Pints With Aquinas - 120: If God exists why isn't his existence more obvious? With Blake Giunta

Episode Date: August 21, 2018

SPONSORS EL Investments: https://www.elinvestments.net/pints Exodus 90: https://exodus90.com/mattfradd/  Hallow: http://hallow.app/mattfradd  STRIVE: https://www.strive21.com/  GIVING Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show. LINKS Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/ Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/ SOCIAL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd MY BOOKS  Does God Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Socratic-Dialogue-ebook/dp/B081ZGYJW3/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586377974&sr=8-9 Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecration-Aquinas-Growing-Closer-ebook/dp/B083XRQMTF/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586379026&sr=8-4 The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myth-P1985.aspx CONTACT Book me to speak: https://www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequestform

Welcome to Pints with Aquinas. I'm Matt Fradd. Today we're joined around the bar table by evangelical Protestant Blake Junter to discuss the problem of God's hiddenness. Because God's existence isn't more plain, isn't that a good argument for atheism? That's what we'll be discussing. hello dude it is so great to make contact with you hey man likewise yeah i uh i've been uh i heard your show on unbelievable and uh then i started looking you up and listening to some of your debates. And I just really admire you and the way you're able to explain the faith and defend it. Oh, man, thanks so much. Yeah, I've been listening to a few of your episodes as well,

actually. So the feeling is mutual. Terrific. Well, this is the first time we've ever chatted. And I'm sure a lot of our listeners at Pints with Aquinas may not have heard of you. so please introduce yourself and the work that you're involved in. Yeah, okay, so my name is Blake Junta. I am married, 33, living in Dallas, Texas, and I work in Christian apologetics, so that means, as I'm sure listeners know, I'm very interested in making the case for God and then the case for Jesus Christ and setting people up to be able to accept the gospel that they might not have otherwise been able to accept. And so occasionally that means I'll do some speaking. I've done a few debates, but mostly I try to build out a website resource to help equip other Christians online to give an answer.

Right. I'm actually 34, so I'm like just about the same age and I'm also married. Yeah. Do you have any kids? No, no kids yet. Yeah, cool. We got four. Yeah, we're Catholic, right?

No goalies. So, but we've also been married since 2006. Yeah, man, that's cool. Tell us about Belief Map, your website. It's sort of my dream. It's my baby, and I'll be working on it for the rest of my life, I'm sure. Wow. But basically, a lot of times when we enter into these conversations, we're not quite sure how to go about doing it. So if I'm talking about God, what are the arguments for? What are the arguments against? And if I start the argument this way, what happens?

What comes next? against. And if I start the argument this way, what happens? What comes next? And basically, I've created beliefmap.org as a way to help people navigate those conversations. It's absolutely incredible. It's amazing. What I love about it, it is so intuitive. I feel like back in the day when people were creating websites, like, how do I create the most spectacular looking website and things flashing? And it's like, no, we just want functionality. You know, like you think of Amazon, it's just very functional. And that's what I love about your website. It's just so intuitive. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so actually, I'm kind of curious, how would you describe belief map? How would you describe how it works? And then I'll throw in.

how it works, and then I'll throw in how I describe it. Very, very cool. Well, I guess I would say that it, like, I like to think of, like, Christian apologetics as a different storied mansion, right? So, maybe the first level is theistic apologetics, the second would be Christian apologetics, and as a Catholic, I guess I would say the third, for me, from my vantage point, would be Catholic apologetics. And so, as an apologist, an evangelist, there's no point shouting out the third story window, that's Catholic apologetics, to say someone on the lawn, that would be an atheist, hasn't even entered the mansion, about transubstantiation, right? That would be very, it'd be like explaining advanced algebra to someone who denies basic arithmetic. So, what i'd want to do is come down out of the mansion and bring him into the first level

and if he's accepted the existence of god and then he can go on to the next level and to me that's kind of what yours is sort of like it begins with like does god exist and then here's all the arguments for and then here's the rebuttals that atheists give you and what i love about your website is that the rebuttals aren't straw men. They actually come from academic sources. Like here's the best arguments against the pro arguments for the Kalam argument or the cosmological or some, some cosmological argument. And so you just kind of, it's almost like a, it's like a pre-packaged debate from the best scholars who've thought about these things. Yeah, I love it. Perfect. the best scholars who've thought about these things.

Yeah, I love it. Perfect. So, yeah, you captured the, I would break it up into two components, and the first is the mentioned thing you were just talking about. So, at the end of the day, I want to get people to the gospel, and there's a lot of these side debates that Christians can get into that are just distractions. So, for example, I think that biblical inerrancy is a distraction. It's an in-house debate that should be thought about and discussed, but if you're talking to someone who isn't even a Christian yet, get them to the gospel first. So, I've set it up as, if you go to beliefmap.org, this is what you're going to see. You're going to see two panes. You're going to see a pane on the left and a pane on the right, and on the left is the navigation pane. And you're going to see that you can click on a drop-down tree.

And so every time you click, it'll open up and open up and expand. And the top-tiered discussions are different discussions. They're your different mansion questions. So the top one is, does God exist? And then, is Jesus a real historical figure? And finally, did God raise Jesus from the dead? Those are basically the three big debates. And if you can get someone to believe in God's existence and the resurrection ultimately... Pete Then all of a sudden, it's a lot more palatable,

right? Scriptural inerrancy for example isn't so fast you know far-fetched at that you got it yeah that's wonderful dude yeah you're right at the doorstep of the gospel so congratulations for investing so much time and energy into this i i think i've got like a mad case of add where i get super excited about some possibilities and then leave them for other things, which is not a great trait, but it seems like you're just hyper-focused on this one thing and are therefore able to make a real impact. So, good for you for doing that. Yeah. And just to get that second part out real quick, when you dive into, say, God's existence, you're going to find it's a discussion between green and red. And so, when you click on,

say, God exists, you're going to see right below all the directions the conversation could go. The evidence is for God. The evidence is against. And it doesn't stop there. It keeps diving down. And so you're covered the whole way. So that's what I work on. It's my passion.

Yeah. Hey, I just wrote a book on Aquinas' five ways. It's a Socratic dialogue between an atheist and Christian who meet in a coffee shop. So it's in a similar vein, right? Yeah, yeah. Of like this sort of dialectic. So, I'd love to send you a copy if you want one. Oh, I would love that.

Yeah, it would have been awkward if you were like, nah. Well, hey, wonderful stuff. Hey, I got a question for you. Before we delve into today's topic about the hiddenness of God, like the fact is like whatever view you adopt, there's always going to be, I wonder what you think about this, someone out there on the internet who disagrees with you and has a pretty good reason for why you're wrong, at least when it comes to these philosophical discussions. How does a Christian in the internet age take God off the drawing board, as it were,

the blackboard, and just decide to believe in God. You know, because back in the day before the internet, if I decided God exists because I had a profound experience at a prayer meeting or something, that was it. And then I bumped into an atheist occasionally, and maybe I had answers to him, maybe I didn't. But we are inundated with so much information contrary to our position, whether we're an atheist or a Christian. Like, if I was an atheist, I wouldn't like Dr. William Lane Craig, for example, because he'd make me question some of my beliefs. And it would bother me that some of the most intellectual people in the world, you know, were Christians, such as yourself. How does one in the internet age decide perhaps to, I don't know, take a step away from analysis, paralysis, or that which is causing it?

I think you get the heart of the question. Yeah. If I understand you correctly, you're basically saying, man, there's so much information on the internet and this debate seems to go so deep, deeper than I'd ever be able to go into. So, how can I ever feel comfortable resting on a decision when I know that it keeps getting deeper? Is that kind of similar? What you just did there was extremely Thomas Aquinas, right? It's like, let me take what you're saying and make it crystal clear. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Thank you. Okay, awesome. Yeah, I think, you know, you've got to make decisions throughout your life about what's important to investigate. And I think that, you know, the one thing that you and I can do as Christians is help others who don't necessarily feel like they're up to that task.

We can help guide them. But I think it is something that we should engage in regardless of how difficult it is. These are really big issues, and we do have time in our life. And if we recognize it as something that's valuable, which it incredibly is, then it's some time worth investing. And that's actually part of the reason why I do make belief map is because I want to give people the chance to drill down very quickly and see what is at the end of the rainbow? What does it look like if you map out everything academically, the academic stuff? Where does it end? What does it look like? And I want people to see that quickly. So, yeah.

What's been your response from atheists who've seen the work that you've done? Do they think that, well, you haven't actually put forth the best of the atheist arguments, or do they not even go there, or what? That's, I mean, that's one thing that they don't say. So, I guess one thing that Belief Map has gotten a lot of compliments on is being clean, easy to navigate, lot of compliments on is being clean, easy to navigate, and does a responsible job of representing their position. Now, of course, it doesn't convince everybody, but I think it does do a good job of making the atheist think, hey, I would go here to see the best representation of my own arguments. It helps me and it adds clarity. Yeah. Well, today we want to talk about God's hiddenness, an argument for atheism from God's hiddenness. I don't know how much you've read Aquinas. Have you read a lot of him? No, I haven't. Very little, actually. So, I'm looking forward to hearing a little bit about it.

Here's a thought that I like. Sometimes you'll find atheists online, they'll say, look, Aquinas was under the thumb of the church. He was a medieval scholastic. His philosophy ought not to be taken seriously, which is just the genetic fallacy anyway, so it's not a great way to argue against him. But there are three really strong reasons to not believe that idea. The first is that he was trying to reconcile Aristotle with the Christian faith,

and Aristotle's works had been banned from the University of Paris on several occasions, and yet he consistently taught Aristotle. The second reason is that he denied the ontological argument, which is, you know, perhaps up until that time, the foremost argument for the existence of God in the Christian tradition, at least. And then finally, he denies the Calam argument,

that his colleague Bonaventure, at the same time, he was a Franciscan. He's also considered a doctor of the Catholic Church. So, you know, someone to be taken real seriously. But Aquinas thinks it's rubbish. He doesn't think you can prove philosophically the world had a beginning. Now, whatever you think of that, the fact is, he's clearly not somebody who's just willing to accept arguments of the existence of God because they suit his position, you know? Yeah. Yeah.

So he denies the ontological argument, but in the, in the first part of the Summa Theologiae, when he talks about this idea that God's existence is self-evident in a way, and he, he denies this, but I just want to read this first objection in this, in this question too,

because it starts to get to what we're talking about today. He says this, to know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature in as much as God is man's beatitude, for man naturally desires happiness, and what is naturally desired by man must be naturally known to him. This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists. Just as to know that someone is approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter who is approaching. For many there are who imagine that man's perfect good, which is happiness, consists in riches and other pleasures and others in something else. So, the point is,

like, so Aquinas doesn't think that God's existence is so plain that to deny it would be irrational. I'm not sure what you think about that, but I want to hear it. I agree. Okay. Yeah, you go. No, I agree. That's good. Right.

So, I think we look around the world and maybe we think there are good reasons to think God exists, but it doesn't seem so plain that to reject it would make you a complete idiot. So, that's clear, I think. We agree on that. So, then there are atheists, right? We could say there are anti-theists, right? Those who not only don't believe in God, but wouldn't want God to exist. But then, it's undeniable, I think, that there are atheists who hope God exists. They're like, sounds awesome, man. If that's true, I want to know it, and I want a relationship with Him. So, this leads us into John Schellenberg. Did I get that right? Did I pronounce that right? Yeah, his argument against God's existence. Right. The idea is, here's kind of the intuitive way of thinking about it. If God is all-loving,

God is going to make sure that everyone has everything that they need to be able to enter into a relationship with him just by trying. And if God hasn't ensured that, if God hasn't given everybody everything that they need that he's able to give them, then he can't be all loving. He isn't putting in that full effort. And so, it wouldn't be God. Right. It wouldn't be God. Exactly. So, there you go. So, the argument is there are some people who want a relationship with God, have tried, but haven't been able to. And therefore, God doesn't exist. That's the argument. Yeah, yeah. And so, right. The idea is God would give them everything that they need, but look around, some people are in this situation where they don't have

something they really need in order to be in a relationship with God. They don't have belief in God. So, that's kind of how he moves his argument. I mean, I would disagree with that formalization. I would go after premise too, because I happen to know that when he says that God is, it will always be open to relationship, Schellenberg's kind of tricky with his terminology. You have to dive into his book to see how he defines his terms because it's sometimes counterintuitive. Well, why don't you, just for the sake of restating this for those who are on the treadmill now and missed the last, you know, two minutes of what we've just been saying, why don't you state this argument as convincingly as possible, as convincingly as you know how, and then we'll look at it. Okay. So, here's how I would, if I was going to put it down into

premises, I would do this. I would say, if God exists, a greatest possible being, then God is all good. Okay, that's premise one. Premise two, if God is all good, then God is perfectly loving. Premise three, so if God exists, then God is perfectly loving. That falls from the first two. And then premise four, but a perfectly loving God would ensure that everyone is always able to be in a relationship with God just by trying. And then premise five, and that ability requires belief that God exists. and then premise five, and that ability requires belief that God exists. Six, so if God exists, God would ensure that all believe. Seven, so if God exists,

all persons believe God exists. Eight, but not everyone believes that. And then you just follow it through. So nine, so no God has ensured that everyone believes it. So no God has ensured everyone is able to be in such a relationship just by trying. So no perfectly loving God exists. So no, all good God exists. So no, God exists. Okay. So is the idea that belief is a prerequisite to relationship? You got it. That's it. That's the key. Right. So the argument is, and everyone would be in a relationship with God if a loving God exists, the argument is, well, in order to be in a relationship, I need to know how to believe in Him. And if I've tried and I can't believe in Him, then that shows that God is not loving because He hasn't given me everything I need in order to believe in Him. Well, he does want to say that everyone would have belief.

And the reason why everyone would have belief is because that is a prerequisite of them having what they need to enter into a relationship. Yeah, that's what I'm getting at too. Okay. Okay, good. Yeah. Yeah. So, for example, we think of the Exodus. Like, God's evidence was a lot plainer when He spread the Red Sea apart. And perhaps you could say it was also very plain that Christ was either God or a prophet when He was healing people and walking on the water. So, these people had more reasons to believe. But, you know, we don't even have that. But yet, in those times, there were people who still grumbled against God and chose to be disobedient. And then there were those who witnessed the miracles of Christ and chose not to be obedient. So, we still have

unbelief, even in the evidence of... We still have... Sorry, I'm thinking this through. Well, think of the angels, right, before they fell. They knew that God existed. So, they had the prerequisite to, you might want to say, saving faith or belief or obedience or relationship, and yet they rejected it. You got it. And that's a key challenge with this argument that many have picked up on, is that the underlying premise is that God being all loving wants relationship. And that's why he would ensure that everyone comes to believe. But God would know that there are some persons who, even if they were brought to belief in theism, would just reject God. And if that's the situation they would be in,

then clearly God has no good reason to ensure that they come to belief. They just wouldn't accept that relationship. So, that's kind of one of the first ways to attack this sort of argument. Okay. So, before we move on to that, so I think we've all kind of fully understood the argument or understood it to a good degree. I just want people to feel the force of the argument. It's not like the problem of evil. I don't like when we're too glib about it. I want people to feel how compelling it can be and then start responding to it. So, would you say that this argument, like the argument from evil, would you say that the burden of proof is on the atheist to make the case? Like, he can't just ask a question. He can't just say, well, why is there evil? He has to make an argument. That's exactly right. Would you say something similar here, huh?

Yeah, and that's important to remember when you get in a conversation with someone. It's so easy, you know, when encountering the problem of evil or the problem of hiddenness here, to let them ask you the question, and then you're like fumbling around trying to provide a plausible explanation as if when you fail, if you do fail, that you've lost. And that's just the wrong way to do it. You need to train yourself to understand, hey, this person is making some assumptions. They're assuming things like there's no greater good for this suffering that we're looking at, and we need to train ourselves to be able to –. We should be sitting in the hammock asking them the hard questions because it's their argument, and they need to defend their premises. I love that. It's a great way to put it. Sitting in the hammock, drinking tequila. That's right.

So, just like with the problem of evil, like, you know, at least the way Plantinga and others would tackle it, they would just say, well, look, here's one plausible reason why God might allow evil, and if that's all you can give, then you're done. It kind of destroys the argument, doesn't it? Yeah, and you don't even have to go that far. You can just ask him to defend some of his premise. You can say, here's how Plantinga famously attacked, you know, the argument from evil is he said, you're making a no-see-um inference. You're saying that if there were a reason here, a justifying reason, then we would see it. And that means you can

come back and ask him a question. Well, why think that you'd see it it if you walk into a room um with a bunch of chess players right and you know one of them is a grandmaster and so you walk over to one of the boards you look down and you see a player uh make a move and you just rack your brain you cannot understand the purpose behind that move it doesn't make sense to you um you would have made a no cm inference and it probably wouldn't be a good one because, and here's the part you need to remember, if there were a reason, there's a good chance you wouldn't be able to see it. And the atheist needs to be able to demonstrate that this no-see-um inference is a kind of inference where when we don't see a reason for why God permits suffering

in the case of the problem of evil, he needs to show that we would be able to see those reasons if they were there. And that's a hard burden for him to satisfy. Right. So, like, in this room right now, I am in an epistemological position to know whether or not a full-grown lion is in the room with me. But I'm not really in a position to say that there are no, I don't know, fleas or something else or, you know, a certain amount of bacteria here or there. It's just not the position I'm in. Yeah. Yeah. Do you know what a no-see-um is? It's actually a mosquito. Okay. But the thing is, is they're so small that you no-see-um.

I love it. That reminds me of like, I think with the manna, manna, apparently manna is, I think it's Hebrew for what is this? Yeah. I love that. It's called a no-see-em. That's awesome. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, now, so how do you want to proceed? Do you want to give us like maybe some reasons why an all-loving God might allow some to not have belief in Him? why an all-loving God might allow some to not have belief in him? Yeah, although in keeping with what we're doing, I wanted to, I guess, first throw a couple, I think the best strategy before talking about some greater goods that might justify hiddenness in general, which is something we can't talk about, the strongest approach is to attack the premises and ask them, how do you know that this isn't the case?

Well, let's do that then. So show us how to do that. Yeah, yeah. And one of them is just doing what you did a second ago. You kind of pointed out that, look, some people, they would come to belief, and they would just immediately reject relationship, right? And we know that these people exist because there are people all over, like Christopher Hitchens, who's passed away, but he was loud about this. He testified that he'd resist, and many today testify that they'd resist. So, that's one category. You'd have to show,

Mr. Arguer, that the individual or set of individuals you're talking about wouldn't just reject relationship. Now, I am in the party that says, look, there are people out there who would enter into a relationship. I agree. So, I don't think that this covers everyone by any means. But that gets a little bit harder for me as we start to narrow the pool even more. Here's something else that a critic would need to demonstrate in making his argument. He would need to demonstrate, I think, that the individual would enter into a proper relationship. That's the next one. Because here's a fact. Some non-theists, if they came to belief in God, would just form a perpetually improper relationship with God if in their current state that they suddenly believed.

Right. And I can jump into some examples of an improper relationship. OK, so here here's one example is you can enter into a relationship with God as kind of a buddy buddy relationship where you don't recognize God as God, or as the ultimate good. And this, at least plausibly, at least Mr. Atheist, you haven't ruled this out, this could be a kind of situation that overall is not good. This is not a good relationship. It's an improper one. It's better for it not to exist at all. And if the person's going to stay in that frame of mind. That's one example. Someone might say, well, why would it be better? Why would it be better not to be in a relationship than to be in a relationship and have it be an improper relationship? Intuitively, because it would be such an insult to something so good. It would be

slandering something holy, I would think. That would be my intuitive response is it would be defaming God himself and entering to that kind of relationship, but not treating God as God. That's at least we could say something that even, here's the thing, is if I go further and say it's actually better for that relationship not to exist, then I can make that move and say, well, here's a plausible reason why. To run this defense though, I don't need to say that God wouldn't bring it about. All I need to say is that God has no motivation to ensure this person comes to belief because this relationship where they don't even recognize God as God

might be one that God just sees no reason to bring about. Okay. Or no sufficient to bring about. Okay. Or no sufficient reason. Okay? Yep. Another kind of bad relationship, or at least plausibly improper relationship, is one where the human rejects moral transformation. Hmm.

Okay? That's right, because it's possible to believe in God and, as you say, not be transformed, whereas relationship might bring that about, but belief doesn't. And God, being an all-good being, wants to bring everything in subjection to the good in himself. this person over here, that's not going to be part of the game plan that would frustrate heaven itself. Um, then, then yeah, that's not the kind of person that God is necessarily going to ensure comes to belief. Um, again, if this person would perpetually stay in that state of mind, they, they're like, look, I don't want any part of, of, you know, heaven, so to speak. I mean, they're almost kicking themselves out by saying, I don't want to be a part of this. Then another type of improper relationship could be one where you lack the right desire for God.

And so examples here are things like where you might do relationship-like things like praising God and praying to God, but you're doing it just for gifts, or you're doing it just for religious experiences, or you're doing it just to escape punishment. And would you say here that the argument is not that that's not necessarily an appropriate place to begin, but that this person may never grow in that position, and God knows that? You got it. So, it would that position, and God knows that. You got it. So, it would be fine, and I think God does bring people into relationships that start this way, but God knows that they're going to evolve into something more mature. Like, you think of the apostles.

I mean, this is one of the arguments against Pascal's wager, which I don't think works, right? Because when the apostles went out, they didn't say, well, look, here's the ontological argument, and here's why Christ is who he said he was. But what they said is like, come and be saved. Like, this promise is for you and your children. Come and be baptized. So, there was a sense of self-interestedness there. Yeah.

And we can't really separate our self-interest from being in union with God anyway, because he is our ultimate good. And so, seeking our good and seeking Him is kind of the same thing. Obviously, we have to grow from a mercenary relationship into a, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. And, but I mean, you can think of something along the lines of the prosperity gospel, right? Yes. And so, if you're thinking along those lines and basically... Yeah, so that you'll never change from that. Yeah, God's going to give me a Ferrari.

He's going to make me feel good forever. Yeah, and the idea is you would go to any God no matter how evil they are. I mean, you just don't care. You're in it for... You're using God is essentially all it is. And that kind of relationship, if you're going to stay there, would be a kind that God might not see great reason to bring about. What do you think of this for an earthly analogy? Okay, so I've been separated from my son at birth.

He's now 18. I've been viewing him from a distance and know that the only reason he wants to get in contact with his earthly father is for my inheritance. Now, unlike my heavenly father, I don't have omniscience. inheritance. Now, unlike my heavenly father, I don't have omniscience. And so, maybe it would begin that way and our relationship would end up being more proper. But that might be a reason even for an earthly father to say, I love this kid, but he's not in a place that he wants a relationship with me right now. Is that good or not? Feel free to say no. I certainly think it's a good start. But as you say, it's all the more secure that it wouldn't be good when God knows the person won't ever be different. There you go.

Yeah. But I think that's a good way to think about it for sure. Okay. Is there any other reasons to think that God wouldn't allow us to have belief in him? Or just to be very precise about the verbiage, it's not that we want to say that God wouldn't allow someone to come to belief. It's that the atheist is saying God would. I'm telling you this is what God would do. God would ensure that these people over here come to belief, and the burden is on him.

And then I'm coming back and saying, well, here are some reasons why God might not clearly ensure that. One of them, the one we're talking about, is that some people would just enter into a perpetually improper relationship. They wouldn't recognize God as the good. They would reject moral transformation, or they'd lack the right desire for God. Another reason that God might refrain from ensuring someone comes to belief is God could know that the human would become jealous or rather they would enter into the relationship perpetually where they actually grow jealous of God and God's power. And this might sound implausible when you first hear it, but as you think about humanity and you

think about Adam and Eve and how Satan tempted them and how Satan himself related to God, growing jealous of God's power is something that can happen. And if you are in this state, then this could be a kind of a bad situation, a kind of relationship that, you know, you're forever existing and thinking this way, and it could be a bad state. That's an example. Finally, there's an argument that it would not be good to be in a kind of relationship with God where you see yourself or consider yourself as the authority in the formation of that relationship. So, there's a whole book on this by Paul Moser, and this has to do with – it's similar to the first one, being able to recognize

God as God. What does Schellenberg say to this? Because I mean, that sounds like a pretty good response. God, being omniscient, may know that you would enter into a perpetually inappropriate relationship with him and therefore choose not to, well, I'm not sure how you'd phrase it, but for that, it might have a good reason to not... Okay, so you tell me, is this the wrong way to put it? Because I think I said this earlier. God might not have... God is justified in not revealing Himself to you in a way that you would know He exists? Or is that... Or it's not necessarily that God would reveal, but ensure that you come to belief one way or another.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So what does Schellenberg say to that sort of response? Do you know? I actually don't think that there is a response coming from this. I think this actually does represent an end of the rainbow situation. represent an end of the rainbow situation. Schellenberg might want to say something along the lines of, well, this is, no, even that wouldn't even apply here. This would apply to the next one,

but it doesn't apply yet. So, I don't, I think it's- I love you say that. I love that you just said the next one. So, you've obviously got a list of reasons. Okay. What else is there? What else is there? Yeah. So, backing up, I mean, we're asking if a loving God existed, would God ensure that we know it to foster relationship? That's our big question. And our first response is not clearly because some would just reject relationship. And then our next response was also some people, even if they accepted relationship, they would just enter into a perpetually improper relationship. The next one is some would enter into a proper relationship, but God knows that they would abandon relationship later in life. that you're going to enter into a relationship, or this person over here will enter into a relationship, but they're just going to exit it later in life, then that could be a perfectly

sensible reason for why God wouldn't want to get the relationship started in the first place, or at least wouldn't ensure that it comes to begin. Does that make sense? It does make sense. And when somebody says back to you, but I know people who say they were in relationship with him and then rejected it, so why would He allow that for some and not for others? Do you say that again? So, the atheist might say, but I know of Christians who have left the faith. These are people who said they were in relationship with Him and abandoned Him. Like, we could all point to an example of somebody who did that. So, why would God permit that for some and not for

others? Yeah, I don't, I, why would he permit someone to leave the faith? Or maybe you would say it was for some greater good, right? Well, or what I would say is, what I would say- For example, this interview could convert three atheists who will then go on to do great work for the kingdom, whereas Blake ends up apostatizing. Yeah, yeah, that would definitely go down when we talk about greater goods. But right now, I mean, in that situation, you could apply exactly what we're talking about. If God, if they abandon, are we talking about them abandoning relationship or abandoning belief in God when you say that they leave? That's a good point. Let's say relationship.

Okay. Well, if they just abandon relationship, then that just makes the point that God wouldn't ensure – God will let them do whatever they want if God knows they're just going to abandon relationship. If they abandon belief in God and they're in this harder situation where it's like, man, I'd sure love to believe that God exists, but I've got to leave the faith now because I'm faced with these problems. And we can ask, man, why would God let that happen? Then this can come in and you can say, well, if you're using this as an argument against God's existence, you would have to show that this person wouldn't have eventually left anyways. I see. And that's really hard to show. Yeah. Again, putting the burden of proof back onto the one making the argument.

You got it. You got it. Okay. And then you can then talk about greater goods. And there's two ways to frame greater goods. You might want to talk about greater goods of relationship first off. And then you can talk about greater goods of relationship more broadly that have nothing to, or greater goods that have nothing to do with relationship.

And the reason you might want to start talking about greater goods of relationship is because that's kind of Schellenberg's card, is he wants to say that these are, you know, these are the greatest goods. They're frankly the only ones that should enter into the equation. And so you can try to push back a little bit and say, well, is it true that there are more relationship goods overall, excuse me, or that there would be more relationship goods in a world where God ensured that more came to belief? Okay. Okay, so that's the question. And I want to say that no, plausibly greater relationship goods ultimately obtained with God's existence being unclear to some non-believers. That's very plausible. And there's lots of kind of stories to go in here to illustrate this, but,

you know, Craig talks about this a lot when he says something like, you know, for all we know in a world where God's existence was as clear on the nose, as clear as the nose on your face, people would be actually turned off by it. Yeah, grow to resent him. Yeah, yeah. And that's just an example. There's actually a ton of these examples, which would suggest where, hey, maybe I understand you think that if God's existence were more clear, that would result in more relationships, but have you considered this? And there are reasons to think that, in fact, there would be more people rejecting relationship. You could have fewer people in relationship and you could have less quality in the relationship. Right. That makes sense. So, and once again, we have to be very clear that we're not even saying this would be the case.

All we're saying is you haven't shown that this isn't the case. And this is your argument. You have to somehow knock this possibility out. And then finally, yeah, go ahead. I was just saying, I'm tracking with you. Continue. Okay. And then finally, you do do what we kind of jump straight to when we're talking about the problem of suffering and talking about greater goods that aren't restricted to relationship goods. So, for instance, there's a lot that's written on how in a world where God's existence is more clear, there might be less moral knowledge or obviously there would be less seeking of God.

So, if seeking God is a great good, and there are reasons to think it is, that would be lost. And also evangelism would be lost, perhaps, which is a great good and a thing that God's called us to help people come to know the faith. Yeah, that's absolutely. I mean, we get to add value in our own life. I get to actually play this really important role of introducing someone else to God. In fact, there's nothing that could dignify me further than, aside from the dignity I already have, it seems like, than me to do this heroic act. And I would get to carry that with me for all eternity. So, that's a really powerful

guide. Another one that you might hear a lot about is that hiddenness can buy more uncoerced moral choices. Have you heard that one? Say that again. Hiddenness can... Can sort of buy us more uncoerced moral choices. So, um, Right. So is it, is it the idea that, um, it's no great virtue of mine if I drive the speed limit, if a cop's behind me? You got it. You got it. So you could be, there are lots of ways that if God's existence were more clear, uh, to certain persons, um, then it could coerce them to behave in a way that infringes on their free will and the significance of their choosing to accept God as Lord and King. You can be coerced, yes,

by fear of punishment, kind of like the illustration you gave. Other people can be coerced by enticement of reward or a desire for God's approval or some conjunction of those things. So there's a lot that's written on that as well. And anyways, as you add all of these together, it can get you more spiritual maturity. There are reasons to think it can get you more justice, again, more moral knowledge. When you add all of these goods together, you have a number assigned to that value. And the question is, have you demonstrated, Mr. Critic, that this value is not greater than what was lost? And that can be, again, really difficult for the critic to do. So, what would you say to Pascal? Here's a line from him that has to do with the hiddenness of God. He says, there is enough light for those who only desire to see and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.

Would you disagree with him there because you believe there are some who desire to see and don't? Is that too simple, what Pascal said? Yeah, I do think it's more simple, but at the same time, I think it captures some valuable information as well. captures, um, some valuable information as well. Um, I, I think that there is good in God allowing people to, um, reject him if they want to reject him or to be able to reject him for a time, um, so that they can come to, uh, faith later in a way that would actually be better for relationship for, for eternity. It's kind of like, you know, someone who's wanting to get married and you can wait for a while and it can be worth it because the proposal of, and so I'm talking about engagement, not getting married, but the engagement, the proposal was worth the wait.

So it can be that kind of thing where if God just brought them to belief right away, it might be of less value than if it was done in the way that God has planned. Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. Okay, so people are listening, right? And they're like, okay, fine. That's a good logical response to why hiddenness of God shouldn't be an argument for atheism. But there are people listening and they're like, that said, I do believe in God and I just wish He was nearer to me and clearer to me. I would, I want to give everything for Him, but so often it seems so obscure that I feel like I'm one foot in, one foot out. How do I, how do I jump both feet in and become a hundred percent, you know, full-on card-carrying member, following Jesus Christ and trying to do His will? both feet in and become a hundred percent, you know, full on card carrying member following

Jesus Christ and trying to do his will? Yeah, no, that's a, that's a really good question. And, and I, I want to be, um, candid about my, my limitations. Um, cause I know a lot's been written on that. Um, but it's not as much of an area of expertise for me. I guess if I were going to throw out some thoughts that jumped to my mind for a person in that situation, thoughts which you, again, should try to supplement with material written on that, one thought would be to, you know, invest in building your confidence by looking at the reasons to believe. And if this is a kind of, I wish God's existence were more clear to me intellectually, then that can be an obvious way to help resolve that problem. If you're trying to say, well, I just don't feel God in my life, is that what you're getting at? Yeah, I suppose so. And maybe part of this is,

like, this sounds like a tangent. I don't think it is. Suppose you became obsessed with debates on evolution or something. Or no, something, let's do something different. Let's say solipsism, right? I don't know. I don't know who the proponent is debating or who he thinks he's debating. But like, if you started doing a lot of research on solipsism, which by the way, is the idea for those who don't know the idea that you alone exist, right? That would begin to interfere with the way you have relationships with other people, even if you weren't convinced of solipsism, like it would get in the way of living a meaningful life or, you know, some other thought experiment, right? And so, at some point, you just say to the person, look, you need to stop watching these debates,

like you need to stop reading this because it's interfering with your ability to have a good relationship with your wife and your kids and people around you, do you think something similar could be said to the Christian who becomes, you know, I mean, I've done this. I'm sure you've done it too, Blake. I think about six years ago, I just binged every Dr. William Lane Craig video possible. It's all I did, you know? But just like the solipsism example, it might not be a good one, could get in the way of us living our life. Maybe becoming so obsessed with arguments for and against the existence of God can get in the way of us having a relationship with God. Oh, yeah. Yeah, for sure. I think there's some truth to that. I mean, obviously, you want to be in a position where you do believe it,

but as long as you simultaneously hold the belief that it's going to be a greater good for me to focus on other things rather than these debates, well then, yeah, go and focus on those other things. Now, you know, we don't want to neglect the value of loving God with all of our mind. This isn't something we want to throw away entirely. But I guess I'm speaking about those people who have become fatigued by the back and forth. You know, they might say, well, that's good for you, Blake. You're intelligent enough that you've sought the argument to the end of the rainbow, as you put it, and you feel pretty convinced.

And someone might be listening like, I wish I was that smart, but I'm not. All I get is arguments for and against, and both of them sound really convincing, and I want to keep being a Christian, but I wish I had the kind of confidence I needed intellectually to be a hundred percent on board and living my life this way. And I guess that gets back to what you were saying. Like maybe what we should do is pursue one avenue of argumentation as opposed to a hundred at once. Does that make sense? Like if people who are listening right now, for them, it might be the hiddenness of God. And so it's like, okay, well, let's focus on that

for a little bit until you feel like you've chased that down. And then it can be very gratifying when you realize, okay, no, the argument from the hiddenness of God isn't actually a good argument for atheism, so. Yeah, I think that's great advice. Yeah, if you're in a situation where you're inundating yourself with problems from every angle where you don't have time to pursue any of the resolutions, then yeah, you're going to get fatigued. I think that's great advice. If you're going to be pursuing truth, which I think you should, and you want to be equipping

yourself to talk to others, which I think you should, then yeah, be wise about it. Focus on some key areas. And I want to offer whatever assurance I can that you'll be rewarded. There are good answers. And that's why I mapped them out because I think that they're something that we can look at with joy and confidence. Well, this has been so helpful. And I just want to encourage everybody to, I just cannot believe that not more people are talking about this, honestly, Blake, to go find beliefmap.org, pull yourself a cup of coffee and just spend some time reviewing it, reading through it and sharing with other

people. It looks like it's pretty mobile friendly too. Yes, it is. So when you access the site from a computer screen, it takes one format, but it's also responsive. So if you open it up on your phone, it's going to function just like an app. Yeah. Yeah, that's terrific. Well, hey, Blake, you rock, man. Thank you so much. I know that you hadn't heard of Pints of the Quietness or me prior to me contacting you. So thanks so much for taking the time and to share in with us today. So other than going to beliefmap.org, I'm sure our listeners want to be able to follow your good work. What else can they do? Beliefmap.org certainly is the main way.

I do have a Twitter account and a Facebook page that you can find. My last name is spelled G-I-U-N-T-A. So you can look me up and connect with me in those ways. I love to answer questions. So if anything comes to mind, send it over and I'd love to talk to you. And yeah, thank you so much for having me on. It was an honor and a pleasure. All right, thanks so much. All right, everyone.

I hope you enjoyed that interview as much as I did. I want to invite you, if you haven't already, to choose to begin supporting Pints with Aquinas on Patreon. I have a lot of cool stuff in the works, things that I'm planning on doing, but none of that stuff gets done without money because that's how things work. You want to do cool stuff that costs money. So if you get a lot out of these shows and you think to yourself, you know, I'd like to give back. Not a lot, but just a little bit, you know, at least a little bit. You can do that. Go to pintswithaquinas.com and click donate. You can very easily give like

five bucks a month, 10 bucks a month, even one buck a month. If you want, you'll see all of the really cool free thank you gifts that I will send to you. Um, that's my phone, uh, in return. So I'll send you a free copy of my book. I'll sign it for you. I can send you a pints with Aquinas beer Stein. You'll have access to, um, exclusive audio interviews, behind the scene videos, weekly exclusive videos that no one else sees. You'll have access to our bimonthly live streams, all sorts of things. But at the end of the day, I think people support Pints with Aquinas because they just believe in the work that I'm doing. At least I hope that's the case. So again, go to pintswithaquinas.com, click donate, and

that'll take you to our Patreon page and you'll see all the cool gifts that we give you there. Also, if you can't afford it and you still want to help, you can probably help by going to iTunes and just leaving us a review and telling your friends about the show. Hope you enjoyed the episode. Be sure to go check out Blake's website too, beliefmap.org. All right, God bless. Too many grains of salt and juice Lest we be frauds or worse accused Hollow me to deepen the news Whose wolves am I feeding myself to? Who's gonna survive? Who's gonna survive? Who's gonna survive?

Who's gonna survive? you you you you