While there aren’t many empirical scientific studies (e.g., from psychology or sociology) directly testing the advantages and disadvantages of God not being visible in physical form as a means to reinforce human belief, the topic has been extensively explored in philosophical theology under the concept of “divine hiddenness.” This refers to God’s apparent absence or silence, which some argue impacts faith by making belief voluntary rather than coerced. Below, I’ll summarize key arguments from prominent philosophical works and entries, focusing on how this hiddenness might strengthen or weaken belief in God.

Advantages of God’s Invisibility for Reinforcing Belief

Philosophers argue that God’s lack of physical visibility can foster deeper, more authentic faith by encouraging personal choice and growth:

• Promotes Voluntary and Genuine Faith: If God were visibly present, belief might be forced or superficial, undermining free will. Hiddenness allows individuals to seek God willingly, leading to a reciprocal relationship based on trust rather than evidence. This can reinforce belief by making it a personal achievement, resulting in moral benefits like humility and character development. 20 For instance, it enables people to overcome doubts or improper motives (e.g., fear of punishment) through honest seeking, strengthening their commitment.
• Encourages Moral and Spiritual Growth: Without visible proof, believers must expand their reasoning and imagination, potentially making them stronger in faith. This can prevent complacency and allow for diverse expressions of devotion, such as creative religious practices or communal support in pursuing God. 20 4 Hiddenness may also permit temporary nonbelief for personal transformation, helping individuals recognize life’s meaninglessness without God and thus deepening their eventual belief.
• Supports Greater Goods in Relationships: It avoids potential resentment toward a visibly glorious God and fosters opportunities for mutual assistance among seekers. In theological views like Molinism, hiddenness aligns with God’s plan for ultimate goods, such as eventual conversion, without implying unfairness. 20 This can reinforce belief by framing challenges as part of a loving divine strategy.

These points draw from thinkers like J.L. Schellenberg’s critics, who respond to hiddenness arguments by emphasizing its role in experiential benefits, such as peace, joy, and improved interpersonal bonds through faith. 20

Disadvantages of God’s Invisibility for Reinforcing Belief

On the flip side, hiddenness is often seen as a barrier that can erode faith, leading to doubt or nonbelief:

• Leads to Nonresistant Nonbelief and Doubt: If God is loving and desires relationships, hiddenness might prevent capable people (e.g., honest seekers in non-theistic cultures) from believing, as belief is necessary for starting a meaningful connection. This can undermine faith by causing anxiety, despair, or abandonment feelings, as seen in religious texts like the Psalms or the “dark night of the soul.” 20 15 It may result in widespread atheism or agnosticism, especially where cultural or evolutionary factors make God concepts less intuitive.
• Provides Evidence Against God’s Existence: The prevalence of nonbelief (e.g., demographic variations like high theism in some regions vs. low in others) is argued to be more expected under naturalism than theism, suggesting God isn’t equally open to all. This can weaken belief by fueling atheistic arguments, as a perfectly loving God wouldn’t allow such “hiddenness” to block relationships. 20 11 18
• Challenges Moral and Intellectual Autonomy: While intended to promote growth, hiddenness might instead foster confusion or resistance, particularly if linked to human sin or cognitive limitations, leading some to abandon faith altogether. 14 12 Cognitive science perspectives suggest it could stem from evolutionary byproducts, making belief harder to sustain without direct experiences. 15

Notable works include Schellenberg’s foundational arguments on hiddenness as evidence for atheism, 10 responses from C.S. Lewis emphasizing its role in free will, 13 and cognitive science explorations linking it to religious experiences (or their lack). 15 If you’re looking for more empirical angles, such as psychological surveys on faith and perceived divine absence, I can dig further, but philosophy dominates this discussion.

Cxxxcxxx

If form of shapes of GOD left to human beings… find the difficulties in coming up a uniformity… interesting.
One unseen CREATOR has HIS WISDOM in these issues.

https://twitter.com/i/grok/share/zkhIdI9PAPpioVLeKtMxpccvP

No, there is no broad consensus among followers of different faiths on the form or shape of God that they would like to see or imagine. Perceptions of God’s appearance vary widely across religions, cultures, and even individuals within the same faith, often influenced by personal biases, cultural norms, and doctrinal teachings. Here’s a breakdown based on religious perspectives and relevant studies:

Doctrinal Views Across Major Religions

• Monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam): These traditions generally emphasize that God is formless, transcendent, and beyond physical depiction. For instance, Judaism avoids any physical representation of God, focusing instead on divine actions and commandments. 1 Islam strictly prohibits images of Allah, viewing God as indivisible and without human-like form. Christianity often describes God as a spirit (e.g., in John 4:24 of the Bible), though popular art influenced by European traditions depicts God anthropomorphically, like an elderly bearded man. However, official teachings stress God’s incorporeal nature.
• Hinduism: Views differ significantly, with Brahman (the ultimate reality) seen as formless, but deities like Vishnu, Shiva, or Devi manifesting in various human, animal, or hybrid forms (e.g., elephant-headed Ganesha or blue-skinned Krishna). Devotees may visualize God in personalized, devotional forms.
• Buddhism and other non-theistic traditions: Buddhism doesn’t posit a creator God, but figures like the Buddha are depicted in human form (often with specific symbolic features like elongated earlobes). Sikhism describes God (Waheguru) as formless and timeless.
• Polytheistic or indigenous traditions: Gods are often anthropomorphic or nature-based, shaped by cultural contexts—e.g., Greek gods like Zeus as human-like figures, or African traditional religions portraying deities with local ethnic features.

These differences highlight a lack of agreement: monotheistic religions lean toward formlessness to avoid idolatry, while others embrace diverse, tangible representations. Even where anthropomorphism appears (e.g., in art or myths), it’s not universal. 3 7

Insights from Studies on Visualization

Psychological research shows that when people do imagine God with a form, it’s highly subjective and often mirrors their own identity or cultural background:

• A 2018 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill study of 511 American Christians found participants selected faces for God that aligned with their own demographics—e.g., younger people saw a younger God, liberals a more feminine one, and overall, egocentric bias led people to visualize God resembling themselves (e.g., white participants saw a white God). 25
• Stanford research in 2020 explored how visualizing God as a white man affects leadership perceptions and social biases, noting that such images perpetuate cultural stereotypes and influence real-world attitudes. 21
• A 2021 cross-cultural study on sensing divine presence (across faiths like Christianity, Hinduism, and others) found that spiritual experiences are universal but interpretations of God’s “form” depend on cultural and educational contexts, with no consistent physical description emerging. 20
• Even in cases of aphantasia (inability to visualize mentally), religious faith persists without imagined forms, suggesting visualization isn’t essential for belief. 24

Cultural and Popular Discussions

Public discourse, including on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), reflects similar diversity. Users often note how God is depicted in ways that match cultural identities—e.g., Chinese gods resembling East Asians, European Christian art showing a white Jesus, or arguments that ancient depictions (like Yahweh as a storm god) evolved into formless concepts. 11 16 Some posts claim historical gods like Zeus influenced Abrahamic imagery, while others argue for a human-like form based on scriptures. 12 14 These highlight cultural projection rather than consensus.

In summary, while some might “like to see” God in a comforting, familiar human form (often anthropomorphic and culturally aligned), official doctrines and studies show profound disagreements. The closest to a shared view among many faiths is that God transcends physical shape altogether, but even this isn’t unanimous.