Is God able to provide additional evidence that would convince more people to accept him?

[Beta]

No, some people who live in remote jungle regions have never heard the Gospel message. In addition, millions of people who have died did not hear the Gospel message. Apparently, God wants people to hear the Gospel message, but only if another person tells them about it. That makes sense since God wants people to have enough food to eat, but only if they are able to obtain it through human effort.
Of course, if the God of the Bible does not exist, people would only be able to hear the Gospel message and obtain food through human effort.

Yes I agree some people may not know about the christian religion and most certainly people in the OT did not but that will not stop God from making it known to them for their salvation.
What we today should be concerned with is our own salvation. God will take care of others when it is their turn. Certain things are beyond human effort.

 

[Beta]

It's your first sentence that makes your second sentence so funny.

In the OT, God is all ticked off and ready to smite a bunch of people. It's only after Moses talks him out of it that God realizes his error and not only decides not to go through with it, but repents for his mistake.

Now, who needs to "read scripture"?

I'm glad you find it all 'so funny'.
And since you are still so interested in the OT seems you will have to wait along with all the other people who lived then.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm glad you find it all 'so funny'.
And since you are still so interested in the OT seems you will have to wait along with all the other people who lived then.

Yes, I do find it funny when someone tells others they "need to read scripture" and the immediately proceeds to say something that is in direct contradiction to scripture.

And then.....expresses that they apparently aren't so interested in the Old Testament. I guess for you, the OT isn't scripture?

 

[Agnostic75]

No one will be sent to hell (which is basically death and not torment) until they get some more knowledge and truth.

Thousands of years ago, God withheld evidence that would have caused more people to accept him. Are you implying that God will give those dead people more evidence to consider?

In your opinion, what justifies what God does, his power? The author of Romans chapter 9 says so. If someone wanted to rule over me, and wanted me to accept them, whether they were a God, an alien, or a human, contrary to the author of Romans chapter 9, my decision whether or not to accept them would be based upon their character, not upon their power.

 

[Katzpur]

The topic question can apply to any God who supposedly wants people to believe that he exists.

What kind of evidence would convince you?

 

[Shia Islam]

Is God able to provide additional evidence that would convince more people to accept him?

Those who have chosen not to accept God, will never accept him...whatever additional evidences they might be faced with.

Also as religions teach about Heaven and Hell, and this life as a temporary trial stage stage for man. There must be free will for man to choose.

That's to say, that those who want to rebel against God should have the freedom to claim that there is not God, and live their life according to that claim.

 

[Wandered Off]

Also as religions teach about Heaven and Hell, and this life as a temporary trial stage stage for man. There must be free will for man to choose.

Evidence or proof would not in any way compromise free will. Linking the two is a non-sequitur.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/61358-would-proof-eliminate-free-will.html

 

[ChristineES]

The topic question can apply to any God who supposedly wants people to believe that he exists.

For all we theists, no matter what faith or religion, out there, we don't seem to need any physical evidence.

 

[Agnostic75]

What kind of evidence would convince you?

If a supposed God showed up on earth, demonstrated his powers, healed all of the sick people in the world, did away with natural disasters, and answered some questions to my satisfaction, I would accept him. I would not be able to know for certain whether or not he was a God, but I would only be concerned with how he treated people, not who he really was. If you treat people right, it is not very difficult to convince them to accept you.

I certainly would never be able to accept any God, alien, or human who claimed that they were right merely because they were powerful. Contrary to what the author of Romans chapter 9 says, there is not a necessary correlation between power and good character.

 

[Agnostic75]

For all we theists, no matter what faith or religion, out there, we don't seem to need any physical evidence.

The Bible indicates that some people who became followers of Jesus needed physical evidence. Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23

“Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.”

John 3:2

“The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.”

John 10:37-38

“If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.”

John 11:43-45

"And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him."

John 20:30-31

“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

Those texts show that some people would not accept Jesus based upon his words alone, and that he provided them with physical evidence that convinced them to accept his words.

God withholds evidence that would convince more people to accept him. No man can morally be held accountable for refusing to accept evidence that he would accept if he was aware of it, especially if where people spend eternity is at stake.

 

[Agnostic75]

For all we theists, no matter what faith or religion, out there, we don't seem to need any physical evidence.

What about deists? They reject faith, at least the kind of faith that Christians have, and use logic to examine the physical universe. What is wrong with deism?

 

[Agnostic75]

Those who have chosen not to accept God, will never accept him, whatever additional evidences they might be faced with.

On the contrary, a God would easily be able to convince more people to accept him. For instance, if he showed up and healed all of the sick people in the world, surely more people would accept him.

What evidence convinced you to become a Muslim?

 

[Beta]

On the contrary, a God would easily be able to convince more people to accept him. For instance, if he showed up and healed all of the sick people in the world, surely more people would accept him.

2000 years ago we were just coming out of the OT era when the emphasis was still very much on the physical. That is why there were literal physical healings to help people make God more real.
Now 2000 years on God has moved forward in his creating-process and we are getting closer to the spiritual. God does not want man to remain in the past looking to the physical. Because it really does not matter if a person has physical problems , what matters more now is our mental/spiritual state.
For 6000 years man has been deceived by the false god of this world Rev.12v9, 2Cor.4v4, Eph.2v2.

 

[footprints]

The topic question can apply to any God who supposedly wants people to believe that he exists.

There is enough evidence existing, to give God per se, probable cause. Or, a reasonable position of belief, to believe.

There is enough evidence existing, to give God per se, reasonable doubt. Or, a resonable position of disbelief, and not to believe in Gods existance.

 

[Beta]

Yes, I do find it funny when someone tells others they "need to read scripture" and the immediately proceeds to say something that is in direct contradiction to scripture.

And then.....expresses that they apparently aren't so interested in the Old Testament. I guess for you, the OT isn't scripture?

Talk about twisting and turning what I say to suit your own understanding !
Some of the OT is no longer in practice or applicable in the NT. There is no need to bring it up. Why not concentrate on what is commanded for us today ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Talk about twisting and turning what I say to suit your own understanding !
Some of the OT is no longer in practice or applicable in the NT. There is no need to bring it up. Why not concentrate on what is commanded for us today ?

Well I guess God was a lot more demonstrative
Back when he flamboyantly parted the sea

- Bad Religion

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No. Any evidence would be relative to whomever would observe i.t

 

[Jose Fly]

Talk about twisting and turning what I say to suit your own understanding !

That's a pretty serious accusation. Would you care to demonstrate exactly how I did what you claim? Or do you feel no obligation to do so and expect us to take your word for it?

Some of the OT is no longer in practice or applicable in the NT. There is no need to bring it up. Why not concentrate on what is commanded for us today ?

So when you say God "has no need to pander to people's whims" and I provide you an example where Moses talks God out of acting harshly, even to the point of God repenting for it, your response is "the OT is no longer in practice"?

Is the OT God a different God or something? Or are you just having trouble with the fact that your assertions about your god are in direct conflict with the scriptures you cite?

 

[Jeremiah]

God has a magnificent PLAN for mankind which does not entirely depend on his might and power. In fact ALL his characteristics and qualities come into play in his creative work.
What many people don't realize is that God is not trying to save the whole world (everybody) at the same time but is dividing up groups of people and time itself. God moves forward 'in stages' for our benefit to help us keep up with his plan. But this takes obedience, belief, faith and trust on our part which is hardly found in our present evil world.
Could God change that ? If he thought it would help he would have devised a better plan

"If he thought it would help he would have devised a better plan"

A "better" plan? The only way this god could devise a better plan is if the current one contain faults. Either your plan is perfect or it is not and if it is not then neither is your god.

"for he does not want us to suffer or be ignorant."

But yet we are and we do.

Nothing goes against the will of an almighty being, so if your god did not want suffering or ignorance then neither would exist. This means that it is opposite of what you say, that your god must want those things to exist.

 

[johnhanks]

Some of the OT is no longer in practice or applicable in the NT.

I think Jose was referring to events recorded in the OT as matters of factual record, not to defunct laws and rituals. So which bits of OT narrative are no longer to be believed, exactly? Did Abraham talk god down from fifty to ten righteous Sodomites, or was that a fib? Did god speak to Elijah in a 'still small voice', or is that fabrication? If those things didn't happen, why should we believe any of the rest?

There is no need to bring it up.

Yes, I can understand it's an embarrassment.