The scientific mind can neither prove nor disprove God. No experiment based on observation will serve as proof in either direction. I contend that the absence of evidence, once one contemplates the question why, serves as circumstantial evidence in itself, and provides ample room for a justifiable faith.
If God did make himself know in the world in a comprehensive and evidential way (for instance, God came to earth, stopped a hurricane on live television) the relationship between God and humanity would turn to one more related to master and slave, than creator and worshiper. In attaining that evidence, human freedom and liberty would be lost. People would feel compelled, required, or bound to serve God, and to a degree, these actions would become forced. In such a relationship, no authentic love can occur, because love is not mandatory.
Power is always, first and foremost, the principle character of a relationship. Hence if God showed his power in a clear and evidential way, that power would define our relationship, and ultimately, it would choke the choice/freedom that a relationship needs. Think of it in a less divine and more human example. Perhaps you are friends with your boss at work. There are certain advantages to this, but the power dynamic in that relationship still reigns over the rest. If you did not show up for work for a week, you would be fired, no matter how much you chit chat on an average day. There is no way out of that dynamic, unless the person who is your boss is no longer your boss. God averts this ratio by not providing the evidence of power, so the dynamic doesn't exist.
The next time your read an atheist essay on the existence of God, which contends that the absence of evidence is evidence of God's non-existence, remember that it may be in fact circumstantial evidence for existence.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment