Divine Hiddenness

The argument from Divine Hiddenness (DH) is a well-used argument against God for various reasons:

 
1.      It has immediate first-person subjective appearance, sceptics and Christians alike haven’t felt God’s presence – the bible is replete with calls of instances where God appears far away.
2.      We earnestly pray or seek God, yet He may seem distant.
3.      Believers may forget the times He has revealed Himself to us, yet we still wonder if He is real.
 
The argument or the concept of hiddenness has been in circulation for thousands of years and as I’ve mentioned briefly is a theme in the bible itself. However, in recent years the argument has been made popular and given substantial philosophical rigor by John L. Schellenberg.
 
His argument goes something like this:
 
1.      If a perfectly loving God exists, then there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person.
 
2.      If there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person, then no finite person is ever nonresistantly in a state of non-belief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
 
3.      If a perfectly loving God exists, then no finite person is ever nonresistantly in a state of non-belief in a relation to the proposition that God exists (from 1 and 2).
 
4.      Some finite persons are or have been nonresistantly in a state of non-belief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
 
5.      No perfectly loving God exists (from 3 and 4).
 
6.      If no perfectly loving God exists, then God does not exist.
 
7.      God does not exist (from 5 and 6).
 
An Analogy:
 
If for arguments sake we imagine a being who had unlimited wealth (omni-wealth) and was omnibenevolent, such a being, all things being equal might be morally obligated to give everyone the equivalent of trillions of pounds sterling.
 
On an individualistic case, it would be a wonderful thing that some unknown rich benevolent individual gives out an unimaginably large amount of money to someone. But is it really the best thing to do, to give billions of people large amounts of money?
 
The short answer is obviously no. It is patently clear that if everyone has the equivalent of trillions of pounds in their accounts, the market is suddenly flooded with large amounts of money, and eventually the money loses value, and prices go up. Not to mention, large amounts of people will suddenly quit their jobs, and businesses can no longer supply needed goods and food, further increasing prices. It would be a disastrous economic episode, and no one would really benefit from such an action, however well intended.
 
Additionally, in such a scenario, certain individuals wouldn’t be well suited to having such wealth, they may decide to recklessly drink and take drugs to destruction or partake in other vices they might have fancy to, like gambling.
 
In such a scenario, obviously the omni-wealthy person wouldn’t be doing a good thing. If such an omni-wealthy being did exist, they would need to have other properties, like omniscience, so that they knew, who was the best people to give money to, that is, people who genuinely need money and how much, so as not to overwhelm them. Moreover, they would need omnipotence, so as to be able to instantiate what they intend to do, an omni-wealthy, omnibenevolent and omniscient being with power, to enact their desires or decide against better judgment to give the wrong person too much money.
 
On top of this, such a being couldn’t reveal themselves, as to complete their goal sufficiently, they would need to be anonymous and not reveal who the giver is to the recipient of the gifts they received. This would ensure such a being wouldn’t be inundated with requests for money or support from well-intended individuals and restrict his ability to carry out his goal of helping the maximal amount of people he can. This being could then give freely and hidden, being able to give sufficient wealth to those who needed and could handle such gifts wisely.
 
This is analogous to God and the hiddenness argument; isolating properties arbitrarily like omni-wealth and omnibenevolence doesn’t necessarily portray or give the best account of what such a being would be expected to do. Similarly, picking perfect and loving in isolation to other great making properties might give the wrong account of what such a being might do.
 
Similarly, like in the analogy, God would need to use other properties in order to correctly pick who is right and in the precise time and manner to reveal Himself and give evidence of His existence. Like in my omni-wealth analogy, just picking anyone might not be correct for the individual, God I will argue cannot reveal Himself to everyone, as this might violate their freewill. For instance, in the most extreme case if God were to pop in, unannounced in your living room to every person that He exists randomly, this might just annoy and infuriate people, and not facilitate in fostering a loving relationship with Him.
 
Or consider a less extreme case, where God writes on every atom “Made by God” or have the stars in the night sky write “God exists” for everyone to see. This might convince some people but as well renowned sceptics like Richard Dawkins has said in an interview with Peter Boghossian on 24/10/13 where he basically ruled out any evidence could be used for God’s existence and would be indistinguishable to sufficiently powerful aliens and would in principle be more likely than God. Additionally, God isn’t interested in just having people adding one extra item of ‘truth claims’ in their ontology, He wants a loving relationship with everyone freely, which doesn’t necessitate physical proofs.
 
Sceptics might concede that some individuals are resistant non-believers but that wouldn’t do anything to show why God doesn’t reveal Himself to non-resistant non-believers. In my analogy, the omni-wealthy being hides himself to stop him from getting inundated and not fulfilling his goals in giving people the right kind of financial support. Obviously, this isn’t completely the same for God, but it gives a glimpse into why God might not reveal Himself (with the wealth giving being analogous to God’s revelation) if this could overwhelm or coerce people against their wishes.
 
For example, in my analogy, we could imagine a person at time T1 isn’t in a sufficiently wise state to handle the wealth the omni-wealth wanted to give, but knows at T2 this individual is ready. So although this hypothetical person is in need (is non-resistant) and would like some wealth (revelation from God) yet for whatever reason, only known to the omni-wealthy being (God) they are not ready, due to some character development or moral growth that is only sufficient at T2 , if this is even possible, it undermines the philosophical weight of the DH argument.
 
Argumentation against the Divine Hiddenness Argument
 
I have shown at least in part that isolating properties may give counterintuitive outcomes and may not be an accurate representation of what we seek to describe or refute. Just like in my analogy, just being omni-wealthy and omnibenevolent may lead to absurd or undesirable outcomes. Similarly, just isolating perfectly loving, doesn’t give a full picture of what a typical theist believes God is like. Yes, we agree God is loving, but that isn’t His only attribute. So, I question the validity of some of the argument from the outset.
 
 
1.      Is God only perfectly loving?
 
Let's look at the premise more closely:

• If a perfectly loving God exists, then there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person.

Is God only perfectly loving? No theist would accept that God is only loving. Yes, God is loving, but it would be a mistake to take that as the defining characteristic of God, just as much as defining a car as a “wheel”, it is inadequate to capture the complexity of a car. Similarly,  God cannot be defined as merely loving, even if we add "perfectly", it fails to describe God fully.

God, I will maintain and insist is at minimum: omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, which includes being loving. Additionally,  I would add God would want individuals to have freewill to choose and develop virtues and characters, willing to seek and grow to discover God, the ultimate truth and goal for any human to discover.

Why is this important?

As I've briefly mentioned,  isolating one property can lead to misaligned assumptions to what such a being would do. Like in my analogy of the omni-wealthy being. It could be the case just focusing on this hypothetical persons goals on just omni-wealth and omnibenevolence, such a being would be obligated to give everyone trillions of pounds each.

Additionally, I showed this would lead to undesirable outcomes, so if such a being did exist, it would need to be more than just omni-wealthy,  omnibenevolent,  such a being would need to be omniscience and omnipotent to ensure they didn't ruin the economy and potentially harm individuals unintentionally.

In other words, in order to not artificially preload the outcome to give absurd results, we must give the being in question reasonable properties, so as to give it a fair shot at succeeding.

Why is my conception of God preferable?

God, if such a being does exist, would by definition need to be maximally great, which entails omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. While love is essential to any concept of God, it typically requires multiple properties to ensure their maximal greatness. Including all these properties gives a more nuanced view of God.

What would an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and loving God do?

Such a being would ensure that sufficient evidence of the natural laws and order points to a transcendent cause and first cause. Life and biodiversity of nature would point to a designer and moral laws which are universal throughout humanity, which points to a moral law giver. This in short is commonly understood as natural theology and is the general revelation given to all Mankind, so that we are without excuse (Romans 1:20).

I believe, in addition to this general revelation,  God has given special revelation in Jesus Christ, to which we all have a duty to have a response to.

Now, to be fair to Schellenberg, he does imply some of God's traditional properties I insisted on in 'Divine Hiddenness and Human Philosophy' where he writes 

"certain reasoned defences of the claim that the ultimate divine reality is a God, a being unsurpassably great who is a person or very much like a person, possessing all power, all knowledge, all goodness and having created every other concrete thing." 

He adds later 

"To facilitate my own discussion of such matters (I hope it will also be helpful for others), I have introduced the non-theistic label 'ultimism' to stand for the more general religious idea of a reality that is triply ultimate: metaphysically, axiologically, and soteriologically. Theism entails ultimism, but the converse does not hold."

What does Schellenberg's ultimism entail?
• Metaphysical - Abstract reasoning and of mind & things outside the physical.
• Axiological - Ethical and aesthetical truths.
• Soteriological - Relating to salvation.

How might we best understand this view?

I think, (if I understand his position correctly) he means something transcendent, ethical and moral and wanting to save humanity. Schellenberg elaborates by saying 

"First, let's notice what theism's (or personal ultimism's) axiological component entails. The Ultimate, if a person, would have to be an unsurpassably great person. The value of power and knowledge as well as benevolence in persons is commonly highlighted by philosophers who spell out the content of theism. But, although neglected, the value of love in persons is certainly no less obvious. So we have to say that an unsurpassably great person could not be other than unsurpassably loving toward other persons."

This is how he transitions to his claim that God must be perfectly loving, which isn't the same as ultimism or my preferred understanding of God, let me explain why?

The claim of ultimism rests on the three axioms: metaphysical, axiological, and soteriological which, whether taken in isolation or together, do not entail or imply perfect love. For example:

• Axiological (ethical): Being ethical is not equivalent to being loving. An A.I. bot, for instance, could approximate ethical behavior without exhibiting love, let alone perfect love.

• Soteriological (salvation): Even the axiom of salvation does not necessitate perfect love. It is conceivable that, in virtue of this ethical axiom (which does not require love), the "Ultimate" could decide that saving humanity is the “right” thing to do without ever being loving, let alone perfectly loving.

In short, while Schellenberg connects ultimism to unsurpassably great and perfect love, the connection is not justified by the axioms themselves. This distinction highlights a critical flaw in his reasoning and emphasises that ultimism, as he defines it, is not synonymous with love nor more importantly, my preferred understanding of God. 

In other words,  Schellenberg’s claim that “an unsurpassably great person could not be other than unsurpassably loving toward other persons” assumes a particular interpretation of love, one that prioritises eliminating non-belief through direct intervention. However, this interpretation may overlook other aspects of love, such as respecting human freedom, fostering personal growth, or allowing individuals to seek and find God in a way that leads to a deeper, voluntary relationship.

Additionally, it isn't clear that this ultimism Schellenberg articulates necessarily entails a perfectly loving being always does eliminate non-resistant non-belief. The analysis I gave seems more plausible. 

In short, I believe this is compelling reasons to deny at the offset Schellenberg's argument as he assumes a too narrow definition of what God would do. It's important to understand by challenging premise 1, we undermine the entire argument. But let's move to the next premise.

2. Non-resistant Non-belief


• If there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person, then no finite person is ever nonresistantly in a state of non-belief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
 
As I have shown, we have reasons to reject Schellenberg's leap to ultimism to perfectly loving, which I've shown isn't equivalent.

Additionally, I've shown taking properties in isolation can lead to undesirable consequences,  even if unintentional. But such unintentional mistakes would be incompatible with a maximally great being like God.

Non-resistant Non-belief?

What does Schellenberg mean by non-resistant non-belief?

"nonresistant nonbelief, it refers to nonresistantly being in a cognitive condition, in relation to the proposition that God exists, that is incompatible with then being able to participate in a personal relationship with God just by trying should one seek to do so, with this cognitive condition conjunctively construed, cashed out in terms of being nonbelieving and without nonbelieving faith and without nonbelieving hope."

From Schellenberg Divine Hiddenness and Human Philosophy.

Essentially, a non-resistant non-believer is someone who would openly come into a loving relationship with God, had she had sufficient evidence, but is resistant due to some lack of evidence or experience from God.

Schellenberg writes in his part one of Divine Hiddenness paper, 

"Notice here the interesting fact that it is not only the apparently honest doubt of reflective nonbelievers to which we can appeal; the absence of belief in a loving personal God, over aeons of evolution, of those occupied with other ideas and never even able to resist personal relationship with God will do perfectly well as a relevant indication of nonresistant nonbelief."

The point being, over eons of evolutionary change, life, let alone human life, has been ignorant of theism, let alone Christian theism, which has only been available to humanity for almost two thousand years.

Granting that humans have been ignorant of Christianity for a long time and even when it was believed, it took a while to get spread throughout the world.

Does this concession, prove non-resistant non-believers?

Yes, in the technical sense, those who never heard of Jesus, never heard of Jesus! Which is trivially true. But does this mean countless millions of people for hundreds of thousands of years are doomed because of something they weren't in the position to know?

No, if God is who we claim He is, He isn't going to damn people to hell for things they couldn't know. Rather, He will judge them on what they do know e.g. the general revelation given to all Mankind. Or, they could be given evidence before the appointed judgement to give all individuals a fair chance to make informed decisions. 

"...Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” Gen 18:25

I believe it is trivially true, that humanity throughout our history has been deeply religious in some sense and there is no evidence to suggest religiosity is a new invention. It seems clear,  from the inception of humanity,  we have worshipped some form of deity and so the general revelation of creation to God is a clear path to God's existence and it has been plainly known throughout history. E.g. a study from Oxford University in 2011, found that Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife led by Dr. Justin Barrett; 

"This project suggests that religion is not just something for a peculiar few to do on Sundays instead of playing golf. We have gathered a body of evidence that suggests that religion is a common fact of human nature across different societies." 

So, it seems humanity is hardwired to believe in God or god's at least in the transcendent supernatural. Additionally, it would appear natural theology is a good indicator for God’s existence.

But what about this claim, people who never heard about Jesus or the true God, are non-resistant?

To highlight this further, consider the exchange between Aslan and the boy in C.S Lewis's books in the Chronicles of Narnia - The Last Battle  

"of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless. it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, though knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days."

The point being, people who never knew God (at least, not in the truest sense of the word) can still otherwise have a meaningful relationship with the true God, by God crediting it to them as righteousness.  The idea of that people are judged on the revelation they received,  not what they couldn't know,  or didn't know, is clear throughout scripture; 

"The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,' and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers. “That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows.  But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." - Luke 12:42-48

Does widespread ignorance or cognitive non-belief necessarily entail non-resistant non-belief?

No, as I've shown general revelation is given as a Subset of reasons we can know apart from having specific revelation from a given culture; So, a hypothetical person prior 2000 years ago, could get concussion when shipwrecked and is the sole survivor on a deserted island and could still otherwise reason to God as the creator of the universe and maker of life and furthermore reason they are the ultimate judge and worship this Deity.

What about people today?

Schellenberg or sceptics might argue,  that certain non-believers aren't in a state of non-resistance.

It would be disingenuous of me to try and psychoanalyse any one individual. It remains however, the case we all have general revelation and regardless of how one sees the evidence for this general revelation. Us moderns,still have to contend with the special revelation in Jesus, which is the basis of where we spend eternity, narrowly taking a naturalistic framework to reject supernatural claims doesn’t seem to be the most open minded approach.

But even if you come to a firm position on general and special revelation and you reject it. If it is remotely possible, like in my analogy of T1 and T2, then God is morally justified in remaining hidden for a time for responsible growth and the argument fails.

It appears then, we have sufficient evidence that:

• Belief in God is widespread throughout cultures, which makes it reasonable, it is a human trait in all humans throughout history,  including deep time.
• General revelation gives everyone sufficient evidence.
• God will judge on what we do know, not what we don't,  or couldn't.
• God can judge acts based on motivation to worship god, even if it is the wrong God.

Additionally, and more importantly, individuals relevant to the DH argument aren't blank slates, they have finite minds, they can't fully grasp all evidence rationally, they have a variety of conflicting beliefs and worldview that make seeing any new evidence subject to these conditions. 

Coupled with the faulty assumptions of Schellenberg's leap from ultimism to perfect love and the defective definition that leaves key aspects of God,  premise 2 is dubious at best.

3. If God exists, there will be no Non-resistant Non-belief.  (From 1-2)


I have given reasons to doubt this, undermining the premise.

4. Some finite persons are or have been non-resistant

Even if we grant this. If it is possible that God, like in my T1, T2 analogy can have reasons to hide His presence temporarily,  the premise fails. For instance, in my analogy: "we could imagine a person at time T1 isn’t in a sufficiently wise state to handle the wealth the omni-wealth wanted to give, but knows at T2 this individual is ready. So although this hypothetical person is in need (is non-resistant) and would like some wealth (revelation from God) yet for whatever reason, only known to the omni-wealthy being (God) they are not ready, due to some character development or moral growth that is only sufficient at T2 , if this is even possible, it undermines the philosophical weight of the DH argument."

Such a person is open to a relationship, yet for whatever reason is still a non-believer. If God is who we claim, God will have reasons to hide, if their state isn't conducive to a meaningful relationship and iff (if and only if) they change sufficiently God will no longer hide Himself, and their non-resistant non-belief will disappear.

For instance,  we can take the prodigal son analogy Luke 15:11-32 offers a biblical parallel to my analogy. The father does not chase the son while he is in rebellion, but he is ready to embrace him when he returns, in fact it is implicit the father is actively waiting for the son. Similarly, God might wait for the “prodigal” to reach a state of readiness before revealing Himself fully.

Unrequited Love Analogy

Imagine Kip, who loves Jane deeply. To express his feelings, Kip leaves thoughtful notes and gifts. However, Jane, captivated by Kim, assumes these gestures come from Kim, never realising Kip’s intentions. While Kip desires Jane’s affection, he respects her autonomy, ensuring his actions are evident but never coercive.

In this analogy, Kip represents God, the notes signify general and special revelation (including prompting by the Holy Spirit), Jane represents non-resistant non-believers, and Kim symbolises naturalism. Jane’s infatuation with Kim blinds her to the true source of Kip’s notes, leading her to misattribute them. This mirrors how non-believers may interpret evidence for God within a naturalistic framework, misattributing divine revelation to natural causes.

For example, evidence such as the beginning of the universe (Kalam Cosmological Argument) may be reinterpreted within naturalism, such as through the multiverse hypothesis, rather than pointing to a transcendent cause.

Additionally consider the following situation:

Imagine that Jane briefly experiences something extraordinary an encounter that momentarily shakes her certainty about Kim. She admits it makes her reconsider, but her infatuation and prior beliefs lead her to rationalise it as a coincidence or misunderstanding rather than evidence of Kip's love.

This parallels Ayer’s near-death experience, where his atheistic presuppositions led him to dismiss the event as a hallucination despite its impact, illustrating how worldview shapes interpretation of evidence.

The key challenge:

As long as Jane attributes everything to Kim, no evidence could convince her of Kip’s love. Similarly, if a cognitive framework prevents a non-believer from recognising divine evidence, this creates a plausible explanation for non-resistant non-belief that is not rooted in resistance to God.

If even one plausible explanation like this exists, it undermines Schellenberg’s claim that a perfectly loving God must eliminate all non-resistant non-belief.

A more epistemic issue?

If someone presupposes naturalism,  is non-resistant non-belief really compatible within a naturalistic worldview? If person P at T1 holds an incompatible belief e.g. naturalism. God can be reasonably justified at waiting to T2 to reveal Himself when P holds a more compatible worldview.

Non-resistant non-believers aren’t blank slates, non-resistance doesn’t mean they’re free of cognitive filters like naturalism or emotional baggage like trauma. At T1, they might see evidence (e.g., Kalam) but rationalise it away due to worldview, not defiance. God’s omnibenevolence waits for T2, when their lens aligns, preserving their freedom to seek.

In other words, temporary hiddenness isn't equal to actual hiddenness. Just like in the prodigal son analogy, the father is waiting, even if the son isn't aware or conscious of the fact.  Or to put it differently,  at T1 the prodigal son wants to come back, but due to pride and stubbornness, isn’t in a place of humility to reach out to God, even if the father is waiting for such a relationship. At T2 the son is ready for a meaningful relationship and sucks up their pride and humbles themselves to be in a meaningful relationship,  the father sees the son  and welcomes him in without reservations.

Or consider another hypothetical, person P at T1 is traumatised by the scenes they've endured in war or possible abuse from an abusive partner, making them embittered and angry towards life. God is waiting for P to be willing to open at T2 where P is ready to open up for meaningful relationship.

It is worth noting Schellenberg’s argument doesn't rule out as a possibility that temporary hiddenness is compatible with temporary intrinsics, and so it is only perpetual hiddenness that would in practice be incompatible with an ultimate being.

Again, if Schellenberg needs only one instance of non-resistant non-belief to bring his argument forward. But this means if it's the case we have plausible cases to explain such non-resistant non-belief into question, we only need one instance for the argument to equally fail. It might not prove God exists,  but it's not designed as an argument for God’s existence.

For instance, the prompting of the Holy Spirit in the general revelation of beauty and awe such as gazing at the Milky Way, marveling at nature, or being moved by worship music can serve as an initial nudge from God to a non-resistant non-believer. While not identical to a theist’s experience of God, these moments hint at how life, purpose, and being might be best explained by God. However, sceptics might attribute such feelings to naturalistic mechanisms like evolutionary psychology or neurological responses. This highlights how deeply worldview shapes interpretation, potentially causing sceptic's to overlook what theists regard as divine evidence.

The analogies I provided ensure it is on the non-believer to initiate or change to bring about the meaningful relationship, and in all cases God is waiting on their change, as there is some deficient psychological issue or development change needed for a loving relationship.

To clarify my point more explicitly, if any non-resistant non-believers non-belief is temporary, this undermines the rest of the argument, the conclusion doesn't follow. The proponent of the DH argument will have to maintain any non-resistance is perpetual. 

The only possible push back I can envision from sceptics, is that if God would reveal Himself sooner, they would freely believe.  But that misses the point, at T1 the prodigal son isn't humble enough to move to meet his father, who is open armed, waiting. At T1 the naturalist has an incompatible worldview and couldn't in principle rationalise such a belief correctly. And finally at T1 the traumatised person is angry and wasn't interested in any relationship. Just reasserting dubious claims isn't evidence.

Paul's Conversion and Divine Hiddenness

An often-cited example in support of Divine Hiddenness is the case of St. Paul and his dramatic road-to-Damascus conversion (Acts 9:1–19, retold in Acts 22:6–21 and Acts 26:12–18). The argument suggests that if God could provide decisive evidence of His existence to Paul, He should be able to do so for all non-resistant non-believers.

However, this example fails on multiple fronts:

1. Paul Was Not a Non-Resistant Non-Believer.

Paul was a devout follower of the Judaic faith, with an unshakable belief in God. His opposition to Christianity stemmed not from resistance to God, but from a misinformed zeal that led him to persecute Christians. This context undermines the idea that Paul was “non-resistant” in any meaningful sense. Instead, he was deeply committed to a flawed understanding of God's will.

Additionally, the sceptical claim he (Paul) was a non-resistant non-believer is a unfounded as claiming Abraham, Isaac or Jacob were non-resistant non-believers, they were patriarchs of the faith, the faith that Jesus,  and the disciples believed.

2. Paul’s Beliefs at T1 Were Incompatible with God’s Wider Revelation.

Paul’s initial beliefs T1 created a psychological and theological barrier to accepting the fuller revelation of God in Christ. In this state, any attempt by God to reveal Himself might have been misunderstood or outright rejected, as Paul’s framework was not yet conducive to such a relationship.

My T1, T2 analogy clarifies this: at T1, Paul’s rigid, incomplete understanding of God made him incapable of receiving or processing the full revelation. At T2, after encountering the risen Christ, Paul was prepared to reinterpret his prior beliefs and embrace a fuller understanding of God. This transition reflects not God’s absence but His intentional timing, revealing Himself when Paul was ready to respond meaningfully.

3. Decisive Evidence Alone Does Not Guarantee a Loving Relationship.

Even if God provides overwhelming evidence of His existence, the ultimate goal is not mere belief but a meaningful, loving relationship. God’s revelation to Paul was not a coercive act of force but an act of grace, meeting Paul in a moment when his heart and mind could be transformed. This principle applies universally: God’s timing respects the individual’s capacity for genuine relational engagement, which may vary for each person. 

Moreover, it is essential to remember that Paul’s belief prior to his conversion was rooted in his commitment to the Judaic faith, not atheism or agnosticism. As he later wrote:

"I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile" Romans 1:16

Or Romans 11: 1-31 

"...[H]as God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. ² God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? ³ “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” ⁴ But what is God's reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” ⁵ So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. ⁶ But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace...So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. ¹² Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!"

This underscores that Paul’s faith journey was deeply tied to the theistic tradition he already embraced, rather than the supposed stance of a non-resistant non-believer.

4. Paul’s Conversion Was Exceptional, Not Normative.

Finally, Paul’s experience was part of God’s redemptive plan for the early church, uniquely suited to his role as the Apostle to the Gentiles. It does not follow that God must replicate this dramatic encounter for every individual, especially when such interventions might bypass the free and sincere seeking of a relationship with Him.

Anticipating Objections

Objection:

"If God could transform Paul despite his resistance, why not reveal Himself to others in the same way?"

Response: 

Paul’s resistance was not rooted in disbelief in God but in misunderstanding His will. God revealed Himself when Paul’s state allowed for a genuine transformation. For others, who may lack such readiness, a similar revelation might fail to achieve the desired relational outcome.

Objection: 

"Why should timing matter if God’s goal is a relationship with all people?"

Response: 

Timing is crucial because a meaningful relationship requires both parties to be prepared. A premature revelation could lead to misunderstanding, rejection, or a superficial relationship, none of which align with God’s loving nature.

Additionally, providing additional evidence could tip into overriding their autonomy, omnibenevolence prioritises uncoerced love over forced clarity. Evidence is sufficient (Romans 1:20); their missreading of evidence at T1 isn’t God’s burden to fix instantly, if at T2 God knows their belief is stronger and more meaningful. 

Conclusion.

I believe I have shown premises 1-4 are flawed at best. The notion of ultimism isn't equivalent to perfectly loving and that isolating one property is problematic. I have given substantial philosophical reasoning why the traditional theistic framework of God is a better explanation and provides a more coherent understanding of what such a being would do.

Additionally,  I have shown that general and special revelation has been given to all Mankind as a beacon to God's existence.

Finally, I showed that God can have reasons to temporarily hide from non-resistant non-believers and it is compatible within the framework I layed out. It seems to me that the sceptic needs to show that any "temporary" hiddenness is actually "perpetual" hiddenness,  which would be a radical claim. 

I look forward to any push back.