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

[Beta]

[/font]

The title of this thread is "Is God able to provide additional evidence that would convince more people to accept him?" I was referring to the Christian God. You did not answer the question. Please do so.

If a God inspired the Bible, he withholds evidence that would cause more people to accept him. No man can morally be sent to hell for refusing to accept evidence that he would accept if he was aware of it.

Every person is unique. Evidence that will convince one person often will not convince another person.

In your opinion, what justifies what God does?

In the first inst.God does not have to justify what he does. Once we understand his purpose we know that everything he does is for everyman's benefit.
Because man is starting out from ignorance (concerning God's plan & purpose) God in his kindness and mercy gives man the least effort to grow in his knowledge. What would be the point of giving us more information if we are unable to deal with the least required ? It would be like saying to an infant' now run' when he has not learnt to walk. Do you see the foolishness of this ?
God's basic requirement for man is to 'BELIEF' what God says and then to go on step by step to grow in more knowledge. Up to now man has not even learnt to believe what the Word of God says. So why should God provide more evidence ??? If we can't believe the least how would further relevation do so ? man would always want to know more without ever becoming convinced. It is not knowledge only that helps us to see God - it's the DOING of it.

 

[Luminakisharblaze]

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing.'
"But," says man, "The babel fish is a dead give a way isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't, QED"
"Oh, I hadn't thought of that" says God and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. And for an encore man goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed at the next zebra crossing. --Douglas Adams/Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

But seriously, Divinity is Love and Light. If you pay attention to those little things we like to dismiss as coincidence, you would see that the Divine is all around you and inside you. Divine is the Collective energy that makes up this Universe. All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, Divine energy. To stand in the presence of the Divine is to stand in the most brilliant and beautiful and all-encompassing Love and Light. The proof is existence and consciousness.

 

[Agnostic75]

In the first instance, God does not have to justify what he does.

In other words, any being who has enough power is able to enforce artibrary rules of his own choosing.

Since you are fallible and imperfect, you might be wrong. If a God inspired the Bible he might send everyone to hell. Paul essentially says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. If it is actually God who masquerades as an angel of light, how could Paul have known that. If God sends everyone to hell, in order to be consistent, you would have to say that he does not have to justify what he does. You would be right since any being who has enough power can do whatever he wants to do, but you would not be able to love a God who was a liar, and sent you to hell, especially if he treated you very badly. A being who has enough power does not have to justify his actions in the sense that no one can force him to justifiy his actions, but he would need to reasonably prove his existence, and justify his actions if he wanted to attract as many followers as possible.

Conservative Christians claim that a lot of evidence reasonably proves that the Bible is a trustworthy source of information, but if the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, most conservative Christians would not defend the evidence. Some of them would reject the evidence. Many of those who believed the evidence would conclude that it would be best to enjoy life as much possible anyway. Christian apologist William Lane Craig has boasted about the Gospels being "multiple, independent attestations," but if the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, even if there were ten Gospels instead of four, that would not be enough evidence to convince Craig to love God, and to promote the Bible.

Surely the main issue for Christians in the rewards, not who provides them with the rewards. If a man wins a lottery, he could not care less who give him the money. If a powerful alien was able to provide Christians with a comfortable eternal life, many if not most Christians would happily accept his offer if it turned out that the God of the Bible did not show up after they died.

Once we understand his purpose we know that everything he does is for every man's benefit.

It has not been adequately demonstrated that Hurricane Katrina was for every man's benefit. It has been adequately demonstrated that if a God inspired the Bible, he withholds evidence that would convince more people to accept him if they were aware of it.

Because man is starting out from ignorance (concerning God's plan & purpose) God in his kindness and mercy gives man the least effort to grow in his knowledge.

If a God exists, no one knows who he is, and what his agenda are.

What would be the point of giving us more information if we are unable to deal with the least required?

One obvious point would be so more people would go to heaven, and fewer people to go to hell.

It would be like saying to an infant' now run' when he has not learnt to walk. Do you see the foolishness of this?

That does not change the fact that if a God inspired the Bible, he withholds evidence that would convince more people to accept him if they were aware of it.

God's basic requirement for man is to "BELIEVE" what God says and then to go on step by step to grow in more knowledge. Up to now man has not even learnt to believe what the Word of God says.

Are you saying that God is not able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to accept him? If the Bible contained many fulfilled prophecies regarding when and where some natural disasters would occur, month, day, and year, surely more people would have become Christians. Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon much less convincing evidence than that.

Are you an inerrantist?

 

[Beta]

Agnostic75 , the biggest issue in your post seems to be the one of being sent to hell.
GOD DOES NOT SEND ANYONE TO HELL ! ! !
What happens is that people will end up there by THEIR OWN CHOICE.
God has had to set up a certain way for man to reach (get into) eternity. There simply is no other way. And this way demands/requires obedience from the start. 'Belief' is like a tiny seed that grows into a large plant that will eventually bear fruit. You can't start believing somewhere halfway through or you will have NO ROOTS. We must start believing from the beginning so we grow into a COMPLETE plant with roots leaves and fruit. Without roots a plant does not last long nor can it be productive. And our eternal future is for a productive purpose. Belief in God forms our root-system no matter how small.
YOU may be an intelligent man but there are people with less intellect and God wants the same eternal-life-opportunity for all, so he starts with something simple. I believe God will send more proof but people will wish they had not asked for it.

 

[Agnostic75]

Agnostic75, the biggest issue in your post seems to be the one of being sent to hell. GOD DOES NOT SEND ANYONE TO HELL.

But my arguments would still be valid if I said that God will deny many skeptics entry into heaven for refusing to accept evidence that they would accept if they were aware of it. Regardless of how much evidence God might have provided, he refuses to provide additional evidence that would convince more people to accept him if they were aware of it.

If God's actions do not need to be justified, then his actions would not need to be justified if he is a liar, and let's all humans become dust in the ground.

It is mainly self-interest that motivates Christians, certainly not multiple Gospels, many eyewitnesses, and many copies of ancient manuscripts. If the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, almost no one would support it. That indicates that it is the rewards, aka self-interest, that are the chief motivation for conservative Christians, not the kinds of evidence that I just mentioned, which they use quite frequently. If the evidence was actually convincing, it would be convincing whether or not rewards were promised.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't think God needs to stoop to the level of coming up with things that will prove He is who He says He is. If He wanted to prove anything to anybody, I believe He could, but a huge part of the reason He put us here in the first place was to see which of us was strong enough not to need proof of everything.

 

[Agnostic75]

If He wanted to prove anything to anybody, I believe He could, but a huge part of the reason He put us here in the first place was to see which of us was strong enough not to need proof of everything.

But what justifies what God does? Why are his opinions right?

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 Scriptures do not compare favorably with your claim that "a huge part of the reason He put us here in the first place was to see which of us was strong enough not to need proof of everything."

Those Scriptures show that some people would not accept Jesus based upon his words alone, and that he provided them with tangible, firsthand evidence that convinced them to accept his words. Even after the Holy Spirit supposedly came to the church, in the NIV, Acts 14:3 says “So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.” Considering that Jesus had performed many miracles in front of thousands of people, including many miracles that were not recorded, and had appeared to hundreds of people after he rose from the dead, and had criticized his disciples for their unbelief, and that there were thousands of surviving eyewitnesses who were still around, and that the Holy Spirit had come to the church, I find it to be quite odd that God provided even more tangible, firsthand evidence. In my opinion, this brings into question the truthfulness of the claims.

 

[Beta]

I don't think God needs to stoop to the level of coming up with things that will prove He is who He says He is. If He wanted to prove anything to anybody, I believe He could, but a huge part of the reason He put us here in the first place was to see which of us was strong enough not to need proof of everything.

You are making quite a good point there my friend.
People who ask for evidence are more set on the material and physical which will not (no longer) exist with God into eternity.
God is spirit and he is trying to prepare man for a spiritual future. Of course God could apply a bit of force to get us to believe him but that is not a good start for a loving relationship with him. God wants man's free and willing participation in an eternal future. He does expect a little effort from us.

 

[Beta]

But what justifies what God does? Why are his opinions right?

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 Scriptures do not compare favorably with your claim that "a huge part of the reason He put us here in the first place was to see which of us was strong enough not to need proof of everything."

Those Scriptures show that some people would not accept Jesus based upon his words alone, and that he provided them with tangible, firsthand evidence that convinced them to accept his words. Even after the Holy Spirit supposedly came to the church, in the NIV, Acts 14:3 says “So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.” Considering that Jesus had performed many miracles in front of thousands of people, including many miracles that were not recorded, and had appeared to hundreds of people after he rose from the dead, and had criticized his disciples for their unbelief, and that there were thousands of surviving eyewitnesses who were still around, and that the Holy Spirit had come to the church, I find it to be quite odd that God provided even more tangible, firsthand evidence. In my opinion, this brings into question the truthfulness of the claims.

Friend - you want evidence , you want miracles ? You want to go back 2000 years ? CREATION is a FOREWARD-moving process . You want to REVERSE Creation ? It does not work that way unless you want to throw a spanner in the work of God. Creation can not go back and it can not stand still - except for a little leeway and short period of time. God is still performing miracles but of a spiritual nature experienced by the obedient. Others exclude themselves by demanding more than is good for them.
When God's plan is set in motion we are to GO WITH IT and God sees to it that we succeed as long as we believe and obey him. Jesus is our example - HE had to learn obedience to his Father as we have to become obedient to HIM Heb.5v8,9.
WE must learn to fit in with GOD, not the other way round.

 

[Agnostic75]

Friend - you want evidence , you want miracles ? You want to go back 2000 years? CREATION is a FOREWARD-moving process. You want to REVERSE Creation? It does not work that way unless you want to throw a spanner in the work of God. Creation can not go back and it can not stand still - except for a little leeway and short period of time. God is still performing miracles but of a spiritual nature experienced by the obedient. Others exclude themselves by demanding more than is good for them.

When God's plan is set in motion we are to GO WITH IT and God sees to it that we succeed as long as we believe and obey him. Jesus is our example - HE had to learn obedience to his Father as we have to become obedient to HIM Heb. 5v8, 9.
WE must learn to fit in with GOD, not the other way round.

In other words, might makes right.

 

[Black_Shuck]

In other words, might makes right.

LOL isn't that an Satanist philosophy? I believe we might be learning something more about God than he wants us to know.

To answer the topic Question. I believe he could but I don't think he cares enough about us to do so.

 

[Beta]

In other words, might makes right.

Not at all !!!
God's wisdom, compassion and love for man makes him right.
Look - God worked out every detail in the human creation before the foundation of the world. He knows how to direct it in order to come to a successful ending. He does not start changing his plan halfway through to please people who are prone to sin and disobedience. What kind of a plan or creation would he end up with ? Giving way to sinful man who does not know right from wrong would make God as bad as we are.
God knows what he has to do and we can join him ON HIS TERMS. End of story ! Some will and some of their own choice will not. But all are invited and welcome.

 

[Beta]

LOL isn't that an Satanist philosophy? I believe we might be learning something more about God than he wants us to know.

To answer the topic Question. I believe he could but I don't think he cares enough about us to do so.

God cares enough about you to get you started !
If you don't want to follow his instructions it's hardly his fault.

 

[Agnostic75]

God's wisdom, compassion and love for man makes him right.

On the contrary, it is not loving for God to withhold additional evidence that would cause more people to accept him. Morally, no man can be denied entry into heaven for refusing to accept evidence that he would accept if he was aware of it.

Are you aware of any fair, worthy, and just goal that God would not be able to achieve without injuring and killing humans and innocent animals with hurricanes?

If at birth you had been transported back in time to hundreds of years ago, assuming that you had read the Bible, are you certain that you would have become a Christian?

Today, you reject colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women, but if at birth you had been transported back in time to hundreds of years ago, assuming that you had read the Bible, it is reasonably possible if not probable that you would have endorsed one or more of those things.

 

[Beta]

On the contrary, it is not loving for God to withhold additional evidence that would cause more people to accept him. Morally, no man can be denied entry into heaven for refusing to accept evidence that he would accept if he was aware of it.

Are you aware of any fair, worthy, and just goal that God would not be able to achieve without injuring and killing humans and innocent animals with hurricanes?

If at birth you had been transported back in time to hundreds of years ago, assuming that you had read the Bible, are you certain that you would have become a Christian?

Today, you reject colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women, but if at birth you had been transported back in time to hundreds of years ago, assuming that you had read the Bible, it is reasonably possible if not probable that you would have endorsed one or more of those things.

Friend , we are not talking about what might or might not have happened in the past. God will deal with other people at other times. You and I are here today and God judges us on our present-day knowledge.
If you don't want to trust him and accept his Word as true and right he will not force you or beg you to do so. He has given you a starting-point just like any sportsman/long-distance-runner has to accept to be in a race. You are obviously not inclined to accept but want to take part on your own terms . Nothing more to be said.

 

[Agnostic75]

Friend, we are not talking about what might or might not have happened in the past.

Oh, but we are. If you had been transported back in time at birth to centuries ago, and had read the Bible, and rejected it, which surely at least some of today's Christians would have done if they had been transported back in time at birth, if the God of the Bible exists, as far as I know, he would have either denied you entry into heaven, or would allow you to enter heaven because he knew that one day, you would accept additional evidence and become a Christian. Which of those two possibilities do you think would be more likely?

 

[Beta]

Oh, but we are. If you had been transported back in time at birth to centuries ago, and had read the Bible, and rejected it, which surely at least some of today's Christians would have done if they had been transported back in time at birth, if the God of the Bible exists, as far as I know, he would have either denied you entry into heaven, or would allow you to enter heaven because he knew that one day, you would accept additional evidence and become a Christian. Which of those two possibilities do you think would be more likely?

Friend, you are dealing in if's and but's, not in concrete's. How can we say for sure what any of us would have done ? That simply is not in question.
And in any case - no one has yet gone to heaven or hell so we can not speculate on what God would or would not have done. Let's deal in reality.

 

[Katzpur]

From my perspective, faith precedes the miracle, not the other way around.

 

[Beta]

From my perspective, faith precedes the miracle, not the other way around.

Yes quite true - no faith no miracle.

 

[Agnostic75]

From my perspective, faith precedes the miracle, not the other way around.

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 shos that in many cases, sufficient faith to become a follower of Jesus only happened after people saw Jesus perform miracles. It is quite interesting that Jesus supposedly said, reference 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.”

Those texts show that some people would not accept Jesus based upon his words alone, and that he provided them with tangible, firsthand evidence that convinced them to accept his words. Even after the Holy Spirit supposedly came to the church, in the NIV, Acts 14:3 says “So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.” Considering that Jesus had performed many miracles in front of thousands of people, including many miracles that were not recorded, and had appeared to hundreds of people after he rose from the dead, and had criticized his disciples for their unbelief, and that there were thousands of surviving eyewitnesses who were still around, and that the Holy Spirit had come to the church, I find it to be quite odd that God provided even more tangible, firsthand evidence. In my opinion, this brings into question the truthfulness of the claims.