One of Inspiring Philosophy’s objections to the argument from divine hiddenness relies on a deep misunderstanding of the argument.
I offer correction here:
youtu.be/breS8JOHBi8?si…
Sometimes I entertain the absurd claim that a morally perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent person wouldn’t obviously design creatures with parts intended to tear into and eat the flesh of other sentient creatures as the only provisioned means of survival.
An argument against the trinity
God is three
Three is company
Therefore God is company
Companies are corporations
Corporations are individual persons
Therefore God is an individual person
But an individual person cannot be three
CONTRADICTION!
Setting aside the question of what is true, is there any reason why somebody would prefer a God whose punishment of sin is eternally destructive rather than ultimately restorative?
Some responses to the divine hiddenness argument just are attempts to water down the concept of love to such a degree that, what it means to love another person perfectly now carries less expectations than what it means to love another person imperfectly.
When I say God loves you, I mean only by analogy.
And when I say by analogy, I don’t mean in a way that is in any way helpful to understand what it means to say that God loves you.
But still, God loves you.
Just don’t feel glad (or any other way) about it.