reality of love and free will, and these cannot be separated. It makes sense that He will not give us final and definitive evidence for His existence. He wants us to freely choose Him. A passion to seek and find Him. If we are merely physical, material stuff, then there is no god, no free will, no love, no objective morality, and very little sense in this world. Love and free will just an illusion.

People will forever argue for and against God’s existence depending on what their hearts’ desire is. The final conclusion will forever escape the minds of the materialist because of free will and love.

If God would give undeniable evidence for His existence, it would be a contradiction in terms. He is love and created us for love. Love is free and definitive undeniable evidence for His existence would remove our free will to choose to love Him. Not being able to choose to love Him contradicts who He is.

My own experience when I was seeking God and found Him in February 2000, whilst praying for an atheist friend:

Typically, Christians report, and I experienced this, though reading this many years after the experience:

  1. A new moral awareness concerning good and evil in themselves and others – Hebrews 5: 11-14
  2. A sense of guidance and calling received primarily from the wisdom of the Bible – II Timothy 3: 15-17 as well as through Christian fellowship Psalm 133
  3. Personal moral progress (adhering to moral principles and developing personal virtues through the agency of the Holy Spirit)
  4. A deep sense of belonging to God through the work of Jesus Christ – Romans 8: 14 – 16

The atheist wants the god to be material-like, like the ancient Israelites and other ancient civilizations that made physical idols, gods. This had been natural to the human race throughout the ages and still is. Our idols are now mostly one of three material entities, if not all three; money, power (over fellow humans), and sex.

Scientists cannot even try to prove or disprove God’s existence because they know there is not an experiment that can ever detect God. You cannot use material means to prove the immaterial. How do you prove the existence of mathematics which is also a nonphysical entity, something that you cannot hold in your hand, or demonstrate under a microscope? You can claim the existence of mathematics, invent mathematical language to describe it to make it useful, and present evidence to prove that mathematics is true and exists. The essence of mathematics has always existed since the Big Bang. The cosmos is based on mathematics! We as humans can only discover it, invent a language to make it useful,  and find ways to describe it – with a rational brain. You can neither demonstrate mathematics physically nor see the reality of mathematics, or the rationality of the brain in a laboratory – only the effects of it. It is a serious category mistake to try and prove the immaterial by material means.

The atheist always asks for evidence. Physical, verifiable testable, repeatable, evidence for the existence of God.  This is a deeply flawed and serious category mistake. God is immaterial. And to cling to demand for this type of evidence is just an excuse not to face reality and to avoid the truth.

I find that atheists very often focus on the next possible objection in the arguments for the existence of God and they do not seriously think about and consider the arguments that have been put to them and miss so much of the strong evidence, the collective arguments, for the existence of God.

If the knowledge of God is available to everyone (Romans 1:18-21) and if the case for Christianity is strong for those who want to investigate, then everyone is accountable for what they know and could know about God. Much of atheism is understood as misotheism: the hatred of God that they know is there, often from previous painful experiences. Atheists, like Freud, assume there is no God and then wreck their brains to explain why so many believe this egregious, glaring, falsehood.2

The atheist or sceptic, having been exposed to general revelation sufficient to know there is a God, develops a false belief that God does not exist, since if God existed, one would need to humble oneself, be thankful, and worship God. Pride forbids this, and pride (or autonomy) is the essence of all sin4 As Pascal wrote, ‘Men despise religion and hope that it is not true’. In one sense, Christianity is the easiest of all religions. You believe the gospel and are redeemed. It is all of grace. In another sense, it is the hardest of all religions because you must repent of any self-righteousness and humble yourself before the cross.5

If God is there, one should be humbled, and worship Him. But resisting this requires self-deception. Suppressing of the truth is intentional by not considering the cumulative truth of the existence of God seriously, yet seriously pursuing every possible counterargument to find reasons not to believe, which God will allow as you turn your back on Him. It is a free choice.

Often it is we that are hiding from God and not God hiding from us

 

Summary

Free will is inconsistent with materialism.

Free will is a necessity for the existence of love – love is inconsistent with materialism.

Free will and love are consistent with reality. And consistent with immaterial transcendence. Consistent with the existence of God – not proof of God but consistent with His existence.

If God is love and exists, why does God not show Himself clearly?

  1. God gives enough evidence of His existence for those who seek Him but does not reveal enough of Himself to those who do not want to know Him. Only one version of each of the cosmological, design, moral, religious experience, and ontological arguments need to be sound as a convincing item of knowledge that theism is true. On the side of historical argument, the reliability of the new testament manuscripts and the resurrection of Jesus, by itself, is good reason to believe that there is a God and that Jesus is who the New Testament claims He is. The atheist will constantly attempt to poke holes into each of these arguments but none can be finally overturned nor act as final evidence for God. But there is enough evidence for His existence and enough counter arguments to doubt. And that is exactly where God leaves up to the individual to freely choose.
  2. Should He reveal Himself fully, one would be so overwhelmed by who He is that one will have no choice but to love Him. But love equals free choice. Thus, God puts us in a position to choose freely, and truly love Him and not for man to be overwhelmed and leave us with no choice. If we would have no choice, there can be no love and no loving God.

God leaves us with enough doubt and enough confirmation to freely choose to love Him.

It would be a contradiction if God is love and gives us so much evidence not to question in any sense His existence and thereby no choice but to love Him.

Therefore, any final and definitive evidence for God by whatever means would be a contradiction in terms of who God is. Furthermore, to ‘demand’ physical evidence to prove God’s existence is a category mistake as pointed out and a mere excuse for the materialist to hide behind and be under the illusion to think he has got God in check mate.

The Hiddenness of God points to the Evidence for God.

God can be found by everyone who sincerely wants to find Him.

 

  1. Free Will. Sam Harris. Free Press 2012
  2. Christian Apologetics Douglas Groothuis InterVarsity Press
  3. Blaise Pascal Pensee 430
  4. James Spiegel The Making of an Atheist. Moody Press 2010
  5. Francis Schaeffer The God Who is There. InterVarsity Press 2020
Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram

Time To Think 9. Christianity, World Religions, and Atheism.

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

 

There are three possibilities for the truth of our existence:

I. No God – Atheism; religion is irrational with no truth in its substance and built on deceptive foundations. We are matter.

II. There is a God, and we are more than mere matter:  A. All religions are true with different pathways to God and/or salvation or B. Only one religion is true and there is only one pathway to God and salvation.

Religion is a complex human phenomenon and difficult to define. Definitions of religion tend to suffer from one of two problems: they are either too narrow and exclude many belief systems which most agree are religious, or they are too vague and ambiguous, suggesting that just about anything and everything is a religion. Yet religion as a concept of ‘something outside and greater’ than man is deeply embedded in human nature and present throughout the world where humans dwell and present in the earliest history of homo sapiens. Religion stems from a mysterious longing and deep desperate striving for the transcendent as people do not understand their own condition well. He is aware of his imperfections and has a deep-rooted disposition to understand this imperfection he is so conscious of. It is in his nature to look for purpose and meaning in everything, even so, in his own imperfect existence. Man has an awareness, even so in his subconscious mind, of a greatest conceivable being, of perfection, and has a longing for a ‘better world’ – a better ‘this world’ or a better world ‘hereafter’.

Huston Smith describes religion as ‘the deepest human awareness, which is that of a hierarchical universe, and the goal is the absorption of the self into the infinite oneness.’ Not dissimilar to seeing beauty and long to be absorbed in it. Feuerbach influenced Marx and Freud, states that ‘religion is man’s projection; we construct claims about God and then project them. We look upon these projections and see them as objective realities.’  Freud: ‘religious ideas are not the result of experience or thought; they are illusions, fulfillments of deep, early desires.’

Alvin Plantinga’s Modal Version of the Ontological Argument is as follows: 1. To say that there is possibly a God is to say that there is a possible world in which God exists. 2. To say that God necessarily exists is to say that God exists in every possible world. 3. God is necessarily perfect (i.e. maximally excellent) 4. Since God is necessarily perfect, He is perfect in every possible world. 5. If God is perfect in every possible world, He must exist in every possible world, therefore God exists. 6. God is also maximally great. To be maximally great is to be perfect in every possible world. 7. Therefore: “it is possible that there is a God,” means that there is a ‘possible’ which contains God, that God is maximally great, and the God exists in every possible world and is consequently necessary. 8. God’s existence is at least possible. 9. Therefore:  as per item seven, God exists.

On a doctrinal level, the various world religions are very, very different, fundamentally different. So different that they cannot all be true. All religions have underlying ethical similarities. They all are seeking the truth and therefore all will have significant elements of truth in their teachings. Superficially the different religions might seem the same in many ways, but at the core of each, Christianity differs the most radical from all other religions.

Most world religions teach that one will be accepted by God if you are good enough.  For the atheist, there can be no objective right and wrong and hence this concept is irrelevant. (see Morality and Relativism) Though it is very hard to know when and what is ‘good enough’ if there is a God, e.g., in Muslimism: at the end of your life Allah will decide if your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds. Or one reaches ‘salvation’ if he is ‘good enough’ – Hinduism and Buddhism which are purely about irrational religious experiences.

The different world religious views about God are very different: Christianity teaches the Trinity; before creation, God was one-in-three persons in perfect union. Muhammad taught that there is only one God, but that God is not a Trinity and cannot have a son. Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita (Hindu scripture) believed in a combination of polytheism (there are many gods) and pantheism (all is god). Confucius believed in many gods. Zoroaster taught that there is both a good god and a bad god. Buddha taught that the concept of God was essentially irrelevant.

Views on being saved, to be reconciled with God, or with reality differ significantly. Irrelevant to the atheist. Islam teaches that one becomes saved through submission to Allah, but that salvation can never be an absolute certainty except when dying in jihad.  Your good deeds have to outweigh your bad deeds. Hindus teach that salvation is rooted in reincarnation and karma. In Buddhism, it is in reaching a state of enlightenment. Christianity teaches that one is saved by faith, by trust in Christ alone. That He died as the perfect and complete sacrifice for our sins. Salvation is an absolute certainty if Christ’s atonement is accepted.

It is impossible to factually test Hinduism, Buddhism, or Mormonism (the experiences of Joseph Smith) as objectively true. It is all about subjective experiences.

Buddhism is an atheistic religion; God is without substance and reality is denied. For Buddhism ultimate reality is monistic. i.e., denying the existence of a distinction between matter and mind, or God and the world, all is seen as one reality, yet the reality is denied in Buddhism. One cannot question or rationally think about Buddhism, one can only experience it. The truth of Buddhism teachings rests solely on experience, on psychological factors. It is works orientated in terms of the enlightenment (salvation) to reach a state of nirvana, that is a state of desirelessness and passionlessness. Enlightenment is an experience. Reason plays no role.  If you can’t reach nirvana in this life, you can try again by incarnation. To finally reach enlightenment is to escape this cycle, … into nothingness.

Islam claimed to be objectively true but there are serious inconsistencies and incoherencies in the Quran as well as in the Hadith though should not be criticized. https://www.quora.com/Are-Muslims-allowed-to-criticise-the-Quran ‘To criticize the Quran is to show disrespect to the books of Allah and is seen as apostasy. Whoever does this has expelled himself from Islam. It is apostasy to doubt the Quran or to disagree with it, or to not believe in it, even if it is only a single verse.’

All the world’s religions seek to take bad men and make them better by ethics. Christianity, by contrast, seeks to take dead men and make them alive. More specifically, Christianity seeks to take people who are spiritually dead (separated from God because of sin) and make them spiritually alive so they can enjoy a personal relationship with the God who created them. Thus, much more about a relationship than about religion.

This is what makes Christianity unique.

Religious experience alone is never sufficient to demonstrate the truth of a religion. Christianity is the only religion where religious experiences are important, but the factual claims of Christianity can be tested… objectively. And everything depends on the resurrection. If the resurrection of Christ is false, Christianity is false. Christianity is evidential and testable, historically, and experientially. If it is wrong, then you can move on. (with Buddhism or Hinduism, though, you must be in for a long haul of experiences, the attempts to reach salvation and hopefully experience the escape from the endless cycle of life) Grace is unique to Christianity. Others offer hard ways to earn salvation. The best that Buddhists or Christian Scientists can do is to deny evil as an illusion. Yet, we face it every day. Or the atheist who has no explanation for evil, just a brute fact of life. Christians can confront evil, and they have an ultimate solution. Jesus Christ. Time to Think 4. Evil, Pain & Suffering.

Is atheism true? Can it be true that there is no God? You decide as you consider Alwin Plantinga’s Ontological Argument, consider I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, and my series of arguments: Time to Think – about the existence of God. (YouTube and Blog). Buddhism, Hinduism, and other Eastern Religions are not rational but based on subjective experiences. Muslimism is in part rational, e.g., the existence of a Creator, but the origin of this religion, the ethics as taught in the Koran as well as the reliability of ancient scripts raise serious questions yet are not allowed to be criticized.

It should be clear that all religions might superficially be the same in some minor ways but fundamentally very different. So different, so contradictive, that only one can be true.

Christianity is open to scrutiny on every level and can rationality be defended. Most importantly The Facts About the Resurrection of Christ on which Christianity stands or falls.

Is atheism open to scrutiny? Not really, because atheists rarely make positive statements about the non-existence of God, and neither ever present good arguments that God does not exist. They only try to refute the arguments for God’s existence or argue that He is not necessary to explain the universe but seldom present any positive arguments that He does not exist or present answers for why is there something rather nothing, what caused the universe, how and why the extreme fine-tuning of the universe for life, the integrated informational complexity of DNA (digital coding) that points to a Mind, what is evil, and the explanation for objective morality?  Except often explanations that are pure speculative theories e.g., the multiverse (for the fine-tuning) or the oscillating universe theory or cyclical universe proposes that the universe expands and contracts indefinitely (for the cause of the universe.)

Only Christianity as the truth of our existence, can be experienced, can rationally be defended, and is factually testable.

My personal experience: ‘The radical change that took place in my heart was not from a rational decision but in response to an overwhelming Love that became rational’

Which truth about our existence is more plausible? Atheism, Christianity, or one or all of the known world religions? You decide.

Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram

When one’s last day on earth is over, personal ultimate purpose of life will get its full meaning.

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

For the Christian, the last day will be a personal fulfillment of a life lived. A reflection spanning his and her entire life. Every act, every thought important. The meaning and purpose, the significance of his and her life, of every deed, will usher him/her into the new future. Through grace into an intimate closeness to his and her eternal Creator, to the God who is love.

For the atheist, should atheism be true, it will be a day when everything comes to an end, a day when everything that has had temporal meaning in his or her life, will dramatically, abruptly, permanently, and totally lose all personal meaning. An end in nothingness ‘entering’ a state of non-existence, of non-consciousness. From pre-conception nothingness to post-death nothingness. A life lived but with the total annihilation of  any ultimate personal meaning on the day of death. The absurdity of a life without God. 

Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram