Matt Dillahunty on Divine hiddenness
Dillahunty argues that an omniscient God would know exactly what evidence would convince each person, and the failure to provide it is damning.
Matt Dillahunty has made divine hiddenness one of his signature arguments, and his formulation is one of the sharpest in popular atheist discourse. His core point is simple: an omniscient God would know exactly what evidence would convince any given person of his existence. An omnipotent God could provide that evidence. A loving God would want to provide it, since belief is supposedly necessary for salvation. The fact that this evidence has not been provided means that God is either not omniscient, not omnipotent, not loving, or not there.
Dillahunty frequently personalises this argument. He was a devout Christian for decades before becoming an atheist, and he has stated that he knows exactly what would convince him that God exists: a clear, unambiguous, verifiable interaction that could not be explained by natural means. God, if omniscient, knows this too. The fact that God has not provided it — despite supposedly wanting a relationship with Dillahunty and supposedly having the power to make himself known — is, in Dillahunty's view, far better explained by God's nonexistence than by any theological excuse about free will or mystery.
He is particularly scathing about the free will defence. Providing someone with evidence, he points out, does not violate their free will. We are given evidence for all sorts of things and remain free to ignore it. A God who withholds evidence is not protecting freedom — he is ensuring ignorance. And a God who punishes ignorance he deliberately caused is not loving but sadistic.
“God, if he exists, knows exactly what it would take to convince me. He hasn't done it. Either he doesn't exist, or he doesn't care.”
“Providing evidence doesn't violate free will. I have evidence that fire is hot. I'm still free to stick my hand in it.”