How to Respond to the Challenge That God Is Hidden

One of the reasons cited in favor of atheism and against the idea that the God of Christian theism exists is known as the “hiddenness of God” objection.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy offers this definition: “‘Divine hiddenness’, as the phrase suggests, refers, most fundamentally, to the hiddenness of God, i.e., the alleged fact that God is hidden, absent, silent.”

In a previous article (see “Is God’s ‘Hiddenness’ a Rational Objection to Christianity?“) I offered a historic Christian response to this skeptical claim. I explained that the biblical religions of Judaism and Christianity are religions of revelation. This means they claim that God has unveiled himself. So from a biblical perspective God is not hidden, absent, or silent the way some atheists claim. Rather, God is revealed in nature, in the human conscience, in the history of the nation of Israel and the historical person of Jesus Christ, and in Scripture.

In this article, I will address the role that arguments can play in responding to the charge that God is somehow hidden.

Four Traditional Arguments
For centuries, Christian thinkers have provided plenty of substantive philosophical and historical arguments for God’s existence and the truth of Christianity.1 These arguments correspond to the areas that Scripture indicates God reveals himself (nature, conscience, history) and comport well with the modern findings of science and history.

The four traditional arguments for God’s existence are the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument, and the ontological argument. There are many versions of these classic arguments along with many other arguments apologists can marshal from different academic disciplines (history, science, mathematics, aesthetics, etc.).2 I have chosen specific versions of the arguments and have presented them in introductory, outline form. In logic, an argument is defined as a supported claim. The claim is called the conclusion and the support (facts, evidence, reasons) are called the premises. For each argument, I have briefly identified the basic support for the premises and noted the biggest objection to the argument followed by a rejoinder.

Cosmological Argument
Several different arguments reside in the cosmological category (how to account for the cosmos). Here is one popular version of the cosmological variety known as the Kalam cosmological argument:

Premise #1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise #2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause (God).

The first premise comports well with the basic principle of causality. Causality holds that if something emerges into existence or being it cannot be uncaused nor can it be self-caused. It must be caused by another.

The second premise is consistent with science’s traditional big bang cosmological model (the cosmos had a singular beginning a finite period ago).

The Kalam cosmological argument is also compatible with the biblical doctrine of creation ex nihilo, which affirms that God created all contingent entities out of or from nothing, not from preexistent entities.

Arguably the biggest objection to the Kalam cosmological argument is the speculative scientific view known as the multiverse. This view posits that there is a near-infinite number of universes. Thus, if our universe had a beginning it was not the true beginning of everything. However, the multiverse theory comes with flaws. One major weakness is that these claimed multiple universes are currently unverifiable and unfalsifiable and may always be so, causing many scientists to deem them philosophical speculation, not science.3

Teleological Argument
Under the teleological category we also find several different arguments. Here is a popular version of the teleological argument known as the fine-tuning argument.

Premise #1: The fine-tuning of the universe (the fact that the cosmos exhibits all the necessary and narrowly drawn parameters to make human life possible) is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
Premise #2: It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is due to design (God).

The first premise seems to reasonably set forth the three possible options to account for the universe’s fine-tuning.

The second premise is supported in two ways: (1) the scientific awareness that the physics of the universe could have taken a different pattern,4 and (2) the statistical probability of the fine-tuning resulting from chance is so extraordinarily improbable as to be virtually impossible.5

Thus this argument is compatible with biblical design and science’s anthropic principle—the idea that the cosmos seems designed to allow for human life.

The biggest objection to the fine-tuning argument is again the proposed multiverse.  But the multiverse seems to imply the existence of something supernatural or above the natural realm of reality. Can a theory dependent on forces outside space-time be considered naturalistic? Appealing to mechanisms rather than empirical data clashes with old-school atheistic naturalism (physicalism or materialism). Thus, if the multiverse is a reality, it may best comport with an act of God.

Moral Argument
Christian thinkers have presented a number of different arguments that are designated under the moral category. This popular version appeals to objective morality.

Premise #1: There are objective moral obligations.
Premise #2: If there are objective moral obligations, there is a God who explains these obligations.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is a God.

The first premise is largely affirmed by both theists and atheists. One such moral obligation avers that all human beings have inherent value and dignity. Therefore, moral offenses like rape and murder are always morally wrong.

The second premise is supported by the position that the existence of God can ground objective moral values. For example, if people are made in God’s image then their value and dignity come from an objective source outside of human experience.

The biggest objection to this moral argument is the claim that God isn’t needed to ground objective morality. But the sources that secularists often appeal to in order to justify morality (the results of evolution, collective consensus of humanity) don’t seem reliably objective in nature.

This moral argument seems solidly compatible with the divine revelation mandate that people are made in God’s image and have a God-given understanding of morality (Genesis 1:26–27Romans 2:14–15).

Ontological Argument (Maximally Perfect Being)
Christians have marshaled several different arguments under the ontological category. This contemporary version contains five premises:

Premise #1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
Premise #2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
Premise #3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
Premise #4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
Premise #5: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, a maximally great being exists (God).

The original ontological argument dates back to St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) and some people think it may have its basic roots even earlier in St. Augustine. The basic argument has always been controversial. Notable defenders include René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, and Alvin Plantinga and objectors include Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, and Graham Oppy. The modern version above reflects a modal (logical reasoning that uses words like possible and necessary to guide thoughts toward a rational conclusion) version of the argument.

Anselm’s basis for the argument is said to have reflected his prayerful thought about Psalm 14:1, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.'”

Criticisms of the argument center on definition of terms, coherence, and logical assumptions. Yet this argument refuses to go away and some distinguished philosophers today find it to be logically sound.

Takeaway: Hidden or Revealed?
I recognize that arguments on one hand and personal persuasion on the other are distinct things and maybe especially so when it comes to belief in God. But since there are well over 100 arguments (or varieties of arguments) for God’s existence that competent scholars in various fields affirm to be logically sound and cogent, then it is difficult—at least in my mind—to accept the position that God’s existence is somehow truly hidden from human beings.

In the next article I plan to consider what value there may be for both atheists and theists for God’s existence not being too overt.

Reflections: Your Turn

Of the traditional arguments for God’s existence summarized above, which one do you find the most probative or engaging?



  1. For an analysis of these arguments and others, see Ed. L. Miller, God and Reason: An Invitation to Philosophical Theology2nd ed.  (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995); William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008); Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994); Jerry L. Walls and Trent Dougherty, eds.,  Two Dozen (or so) Arguments for God: The Plantinga Project (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018); Kenneth Richard Samples, 7 Truths That Changed the World: Discovering Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012); Kenneth Richard Samples, Classic Christian Thinkers: An Introduction (Covina, CA, RTB Press, 2019); Kenneth Richard Samples, Christianity Cross-Examined: Is It Rational, Relevant, and Good? (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2021).
  2. Chad McIntosh, “Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God,” on Capturing Christianity with Cameron Bertuzzi, YouTube, February 25, 2001.
  3. George F. R. Ellis, “Does the Multiverse Really Exist?” Scientific American (August 2011).
  4. Paul Davies, The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), 169.
  5. Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 339–45.

  One thought on “How to Respond to the Challenge That God Is Hidden

  1. Richard Dale Patton
    March 16, 2021 at 12:52 pm

    My argument is different. God is revealed in the Bible. At every theophany, the recipient wishes to escape and is filled with sorrow and knowledge of sin. Consider Isaiah 6:5

    And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!”

    In other words, God’s presence is so powerful that it diminishes or eliminates the free will of the human receiving the revelation. God’s presence is either as a cloud of darkness, so people can ignore Him, or as a theophany, which reduces them to jelly. Anyway, that is my take.

    I like your work.

    • March 16, 2021 at 2:19 pm



      Thanks for reading my article and for your comments.

      You read the second article in my series of three addressing the question of divine hiddenness. You might consider reading my previous article: “Is God’s ‘Hiddenness’ a Rational Objection to Christianity?” It makes your point but adds the broader biblical perspective that God is also revealed in nature (Psalm 19; Romans 1), conscience (Romans 2), and history (OT, John 1) and fallen people naturally suppress the knowledge of God (Romans 1).

      Here’s a link to my earlier article:

      Best regards.

      Ken Samples

  2. Robert Weil
    March 26, 2021 at 9:34 pm

    The way that you have stated the teleological argument is new to me and seems compelling. Of the arguments presented, it is the most evidence-based and uses the least abstract concepts such as cause or morality. I like the way that it allows for the three logical possibilities and provides solid evidence for eliminating the other two arguments. A hurdle to the lay person, though, would be grasping the mathematical probabilities.

    • March 26, 2021 at 11:33 pm

      Thanks, Robert.

      I find the fine-tuning teleological argument to be compelling as well.

      Best regards.

      Ken Samples

  3. Dustin
    April 6, 2021 at 4:48 pm

    Another notable proponent of the Ontological Argument would be Kurt Goedel. His reasoning in this reminds me in some ways of his reasoning used in the proof of the Completeness of Predicate (First Order) Logic.

    • April 6, 2021 at 5:55 pm

      Thanks, Dustin.

      You’re right. Gödel presented the ontological argument.

      Best regards.

      Ken Samples

    • June 21, 2021 at 11:29 am

      Thanks, Mark.

      Ken Samples

  4. KenToo
    August 13, 2021 at 1:01 pm

    The form the problem takes for me–the challenge it presents to my faith–is that life is SO unfair and SO full of misery for so many human beings, and always has been, that it is hard to see a God who truly cares.

    Life is full of indiscriminate horrors that cause human suffering in the extreme–both natural disasters and human misdeeds. It has become impossible for me to reconcile the concept that “God sees and knows and cares” with what looks to all observers like random and indiscriminate suffering (e.g., agonizing birth defects in infants….the collapse of the Siloam tower…Hiroshima….the Dresden firebombing….the Holocaust….the Asian tsunami….the Nickel Mines school slaughter of Amish girls….) which were unattended and unobserved by any loving, omnipotent being.

    I know this seems mostly related to the problem of evil, and it is. But the challenge it presents to me (a Christian for 47 years) is in believing that there can be any divine purpose or presence at these moments of evil.

    I’ve been to Bible college and seminary. Taught apologetics. Pastored for 30 years, including to some of the victims listed above. But I find it very difficult to reach out to an invisible being and expect “very present help” when a look out the window at the world sees very little sign of the presence of a personal, caring God, the rhythms of nature notwithstanding. Man’s stay on earth looks very much as I would expect if nature were all there is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: