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

[logician]

God certainly cares and will reveal himself in his own good time. As said , God works to a plan and people will just have to wait if they are not prepared to take his Word for it.
His experience with people is not to our credit - we killed his beloved Son. All of us are guilty because of sin and is something to repent of.

Seems like I've heard this somewhere before, ah yes, in thousands of sermons I had to sit thru in my youth.

 

[stiletto]

Without evidence, only people with a strong need to believe in god can actually do so.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

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

Human beings deal in force. We study forces, we categorize them. It is the ultimate goal of our leading physicists to find a single unifying force behind everything in the universe. If that is not the search for God I don't know what is!

 

[Erebus]

That's a bit like using JK Rowling quotes as evidence of harry potter isn't it?

hah! consider that one stolen

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

>Is God able to provide more evidence that would convince more people to accept Him?

Of course He is!

But because He's given us free will, He doesn't do this because He wants every individual to make his own choices and come to his own (hopefully informed) decision!

The scriptures I endeavor to follow state explicitly that God could force everyone to be a believer simply by performing some incontrovertible miracle, but this would be contrary to His whole intention for how we're to find Him and respond to Him.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Agnostic75]

Greetings!

"Is God able to provide more evidence that would convince more people to accept Him?"

Of course He is!

But because He's given us free will, He doesn't do this because He wants every individual to make his own choices and come to his own (hopefully informed) decision! The scriptures I endeavor to follow state explicitly that God could force everyone to be a believer simply by performing some incontrovertible miracle, but this would be contrary to His whole intention for how we're to find Him and respond to Him.

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 10:37-39

"If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

Regarding those Scriptures, there was not any forcing. Those people chose to follow Jesus of their own free will because he provided them with tangible, firsthand evidence, not just with words.

 

[Mr Cheese]

please define God

 

[Wandered Off]

But because He's given us free will, He doesn't do this because He wants every individual to make his own choices and come to his own (hopefully informed) decision!

Hello Bruce! Please help me understand how 1.) withholding proof (information) would lead to an "informed" decision and 2.) how proof compromises free will. The reasoning escapes me.

Since this thread is specifically about God's ability, we can take up these questions in my old thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/61358-would-proof-eliminate-free-will.html

 

[Jose Fly]

In # 23 you made out I was not interested in the OT and I did not think it was scripture. Why don't you correct that my friend since i never said anything of the sort.
I was hurt by that but am willing to overlook it, arguing is not my style. I suggest you do the same.

Ok, let's look at what I posted. In post #23 I stated:

"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?"

And that was in response to you stating: "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".

Now, when someone tells me "since you are still so interested in the OT", it isn't that unreasonable to conclude that that person is not interested in the OT. Otherwise, why chastise my interest in it?

But even then, I couched my statements in the form of a question, i.e. "I guess for you, the OT isn't scripture?" That gave you the opportunity to respond and clarify. IOW, all I did was ask a question that logically stemmed from your chastising my interest in the OT.

Thus, your accusation of me "twisting" or manipulating anything you posted is without merit.

Also, what exactly is the point of prayer, especially pleas to God to intercede in any way, if God is not at all subject to the "whims of mere humans" as you claimed?

 

[johnhanks]

If anything is handed down from the OT it is the 10 Commandments and most people today reject them. If they are so concerned about OT teachings why don't they follow THEM ?

Most people reject them? All of them? Most people in your experience are thieving adulterous murderers? Please PM me where you live, so I can never go there.

More seriously, the reason most people ignore the prohibition of making graven images, working on the sabbath and coveting their neighbours' ox is that although the decalogue was a perfectly good set of working rules for running a tribe of nomadic Bronze Age herders, its applicability to modern societies is limited pretty much to the few that still constitute crimes - theft, perjury and murder - and social conventions like respecting your parents and observing marriage vows. The decalogue was man-made, for the society of the day.

 

[johnhanks]

That's quite true and are you saying we need feel no regret for the whole sorry saga that came about because of OUR sinful behaviour in the first place ?

Our sinful behaviour? Look, I have never eaten any fruit someone forbade me to. Well, no-one divine anyway. So why should I take the rap?

But in any case your story makes no sense. We - I'll stretch the point here and say we - did something wrong. (The whole forbidden fruit thing stinks of entrapment, but let's not be legalistic.) So God has to find a way to forgive us. But he's apparently unable to do that unless someone suffers for the sin.

He's what? Unable? There's something God is unable to do? Well, OK, staying on your side we'll swallow that one.

So, he decides the best thing he can do is beget a son, then have him killed, so everything will be square.

Uhhh ... this is supposed to make some kind of sense?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's be honest. JESUS calmed storms, healed sick, brought dead back to life, told people what they were about, etc., and all the unbelievers could do was declare HIM a devil at best... So what exactly would anyone expect GOD to do?

Appear before each of us in turn, speak to us, and make us blind for three days?

He was willing to do it for Saul, wasn't he?

Greetings!

>Is God able to provide more evidence that would convince more people to accept Him?

Of course He is!

But because He's given us free will, He doesn't do this because He wants every individual to make his own choices and come to his own (hopefully informed) decision!

The scriptures I endeavor to follow state explicitly that God could force everyone to be a believer simply by performing some incontrovertible miracle, but this would be contrary to His whole intention for how we're to find Him and respond to Him.

I'm also interested to hear your answer to Wandered Off's questions. To me, a lack of free will implies no choice at all. This is different from making a very easy choice, which seems to me to be what would happen if we were confronted with overwhelming evidence for God.

Presenting information for people to use in their decision-making process is not the same thing as forcing them.

Also, you're taking it as given that God's supplied some evidence, aren't you? I mean, didn't God send things like prophets and scriptures? If evidence for God's existence infringes on our free will, then wouldn't these things infringe on our free will as well?

 

[IndieVisible]

There is no rational reasons to believe in a god(s). There is no evidence or proof, nor can there be. Belief is based on faith and personal experiences, you either have it or don't. In my case I believe there is a God, but I have little faith in religion in general and question every thing, including if we can ever get to know God any better.

 

[Shia Islam]

What evidence convinced you to become a Muslim?

Shia Islam is based on the logical Idea that if anything can't be supported by reason it can't be dealt with as a truth.

That's why proving God by reason is the first line of Shia Beliefs.

I studied the philosophical and the scientific arguments for the existence of God.

And reached a point where currently I watch the movies of Richard Dawkins arguments against the existing of God, and with critical thinking I found them just proving the opposite…they prove the existing of God.

After settling the question of God, a comparative study between religions will show that the shia points of views, such as their view that it is necessary to have a divine human religious reference, rather than a scripture alone is the only possible applicable religion, with respects to all faiths.

 

[Shia Islam]

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

What i meant that, atheist for example should be able to claim that they are refusing god because of the lack of evidence, although they themselves, in their inner conscience they know that this proposition does not answer the main questions of the existence.

More evidence, will make no escape for them but to say that they believe in God, while internally they are rejecting him.

 

[Jose Fly]

So what exactly is "god"? What does it consist of? Where does it exist?

 

[Beta]

The best way for me to see God is ' as Conscious Thought and the Power to materealize it, bring it into Existence.'

 

[IndieVisible]

So what exactly is "god"? What does it consist of? Where does it exist?

That is the point exactly. Ask 100 people and you will get 100 different answers.

I believe that none of us can ever come close to understanding what God is. We try and should, but are limited to our very limited capabilities to understand such a Infinite Concept. We assign human attributes to God and provide different paths to God.

I think it's more on a personal level, any attempt to expound that to other people, our thoughts, ideas, opinions about God becomes religion then. Add creeds and dogma and it becomes organized religion.

So with any religion there will be elements of man made impressions based on personal inspiration. How much is inspiration and how much is man made depends entirely on each individual. The more details you attempt to attribute to God, the further away you get from what God is.

So we have two main elements here, religion and God. We know what religion is, we have no idea what God is. We just know or believe there is a God and base this faith not on any rational reasons, but on personal reasons or personal experiences.

 

[Jose Fly]

The best way for me to see God is ' as Conscious Thought and the Power to materealize it, bring it into Existence.'

So when "god" is "materialized", what material does it consist of, and where exactly is this existence manifested?

 

[Jose Fly]

That is the point exactly. Ask 100 people and you will get 100 different answers.

Isn't that also what one would expect if "god" were something people made up in their minds?

I believe that none of us can ever come close to understanding what God is.

Why?

We try and should, but are limited to our very limited capabilities to understand such a Infinite Concept. We assign human attributes to God and provide different paths to God.

But if we can't "even come close" to understanding "god", how in the world could we ever hope to figure out a "path to God"? If you can't even come close to understanding your destination, how would you know when you're there?

I think it's more on a personal level, any attempt to expound that to other people, our thoughts, ideas, opinions about God becomes religion then. Add creeds and dogma and it becomes organized religion.

And how is "it's on a personal level" any different than "everyone makes up their own god"?

How much is inspiration and how much is man made depends entirely on each individual.

And how do you differentiate between "inspiration" and "man made"?

So we have two main elements here, religion and God. We know what religion is, we have no idea what God is. We just know or believe there is a God and base this faith not on any rational reasons, but on personal reasons or personal experiences.

So if "god" is something that "we have no idea" what it is, how can you ever say whether or not it exists?