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

[Willamena]

Names given to the worldly are very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is correct to what is incorrect... One single name is not uttered in the world, the name which the Father gave to the Son; it is the name above all things: the name of the Father. For the Son would not become Father unless he wore the name of the Father. Those who have this name know it, but they do not speak it. But those who do not have it do not know it.

--Gospel of Philip

It says that "God's" name is ineffable, not "God".

I can see what 9/10th said: for "God" to be ineffable would be a contradiction.

 

[Agnostic75]

In your opinion, what justifies God's actions?

I posted the analysis I reached in the last post quoted, it seems that you didn’t read it, if you want to discuss it with me then kindly quote from it.

It is difficult for me to keep track of lots of posts in various threads. Which post in this thread are you referring to? It would be easier for you to find than it would be for me.

 

[Agnostic75]

On the contrary, having additional evidence would not hinder a God in any way from achieving fair, worthy, and just goals. Parents provide their children with compelling evidence that they (the parents) exist. That certainly does not harm their children, and it doesn't stop parents from rewarding their children for doing good deeds.

You have a point, I actually thought of it while posting, that’s why I posted in the line after that the goal is God love, there will be a reward, but it will be very little in comparison, to have a compelling signs decrease the reward and feeling of free will love for God dramatically.

There is not any credible evidence that a God exists who has instituted a policy that states that the more faith that people have, the greater their rewards will be.

I asked you a question, How do you speak, and how do you see that the process is not intelligent, or you see intelligence comes from non intelligence?

I am always amazed when theists ask agnostics questions like that since almost everyone knows that most agnostics do not preclude a reasonable possibility that a God exists. One problem is that if a God exists, there is not sufficient evidence regarding who he is, and what his agenda are.

 

[mahmoud mrt]

Originally Posted by Agnostic75
In your opinion, what justifies God's actions?

It is difficult for me to keep track of lots of posts in various threads. Which post in this thread are you referring to? It would be easier for you to find than it would be for me.

here it is,

I would like to discuss this issue here

The concept of existence and non existence, please if you want read the whole post to get the concept then kindly reply.

This is my view, an Islamic opinion combined from the Islamic thinker, “dr mostafa mahmoud”, and the known scholar “Mohamed metwally elsharaawy”, and my reading in the holy Qur’an and the prophet’s (pbuh) traditions, still it’s personal, you can agree or not agree on it whether you’re a Muslim or not.

This concept could explain the question here, Why God is treating unevenly regarding testing and suffering and joy to different persons?

Before anyone was created, he was a non existent object; he was there but just a non existent possibility

This person in the non existence was naturally wishing to be created,

So God blessed him with the bless of creation,

Here comes the question: what this person wants his life to be? Of course he wants it to be ever joy, pleasure, etc,

But here we are forgetting the concept of the hereafter, the concept of ranking,

Let’s say a person who has good in him and evil in him (like all of us), what is the percentage of good, what is the percentage of evil, and how to really undress this person so as to put him in his rank?

I know that many now will reply that ranking includes hell which is ever lasting torture, no, in my opinion with proofs that torture is not ever lasting, it may be for a very long time, but not for eternity, hell is a place for ranking also, we will get to this point afterwards, thanks for being patient.

So to reveal this persons true nature and heart you need to put him in the circumstances suitable for this process,

This applies to Muslims ad non Muslims evenly.

So let’s say a person for instance with 50% good and 50% evil, this particular person for him to reach 100% good he needs to be put in hard circumstances so as to be humble towards God, feel the need for Him, thus get his heart purified and deserve heaven.

Lets say another person with 70% good and 30% evil, and this particular person for him to reach 100% good he needs to tested by another way, wealth, health, to test if he will use this in good, helping the poor, needed, thus deserves heaven. I hope good for Bill Geits by the way.

Lets get to the other side of the equation.

A person with 20% good and 80% evil, for him to reach 50% good he needs to be put in hard circumstances (or good circumstances respectively), he did crimes (as for any kind of crimes, moral, ethical, physical, etc), so sill in this life he will not reach 100%, he need to purified in hell first, to be punished for his crimes justly, then he will go to heaven, (many Muslims, and non Muslims are in this category)

Another person has 0% good and 100% evil, nothing will make him good by any means or believing in God, be thankful to him, so God puts him in the circumstances to reveal his true nature, he will be able to do all kinds of crimes, murder, rape, etc. So he deserves hell, in hell he will be punished for his crimes for a very long time depending on the crimes, then afterwards his torture will be over, he will not suffer, but still he will be in hell with his low rank. Heaven for him will be worse than hell, he doesn’t’ want to be thankful towards God for a single moment, so the mercy of God will put him in his rank.

So when the holy Qur’an always states the balance between the reward for good persons and punishment for evil ones , He mainly speaks to Muslims and non Muslims to help them do the effort so as to reach a good rank and deserve ever joy life in heaven.

Note here that the clear agreed upon concept in Islam is that heaven and hell are physical full body lives, not just by soul like the Christian faith, with respect

Regarding the textual proofs for this analysis I’ll post it here by God willing

Regards,
mahmoud

 

[mahmoud mrt]

There is not any credible evidence that a God exists who has instituted a policy that states that the more faith that people have, the greater their rewards will be.

Well that's waht we believe, the point is that when you reach for God and do the effort to believe and love him then you're much rewarded, than just bow your neck to him with a compelling stick

I am always amazed when theists ask agnostics questions like that since almost everyone knows that most agnostics do not preclude a reasonable possibility that a God exists. One problem is that if a God exists, there is not sufficient evidence regarding who he is, and what his agenda are.

Then you say that my question is agnostic, as i understand agnostics are not sure whether God exists or not

when I ask you about a feature in you (like the ability to speak) that needs an intelligent force to create it, you refer to it as agnostic, well you miss the other point i mentioned, is that the feeling of God is in the human heart, and you choose to hide it

again first you find God in your heart, while seeing this intelligent made unified universe,

Then afterward you choose your religion,

you can disagree, it's your right


regards,
mahmoud

 

[S-word]

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

How much evidence do you need, you have the living universal body that has evolved from the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity which was spatially separated , with the Big bang, in which living universal body had evolved an intellect capable of comprehending mind.

Romans 1: 18; "God's anger is revealed from heaven against all the sin and evil of the people whose evil ways prevent the truth from being known. God punishes them, because what can be known about God is plain to them, for God himself made it plain in the living universe which is the visible representation of the invisible reality that is he.

Ever since God created the world, his invisible qualities, both his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen; they are perceived in the things that God has made. So those people have no excuse at all! they know God, but they do not give him the honour that belongs to him, nor do they thank him. Instead, their thoughts have become complete nonsense, and their empty minds are filled with darkness. They say they are wise, but they are fools; instead of worshiping the immortal God, they worship images made to look like mortal man etc."

 

[Beta]

Good post friend .
Hopefully it might wake up some of the self-styled Intellects !

 

[johnhanks]

I was not talking about God materializing Himself (you calling God 'it' is causing that confusion.)

Why himself? What exactly is masculine about this thing? If you are insisting on an indescribable, incomprehensible entity we cannot begin to apprehend, calling it "it" would seem entirely appropriate.

 

[Beta]

Why himself? What exactly is masculine about this thing? If you are insisting on an indescribable, incomprehensible entity we cannot begin to apprehend, calling it "it" would seem entirely appropriate.

That may be so from your point of understanding friend which I don't dispute.
From MY point God expressed himself in his Son Jesus who we (Christians ) understand to have been in the male human form. He is not incomprehensible to me so I can not share YOUR concept of him.

 

[Agnostic75]

How much evidence do you need?

People need as much evidence as it takes for them to get to heaven. A number of texts show that some people who would not accept Jesus based upon his words alone accepted him after they saw him perform miracles. If you had been alive back then, would you have asked those people how much evidence they needed?

Consider the following Scriptures:

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.”

Obviously, Jesus' attitude was not "how much evidence do you need?" His attitude was to provide whatever evidence was needed for those people to get to heaven. The texts that I mentioned show the importance and value of tangible, first hand evidence.

To what extent is God willing to go to keep people from spending eternity in hell without parole? To what extent would you go to keep people from spending eternity in hell without parole?

 

[IndieVisible]

It seems "god" is no different than "totally made up", it has no rational basis, and is indistinguishable from "that which does not exist".

And I guess all I can say is....I agree.

The only difference is personal experiences. All we can see are the effects, not the cause. Same with God, it is possible these effects we see and feel personally are of God or of our own imagination. Who is to say? I say yes, you see no. So where are we? And who really cares? I know I don't care if you believe or not

 

[IndieVisible]

There is not any credible evidence that a God exists who has instituted a policy that states that the more faith that people have, the greater their rewards will be.



I am always amazed when theists ask agnostics questions like that since almost everyone knows that most agnostics do not preclude a reasonable possibility that a God exists. One problem is that if a God exists, there is not sufficient evidence regarding who he is, and what his agenda are.

You claim to be agnostic yet argue like a atheist or at least mild atheist lol. As an agnostic I have already acknowledged that there is NO RATIONAL REASONS to believe in God, and THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR PROOFS of a God, and I add it must be that way.

Belief in God is based on faith, not rational thinking, proofs or evidence. If there was sufficient proof for God and I do not believe that can ever be possible, there would be no need for faith.

I understand completely how and why theists believe, and I understand why atheists do not believe. I must confess, my fellow agnostics get me the most confused

 

[Agnostic75]

I am always amazed when theists ask agnostics questions like that since almost everyone knows that most agnostics do not preclude a reasonable possibility that a God exists. One problem is that if a God exists, there is not sufficient evidence regarding who he is, and what his agenda are.

You claim to be agnostic yet argue like a atheist or at least mild atheist lol.

No, like most agnostics, I believe that there is a reasonable possibility that an unknown God exists, but not Gods that are mentioned in religious books. I would not be surprised if a deistic God exists, but I would be surprised if any God that is mentioned in religious books exists.

As an agnostic I have already acknowledged that there is NO RATIONAL REASONS to believe in God, and THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR PROOFS of a God, and I add it must be that way.

Belief in God is based on faith, not rational thinking, proofs or evidence. If there was sufficient proof for God and I do not believe that can ever be possible, there would be no need for faith.

I understand completely how and why theists believe, and I understand why atheists do not believe. I must confess, my fellow agnostics get me the most confused.

Yesterday, I replied to similar arguments that you made in another thread. Consider the following:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ince-skeptics-god-probably-2.html#post1937123

What may be acceptable "proofs" for you may not be for others.
Of course, but many Christians have asked particular skeptics what evidence would convince them.

Of course, but many Christians have asked particular skeptics what evidence would convince them.

What may be acceptable "proofs" for you may not be for others. Lets not forget that if you accept the Gospels that many witnesses the miracles and yet did not believe.

I do not accept the Bible claim that the Pharisees claimed that Jesus performed miracles by the power of Beelzebub. Why would the Pharisees have believed that? Why would Beelzebub heal people? As far as I know, that vast majority of theists past and present would attribute healing to God, not to Beelzebub.

After all if you met a man and he could turn water in to wine and walk on water, how would you know for sure if he was of God?

You couldn't, nor could you know for certain that Hillary Clinton is not an alien, but you do not believe that because you know that there is not sufficient evidence that she is an alien. The main issue is not what is absolute proof, but what is the most logical bet to accept, reference Pascal's Wager. I should have titled this thread "What evidence would convince skeptics to become a follower of a supposed God? I would be willing to become a follower of any supposed God who I considered to have good character. Knowing his true identity for certain would not be any more important to me than knowing Hillary Clinton's true identity for certain. I am much more concerned with how beings act than I am with their true identity.

You also said:

There can never be enough proof or evidence to convince
everyone. The cards are stacked. It requires faith, not proof. If there was rational reasons to believe in God there would be no faith needed then.

Regarding "There can never be enough proof or evidence to convince every one," the title of this thread is "Is God able to provide additional evidence that would convince more people to accept him?" You used the word "everyone," but I used the word "more." My position is that no man can morally be sent to hell for refusing to accept evidence that he would accept if he was aware of it.

Regarding "If there was rational reasons to believe in God there would be no faith needed then," 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 indicate that some people who did not have faith in Jesus' words alone accepted him after he provided them with tangible, firsthand evidence. I obviously do not believe that those events occured, but if they did occur, I believe that it was rational for those people to believe that no human could have done what Jesus did. If the events happened, those people could not have known for certain that Jesus was the Son of God, but perhaps it was not a bad bet to accept him, especially a man would could raise people from the dead.

 

[IndieVisible]

No, like most agnostics, I believe that there is a reasonable possibility that an unknown God exists, but not Gods that are mentioned in religious books. I would not be surprised if a deistic God exists, but I would be surprised if any God that is mentioned in religious books exists.

Yesterday, I replied to similar arguments that you made in another thread. Consider the following:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ince-skeptics-god-probably-2.html#post1937123


You also said:



Regarding "There can never be enough proof or evidence to convince every one," the title of this thread is "Is God able to provide additional evidence that would convince more people to accept him?" You used the word "everyone," but I used the word "more." My position is that no man can morally be sent to hell for refusing to accept evidence that he would accept if he was aware of it.

Regarding "If there was rational reasons to believe in God there would be no faith needed then," 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 indicate that some people who did not have faith in Jesus' words alone accepted him after he provided them with tangible, firsthand evidence. I obviously do not believe that those events occured, but if they did occur, I believe that it was rational for those people to believe that no human could have done what Jesus did. If the events happened, those people could not have known for certain that Jesus was the Son of God, but perhaps it was not a bad bet to accept him, especially a man would could raise people from the dead.

Well I never liked labels any way. But you do realize you have essentially created your own religion here.. even added a creed or two

No, like most agnostics, I believe that there is a reasonable possibility that an unknown God exists, but not Gods that are mentioned in religious books. I would not be surprised if a deistic God exists, but I would be surprised if any God that is mentioned in religious books exists.

btw, how do you know what most agnostics are like or believe?

Now back to basics..

I still see no rational reason to believe in a God just because some one could turn water in to wine or walk on water. It would be I suppose rational to assume this person was able to do things others can't, but it's still a quantum leap to believe because this person can do that there must be a God.

The point in those scriptures is really about "little shoves" some people need to have faith. For some it's physical evidence, for others it is reason. The nice thing about the scriptures is you do not have to believe they really happened to discuss them as we are doing. They still have value and purpose.

Thomas had to see for himself the wounds of Jesus and touch them before he believed he had risen.

Nicodemus on the other hand was more interested in reason and logic.

Yet really there was no real concrete proof or evidence provided to either to prove there is a GOD.

I tend to stay away from dogma and doctrines. I studied comparative religion, and had my share of debates with every one.

I believe in ONE GOD who is the CAUSE of every thing, there may be lesser gods but one CAUSE. Furthermore I believe religion points to the same God just under different names and masks. Religion. There you go my own religion and creed

 

[Agnostic75]

There can never be enough proof or evidence to convince
everyone.

But that does not have anything to do with this thread. The title of this thread is "Is God able to provide additional evidence that would convince more people to accept him?" You used the word "everyone," but I used the word "more." My position is that no man can morally be sent to hell for refusing to accept evidence that he would accept if he was aware of it, certainly not that there is proof that would convince everyone. It is not even possible to convince everyone that they tangibly exist.

The point in those scriptures is really about "little shoves" some people need to have faith.

Of course, and if God provided more "little shoves," more people would accept him.

Yet really there was no real concrete proof or evidence provided to either to prove there is a GOD.

Yes, and there is not concrete proof that Hillary Clinton is not an alien, but it is rational and reasonable to believe that she is a human being. Obviously, absolute proof is not necessary to make a rational conclusion that Hillary Clinton is a human being.

Some people do not believe that they tangibly exist, and some people do not believe that men have landed on the moon. Can you provide absolute proof that people tangibly exist, and that men have landed on the moon? When people do not have absolute proof, which is frequently if not usually the case, and maybe never the case, they usually choose to make bets, or wagers, based upon their individual understanding of probability. If Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, it would have been a rational bet, or wager, for people to make that no human could have done that.

I tend to stay away from dogma and doctrines.

So do I, but my main intention in starting this thread was to tell fundamentalist Christians that if a God inspired the Bible, he refuses to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to accept him, and that no man can morally be sent to hell for refusing to accept evidence that he would accept if he was aware of it. You somehow got off on a tangent about absolute proof even though I never said or implied anything about absolute proof. Simply stated, my main interest in this thread is the morality and fairness of God. I should have stated that more clearly in the opening post.

 

[footprints]

Simply put, if a person is going to deny God per se, on the evidence we have to date, they are pretty much going to deny God, irrespective of any amount of evidence given. This is what their own intelligence already dictates. Vice versa of course the other way.

 

[IndieVisible]

But that does not have anything to do with this thread. The title of this thread is "Is God able to provide additional evidence that would convince more people to accept him?" You used the word "everyone," but I used the word "more." My position is that no man can morally be sent to hell for refusing to accept evidence that he would accept if he was aware of it, certainly not that there is proof that would convince everyone. It is not even possible to convince everyone that they tangibly exist.



Of course, and if God provided more "little shoves," more people would accept him.


Yes, and there is not concrete proof that Hillary Clinton is not an alien, but it is rational and reasonable to believe that she is a human being. Obviously, absolute proof is not necessary to make a rational conclusion that Hillary Clinton is a human being.

Some people do not believe that they tangibly exist, and some people do not believe that men have landed on the moon. Can you provide absolute proof that people tangibly exist, and that men have landed on the moon? When people do not have absolute proof, which is frequently if not usually the case, and maybe never the case, they usually choose to make bets, or wagers, based upon their individual understanding of probability. If Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, it would have been a rational bet, or wager, for people to make that no human could have done that.



So do I, but my main intention in starting this thread was to tell fundamentalist Christians that if a God inspired the Bible, he refuses to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to accept him, and that no man can morally be sent to hell for refusing to accept evidence that he would accept if he was aware of it. You somehow got off on a tangent about absolute proof even though I never said or implied anything about absolute proof. Simply stated, my main interest in this thread is the morality and fairness of God. I should have stated that more clearly in the opening post.

I do not cater to fundamentalists by any stretch, but if God wanted to He could do whatever He wanted to and we could all be believers, but it's not about proofs or evidence, it's about believers. It is what is IT IS.

Not about proofs bro

 

[Agnostic75]

I do not cater to fundamentalists by any stretch, but if God wanted to He could do whatever He wanted to and we could all be believers, but it's not about proofs or evidence, it's about believers. It is what is IT IS.

Not about proofs bro.

Regarding "if God wanted to He could do whatever He wanted to and we could all be believers," if you mean that if God wanted to he could force everyone to accept him, I do not know of anyone who would disagree with that, but that is not an issue in this thread. The title of this thread is "Is God able to provide additional evidence that would convince more people to accept him?" I assume that most people know that what I meant was "accept him of their own free will," not "accept him because he forced them to accept him." I am not saying that free will does or does not exist, but fundamentalist Christian theology says that free will does exist.

Regarding "it's not about proofs or evidence," proof of what, that a God exists? There is not absolute proof that Hillary Clinton is a human being and not an alien. Even if she was an alien, so what? Her actions are the most important issue, not her true identity. The same goes for a supposed God. If a supposed God showed up on earth, his actions would be the most important issue, not his true identity. Based upon certain kinds of evidence, a man could make a rational choice to become a supporter of a supposed God without having absolute proof of his true identity.

Regarding the global flood theory, it is certainly about evidence, but not about absolute proof. A God could have caused a global flood to occur, and temporarily changed the law of gravity, which would account for why fossils and sediments are not sorted in ways that indicate that a global flood occured. However, I do not believe that many Christians would make that argument. The main issue is "reasonable evidence," or "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt," not absolute proof.

 

[S-word]

People need as much evidence as it takes for them to get to heaven.

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

Quote S-word; How much evidence do you need, you have the living universal body that has evolved from the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity which was spatially separated , with the Big bang, in which living universal body had evolved an intellect capable of comprehending mind.

Romans 1: 18; "God's anger is revealed from heaven against all the sin and evil of the people whose evil ways prevent the truth from being known. God punishes them, because what can be known about God is plain to them, for God himself made it plain in the living universe which is the visible representation of the invisible reality that is he.

Ever since God created the world, his invisible qualities, both his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen; they are perceived in the things that God has made. So those people have no excuse at all! they know God, but they do not give him the honour that belongs to him, nor do they thank him. Instead, their thoughts have become complete nonsense, and their empty minds are filled with darkness. They say they are wise, but they are fools; instead of worshiping the immortal God, they worship images made to look like mortal man etc."

Agnostic75; People need as much evidence as it takes for them to get to heaven. A number of texts show that some people who would not accept Jesus based upon his words alone accepted him after they saw him perform miracles. If you had been alive back then, would you have asked those people how much evidence they needed?

Consider the following Scriptures:

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.”

Obviously, Jesus' attitude was not "how much evidence do you need?" His attitude was to provide whatever evidence was needed for those people to get to heaven. The texts that I mentioned show the importance and value of tangible, first hand evidence.

To what extent is God willing to go to keep people from spending eternity in hell without parole? To what extent would you go to keep people from spending eternity in hell without parole?

S-word; And what has all that to do with the question; “Is God able to provide additional evidence that would convince more people to accept him”?
Thousands of years before the man Jesus was every born, the ancients, who used their God given brains understood from the evidence in the creation, that there had to be a God.

 

[Agnostic75]

How much evidence do you need.......?

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?