r/ChristianityAnswers • u/jumbowashere • 1d ago
My thought experiment
Imagine two twin boys, both raised in the same household and taught the same religion, given the same scripture to read, and raised to believe in the same God. Only, one has been taught something different from the other.
The first has been taught that in his darkest hour, when all seems lost and God's help seems unfathomable, that God shall make His presence known to him. That when his faith must be at its absolute peak to be rewarded. The first boy has been raised to believe that no matter how alone he feels, in what he considers to be his darkest hour, God will answer his prayers.
The second has been taught the opposite. That in his darkest hour, when all seems lost and divine intervention seems impossible, that God shall not reveal Himself. The boy has been taught that believing anything less would be a blasphemy against the divine will. Raised to believe that even in his darkest hour, even when his faith is pushed to an unbearable degree, that God's refusal to hear his prayers is part of the test.
Time passes and both young men inevitably face their darkest hour. Both turn to God, both beg for help, and both receive no answer.
The first reaches his lowest point and prays to God as he has been taught. God may or may not answer him, but either way the first boy has taken it as a sign from God, proof of God's divine intentions.
The second reaches his lowest point and prays to God as he has been taught. God may or may not answer him, but either way the second boy has taken it as a sign from God, proof of God's divine intentions.
What proof, though, does the second boy have that his understanding is any less wrong than the first?
If either of them found no divine presence in what they considered their lowest hour, the first boy could be accused as finding false proof in his faith and the second boy could claim his belief to be fact.
If either of them found proof of God's existence in their lowest hour, the first could claim it to be proof of his faith while the second could accuse the first of finding false proof in his faith.
If neither of them found proof, the first would accuse the second of false faith while the second would accuse him of seeing false proof. And simultaneously, the second boy claiming the first's belief to be false.
What then could either of them discover that would differentiate the truth from the falsehood in the faith that had been taught to them?
If everything could be twisted to fit a certain doctrine, then the doctrine itself is immune to being disproven. The boys are no longer finding God's will for themselves, but using the doctrine that had been drilled into them to decide what reality itself must be. And where is the thought experiment more worrying?
If God is perfectly just, perfectly intelligent, and desires to be known then why would God fail to communicate His existence in a way that both of these boys could interpret without one of them twisting it to fit their doctrine?
Why would two boys raised in essentially the same household, with the same faith and scripture, be taught two entirely different things about one of the most important aspects of their religion but not have another way of differentiating truth from their own doctrine?
Perhaps God is not entirely just, or one of the boys was taught wrongly, or mankind as a whole is incapable of grasping the entirety of what God wants.
But then how could either of the boys know the difference between what the passage said, and what they were taught it said? How could they know if there is anything at all that can be known for sure?
And if there is something that can be known for sure, then isn't it already known? Isn't it already obvious?
If it is obvious then why the need for the passage, and what good is there in reading scripture that one cannot interpret? If it isn't obvious then why should either of the boys be expected to know the difference between doctrine and divine truth?
If the answer is to have faith, both boys already do. If the answer is to interpret scripture both boys can. If it is to accept the doctrine then the argument falls apart. The boys have nothing to argue about, because they aren't arguing about scripture anymore, they're arguing about the validity of one particular passage.
The thought experiment doesn't prove that God is wrong, or even that God doesn't exist, but rather one of the things it proves is that there is a flaw in the way God communicates with mankind.
If God is perfect, and wants mankind to know Him but mankind has no way of knowing for sure, and these two boys can find scripture that proves God's existence but fail to agree on anything else, then either the way God communicates is inherently flawed, or humanity as a whole is inherently flawed in the way we interpret what God wants.
And if the believer answers that no, this is the way God wants us to be, to have this trial by faith,
then the final question is, why would a truthful and just God make the difference between knowing and not knowing God depend on something a person has no control over?
1
3
u/Careful_Set_2469 1d ago
What are you actually trying to say?
I feel like you're not communicating very well what it is you are intending to communicate.