If God exists, why do so many people doubt?


Another point to be made here…

Suppose God is infinitely knowing and good, and the conceiver and creator of all, including human emotions.

Human emotions when properly ordered – since we are made in God’s image – reflect something of the nature of God.

The infinite nature of God taking on human nature in Christ and glorifying it means that God is not distant and uninvolved, it means that God is infinitely present in our being and intimately aware of everything that happens within and to us. It also means he could very well suffer infinitely every time we sin against his goodness. Why would God permit himself to suffer infinitely? Because God is infinite love.

In classical theism God is impassive. His goodness and his justice are not changed by suffering, even infinite suffering. That Jesus has glorified human nature in eternity also means his intimate involvement in human nature is one of covenant. He not only is one of us but he is each of us. He chooses to endure not only “extreme suffering” for us, but infinite suffering on our behalf when we betray him.

Perhaps Jesus’ suffering betrayal and treachery on earth is something of a representation of what God “experiences” in an analogical sense in eternity by our sinning.

Hell could very well be our experience of God’s suffering owing to our sins which we refuse to give up since we choose not to embrace infinite goodness and love but choose, instead, to embrace pettiness and selfishness. In other words we are too self-involved to pass through suffering but recoil from it owing to our attachment to sin. Thus we refrain from embracing the infinite goodness of God – and then complete the treachery by blaming him for our own indifference to his infinite goodness.

It is our indifference, then, to God’s infinite suffering on our behalf that comes back to us as the hell we bring down upon ourselves. That is, when we separate ourselves from God by sin and left to ourselves, the awareness of God’s infinite suffering on our behalf is intolerable hell, but united to him in love adds infinite perspective to that suffering making it not only tolerable but redemptive within life in God. Our union with God, then, makes all the difference in how we experience God’s infinite suffering – as a desolating hell or as part of our infinite, loving union with God, including his infinite suffering on our behalf.


This topic digressed rather quickly.

Sorry for not responding yesterday, I had (have) the flu and yesterday the symptoms were so bad I couldn’t think to do anything aside from sleep and try, in vain, to relieve the nasty cough. I’m feeling good enough today that I can read these replies!


We can’t see the stars anymore. If people could see the Heavens, they would believe in them.


NOT good enough!

I refuse to act as if there is no other way for God than to have created this fallen world. I don’t care if there was a Garden of Eden, HE created the tree, HE tempted our ancestors knowing full well what would happen (or else He’s as all-knowing as I am Polish), and HE hides himself every single day making us pay for a sin we did NOT commit.

Choose 2 of the 3:

  1. God is all Good
  2. God is all-powerful
  3. Evil exists

Or secret option 4:
There is no God



Pretty much says it all.


“I refuse” ~ God


God = Omnibenevolent, Omniscient, Omnipotent.

You = Not. So. Much.


I agree



Are you sufficiently rationally competent such that you could or would accept any such proof as proof?

Could YOU provide proof of that competence? I haven’t seen much of it on display to date.

Otherwise, I am not clear that my efforts would be worth it.

Radical, stubborn skepticism isn’t rational competence, by the way. It is indistinguishable from pig-headedness in the rational competence spectrum.


You’re right I haven’t provided proof.

There is no proof God exists or proof He doesn’t.

What can be affirmed as dogma WITHOUT evidence can be denied fully without evidence


Well, no actually. Merely because evidence on its own doesn’t serve as proof, does not mean there are no proofs.

You are confusing evidence with proof.

There are rational proofs of God’s existence. Those don’t rely on evidence as such. They rely on self-evident premises. If the premises are true, then the conclusion “God exists” follows logically, not evidentially.

The difficulty is that accepting the premises depends entirely upon the rational competency of the individual considering the proof.

The actual truth of the premises DOES NOT depend upon the rational capacity of the individual considering the proof, but the acceptance (or not) of the proof as proof DOES depend entirely upon the capacity of the individual to grasp the truth and logic of the proof.

The fact that a slug does not and cannot grasp general relativity theory does not serve to disprove the theory.

The fact that you seem unable to grasp the distinction between evidence and proof means your competency for assessing the validity of any proof for God’s existence isn’t as high as you suppose it to be.

On the justice of original sin

Again, the same old thing: that’s because God allows that to be true.

We’re arguing in circles, there’s only one thing we do know: God is not clearing things up, He’s allowing evil and doubt to run rampant on the world


So the question is, “Why?”

Your answer: ”God doesn’t care or he doesn’t exist."

My response: Both those are simplistic, unfounded and entail a series of bizarre implications.

Besides, you only WANT them to be true because you want to rationalize some questionable behaviour on your part. Hardly a good reason for accepting either conclusion.


Any explanation is possible. Since there’s no convincing proof, I’m as free as you are to believe what I want. For you: Catholicism, for me, agnosticism I guess


By definition.

If He’s not all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful… then He’s not God. :wink:

No, that’s not true. You’re free to believe what you want because God has given you free will. How you choose to utilize it is your decision (and, we believe, we’ll be responsible for the decisions we make).

See Newman’s discussion of the illative sense. The issue here isn’t the quality of the proof, per se, but of whether the listener assents to the claims – that is, whether he’s willing to say “I’m convinced.” That’s what’s in play here.

BTW… interesting tag line for your account, @Curious11:thinking:


Right. What about the greek Olympian Gods?


The greek Olympian gods were not God. They were basically just super-humans. Far more powerful than humans, but still limited in every way. They were corporeal beings living within the universe, alongside everything else. God, by definition, is infinite in every way. He is spirit, not corporeal, and he is outside everything, since he is the Creator of everything. The pagan gods were all creatures. God is not a creature; God is the Creator, he is being itself. The pagan gods and God cannot even be compared.


Proof? And circular logic is not proof


Proof that you have free will? Or proof that God gave it to you?

The fact that you’re here in this forum, expressing your opinions, is proof of free will. It’s self-evident.

It’s also self-evident in the fact that you’re free to disagree that it was God who gave you that free will. :wink:

(The proof, from a Christian perspective, is that God created everything out of nothing. Therefore, any feature of the universe (or feature of you) is, by definition, given of God.)


They can absolutely be compared because we don’t know if Jehovah is like the Greek gods. Defining a God as all-powerful and all-good does not automatically mean Jehovah has those attributes, nor that he created the universe

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.