We've all heard the term "gaslighting", but not many of us understand what it actually means. Because we don't know what it means, it's actually very hard for us to know when we have been gaslit. In psychology, gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse in which the abuser causes the victim to doubt their own mindset. They may question their memories, or even their own perception of reality. In short, a gaslit person is lead to feel insane.
I submit that we, as a culture, have been gaslit by Secularism. Tell me, what do you think when I say "of course you can't see God, He's invisible"? However crazy this might sound, it is actually entirely reasonable. In fact, it would be entirely unreasonable to say otherwise, simply because the Bible describes God as an invisible being - preceding even the visible world - whom no one has seen, save Christ.
This should not surprise us, for we are surrounded by invisible things. Indeed, if we could see everything that exists, we could see nothing at all, simply because we are surrounded by a currently invisible thing called "air". Air is essential to our lives. Go out into space, where there is no air, and you will die very rapidly. And this stuff is right in front of your eyes, touching them, even. If you could see the air, you could see nothing else. Yet, the air exists, it is entirely unreasonable to demand to see air before you believe in it, and it is entirely reasonable to say to such a fool "of course you can't see air, it's invisible".
There are other things that cannot be seen, for other reasons. Some things, such as planets and stars, are visible, but are too far away; we need telescopes. Some things, such as microbes, are likewise invisible to the naked eye. Certain wavelengths of light, likewise, cannot be seen with the naked eye. We have literally invented high tech devices with which to see that which was previously invisible.
The past and future are both invisible. We can see the results of the past, but seeing the past itself is impossible. Seeing the future, in the same way, is a metaphor; you will not actually see the future until you get there. Even then, there is only so much of the future you will see, for one day, you will die.
One thing you have never seen, cannot see, and will never see, is metaphysical concepts. You can't see math, for example. No matter where you look, you will never see the number 3. You can see representatives, such as the number 3, but if I had backspaced just then, the number 3 would still exist.
You see, then, that "invisible" does not mean "non-existent". But now consider the very concept of visibility. How is anything visible at all? Things are visible because of your eyes. These are well-designed receptive devices, sending signals back to your brain whenever they are stimulated by light either shone or reflected into them. Your brain then interprets those signals, allowing us to see. Yet God preceded light!
Note the beginning of the Genesis account. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day." (Genesis 1:1-5).
Here, we see the beginning of all things. We see the already existing God. There was never a time when God did not exist. But before this time, He was invisible. Why? Simply because there was nothing to perceive Him. There was no light, neither to shine from Him, nor to reflect off Him - as if light can reflect off a non-physical being. Similarly, there were no eyes to see Him. He had not yet created man, nor even the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, the fish of the sea. In the beginning, before "visibility" was an existing concept, God existed in His present form.
His present form. God hasn't changed in 6,000 years. He didn't have some invisible larval stage, form a cocoon, and emerge as some visible deity. He is the same today as yesterday, and He will be the same tomorrow. This means in order for us to see Him, He must manifest Himself in some visible way, much like the aforementioned number 3. But I did not just create the number 3. Nor did I change it. All I have done is present it in a visible way.
And this, ladles and gentlespoons, is how we actually can see God. Now, it's not as simple as hitting a key on a keyboard. I can't just type a "G", and boom, there, you see God. But what do you see? You see intelligence. You see a thing that cannot reasonably have come about without input from a rational being. Tell me, which of you, reading this article, will imagine it came about by chance, as a cat walked across my keyboard? And indeed, even if a cat did walk across the keyboard, whence commeth the keyboard? Did a grenade go off in a junkyard? Well supposing it did. Who made the grenade?
When you start asking these questions, you begin to see the absurdity of atheism as a whole. We instinctively recognise design when we see it. Sure, we know there are natural forces at place in our world that can make some interesting "designs". Of course, I would contend that God created these natural forces, and thus such designs can still be attributed to Him, but if you don't believe in God, you can simply say "well nature made that rock formation". But when you expand further and say "look at the fantastic design in even the simplest cell! This is the end result of a magic explosion umpteen billion years ago".
Why umpteen? Well, because the Big Bang is just some stupid story human beings made up. And as is often the case with made up stories, there are plot holes - the age of the universe keeps changing. But we won't get too deep into that, especially since not all atheists believe in the Big Bang.
But we all see the design in nature. In fact, studies show that we, as a species, have divine instincts. One of them was performed by Dr Olivera Petrovich, who compared the responses of British and Japanese children to questions on the causal origins of various man made and natural objects. In Japanese culture, speculation into the supernatural is heavily discouraged, and the dominant religion, Shinto, does not have a concept of a creator god. Yet, the children were more than willing to speculate that God is the originator of all things, and there was no disparity between the British and Japanese children in this regard.
This shouldn't surprise us. When we find various things around our world, we instantly recognise design in them. No one knows where Stone Henge came from, we're pretty sure the rocks didn't just fall out of the sky and land there like that. We recognise design, and so through it, we see the designer!
Now, do we see them directly? No. I can look at a Volkswagen Beetle, for example, and I know someone made it. So do you. You know it isn't the result of gradual modifications through successive generations, but you don't necessarily know who made it. In fact, I feel like if many people did know the origins of the Volkswagen, less people would own them. See, it all goes back to Adolf Hitler...
Volkswagen literally translates to "People's Car", because it was Hitler's goal to develop, and mass produce, a speedy and reliable car that would be nice and cheap to buy. He even declared, at a rally in 1938, "It is for the broad masses that this car has been built. Its purpose is to answer their transportation needs, and it is intended to give them joy."
Now, how many of you knew that? My guess is not many. We do, after all, live in a culture where drinking milk can be considered racist, so how a car that originated with the Nazis hasn't become a victim of cancel culture, I don't know. Not that I believe in cancel culture, of course, but if anything was going to be cancelled at all, Volkswagen, I feel, would be at the top of the list, if its origins were known.
But how am I supposed to get any of that from just looking at a Volkswagen? Answer: I'm not. Volkswagen is a creation of the Nazis, it is not the Nazis themselves. In the same way, the visible world, and all its forces, are the creation of the invisible God. We do not see the Creator in this world because the Creator is not this world, just as Hitler isn't in any Volkswagens to this very day. But through the creation, we see the Creator, simply because the former could not exist without the latter.
But we don't actually see the creator. Nothing I just told you about the origins of the Volkswagen comes from observing a Volkswagen. I can sit in the car, I can drive the car, I can dismantle and... ok, admittedly I probably couldn't reassemble the car, but you get my point. Nothing about the car tells me anything about where it came from. But you will find these things in the historical record. So where do I find out about the origins of the heavens, the Earth, and all that is in them?
A Naturalist will tell you that science is sufficient. But Naturalism is epistemologically flawed. In fact, I dare say not only is a Naturalist unable to find the truth, but Naturalism is intentionally designed to prevent him from doing so. There are two particular problems, the first being that if you assume there is a natural explanation to all things, and will therefore only accept natural answers, you have no way to know if the answer is actually supernatural. If, for example, you were to go back in time, observe the death of Christ, medically verify that His soul had left His body, and watch as He raised to life on the third day, you would spend forever looking for a natural explanation, rather than simply confess that the Lord has done this.
But the second problem is, as previously established, you cannot see the past. Thus, you cannot experiment on it. When an Evolutionist tells a story, he may well have drawn his conclusions based on some kind of experiment. But the reason he may later tell a different story is he simply made them both up. Take Darwin's finches as an example. It's 100% true that finches living in different regions tend to have different beak shapes, of course designed to deal with different types of food. But it is a gigantic leap of faith to suggest that, therefore, they are the descendants of a whopping great t-rex! It's not a necessary conclusion, nor is it even a logical one. Where do baby birds come from? Birds. What sort of babies did dinosaurs make? Dinosaurs. But no matter how many changes you make to a dinosaur over many generations - assuming the world has even existed long enough for such changes to take place - you aren't getting a bird out of a dinosaur. All you're going to get, best case scenario, is a slightly different set of dinosaurs. In the worst case, the dinosaurs die out.
But history is almost immune from speculation. I say almost, simply because there are gaps in records. Indeed, even Christianity has many gaps. We read that Adam named the animals, we don't know what those names actually were. We read where the ark landed after the flood, we don't know how the animals spread out after disembarking. We know that the humans didn't spread out, as they were commanded, but when God dispersed them after Babel, we don't know where most of them went. Now, some of this is recoverable. In fact, what's truly amazing is that many ancient cultures even have their own Genesis-like legends. We see their gods placing them in gardens, we see devils tempting them, we see floods, we even see towers. And of course, that's where the similarities stop. Ancient China doesn't have an Abrahamic figure, for example. Why would it? He's not their father, he's Israel's.
So we have gaps, and we have a little bit of... shall we say "paste" to fill in some of those gaps. But there's a lot of solid stuff, too. What's interesting is that, outside of Scripture, not even the most hardcore atheists will doubt this. I've never met an atheist who doesn't believe Socrates existed, for example. In fact, if I find an atheist with opinions on Socrates, I often find they have quite strong opinions on him. I've even heard many atheists use Socrates as arguments against Christianity. "Socrates said this, Socrates did that". Well how do you know? Did you see him? Did you find his writings?
In reality, there is no physical evidence for Socrates what so ever. His body no longer exists. His grave site is unknown, assuming he even had one. Socrates left no writings. No diary or journal. No autobiography. No memoirs. Nothing. So how do we know about this super famous philosopher? From his students. Primarily, from the writings of Plato, but also from the lesser known Xenophon. Interestingly, these accounts often contradict each other, and of course are incomplete. The result is the so called "Socratic Problem", wherein we have a difference between Socrates the character, and Socrates the historical person. We do not know what Socrates was actually like, we just have enough to figure it out.
However high our confidence in our knowledge of Socrates, we ought to be all the more confident in our knowledge of Christ, for He is far more fully attested. We do not know Him from the scattered, decaying manuscripts copied long after the original authors had died. Rather, the Bible is the most well-attested book in the history of the world. At least, prior to the invention of the printing press.
Because of this, you can afford to temporarily ignore the divine inspiration element of the Bible and simply look at the New Testament as the diligent writings of brave would-be martyrs. And by would-be, I really mean they would be. The vast majority of the New Testament authors were either executed for their testimony, or were at the very least willing to be.
We can look at John as an example. John is the only disciple known, for a fact, to have avoided the fate of a martyr, ultimately dying in his old age. But avoiding martyrdom only lead to a different kind of suffering, of course beginning with the simple fact that, being the last surviving Apostle, he endured the death of all the other Apostles.
Being the first death is, perhaps, relatively easy. It still sucks to die, and no doubt there would be temptation to preserve your life. But seeing other people die brings about the reality of it in your mind. As it sets in, what are you thinking? "My friend died for this same testimony". Are you scared yet? Might you become a Peter, denying Christ three times in one night? And we know that John wasn't immune, even in his own mind, from death, for he wrote "Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?”" (John 21:23).
John died a Christian. Seeing the other Apostles die - his companions, his friends, his own brother - he never gave up his testimony. Neither did they when it was their turn. From the first to the last, none of the Apostles apostatised. None of them recanted or repented. Neither in facing death, nor the threat thereof, did they change their story.
Now, liars make poor martyrs. It is possible to die for a lie, but few people will die even for what they believe is the truth. Who, then, would endure a life of persecution, in some cases ending on the same kind of cross as Christ, for something they knew they had made up? Surely just one of them, bound in chains, sitting in the dungeons, surrounded by the armored guards, would at least whisper "ok, I admit it, we stole the body. Spare my life and I'll show you where we hid it!" It never happened. We have no record that such events were even claimed to have happened. Not one retraction. Not a moment of cold feet. The witnesses went to their graves, and now stand with Christ in victory.
So what are we to make of their surviving writings? These clear, detailed writings, matching up so well in some cases that conspiracy theorists even posit the existence of the mythical "Q" document? Simply that, even when you erroneously omit the influence of the Holy Spirit, you are still reading a reliable collection of historical documents.
These documents reveal Christ, who Himself revealed God, for in Him dwelt the fullness of Godhead bodily. This introduces a whole new element to the visibility of God. Just as the invisible number 3 may be revealed in visible ways, so also may the invisible God be manifested in visible ways. Now, we no longer see God's invisible attributes through creation (Romans 1:16-23), but we even see Him visibly, though of course not as individuals.
Because God is not a physical being, asking to see Him physically is illogical. Suggesting that, since He is invisible, He therefore doesn't exist, is insane. If it is within His will, He may well manifest Himself to you in some visible way. A burning bush, a pillar of smoke or fire, an angel, maybe even a humble carpenter bearing the scars of a horrendous Roman torture device. But He may as easily, and well within His rights, leave you with the ordinary means of His revelation. His invisible attributes are seen through His creation, just as with any creator, so you are without excuse. Beyond this, He has given you His word, and if you are reading this article, no doubt you may as easily read that. You may not see God, in all His glory, before you stand before His throne, but you have most assuredly seen God. Do not be gaslit: "He's invisible" is a logical statement. It is also a true one.
But a greater true statement is that Christ, the Lord, has come in flesh, revealing the Father to all whom it pleases Him to do so. In the flesh, He was crucified, and in the flesh, He was raised to life again. This, He did before many witnesses, some of whom left written testimonies before they, themselves, died in them, and often for them. Thus, we know Christ is risen, and through faith in this, His death can be applied to us, as He didn't die for nothing. Rather, Jesus died to receive the full wrath of God, a punishment owed to us, as sinners. Yet though Christ committed no sins of His own, He died for our sins, allowing us, through faith, to be credited with His righteousness. Therefore repent, and believe, that you may be raised with Him into eternal life. Otherwise, when you finally do see God, you will wish you had not, just as you now hope you will not. But you will.