Let's suppose God did....

[variant]

And if you had this "evidence", what would you do with it?

Start demonstrating it to others I would suppose.

Using the info to my and others betterment.

 

[Elioenai26]

Start demonstrating it to others I would suppose.

Using the info to my and others betterment.

Why would you want to demonstrate it to others?

What could you do were you to be given evidence of God's existence that you cannot do now? How would having evidence of God's existence enable you to better yourself and others?

 

[pjnlsn]

You gentleman are aware that your statements are positive claims to knowledge correct?

And? There is still, at absolute minimum, no proof of a deity, nor is it likely, barring differences in how words are defined between writer and reader.

Although I suppose I could rephrase to say something like: 'As far as you or I are aware, there is no proof of a deity' or 'In the common and public knowledge of humanity, there is contained no proof of a deity'

But the essence of the statement isn't changed by the rephrasing.

There is something you're implying, but you'll need to state it directly.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why would you want to demonstrate it to others?

What could you do were you to be given evidence of God's existence that you cannot do now? How would having evidence of God's existence enable you to better yourself and others?

Depending on what this evidence is - evidence of simply deism, or evidence of Christianity and all its bells and whistles - it could be of supreme importance. After all, if this evidence helps people convert, and conversion means they avoid an eternity of suffering, then there logically cannot be anything more beneficial a person can do.

If there's no evidence or rationale, there's no reason to believe. If God can't or won't give us evidence of his existence, it's unreasonable of him to demand that we believe anyway.

 

[variant]

Why would you want to demonstrate it to others?

I'm a scientist, gathering and sharing vital information is what I do.

What could you do were you to be given evidence of God's existence that you cannot do now? How would having evidence of God's existence enable you to better yourself and others?

Well right now I "better" myself based upon my own standards and what I think is best.

An objectively better set of standards seems like it would help immeasurably.

You base your entire way of thinking on the idea that such a being exists and has such standards and that it is supremely important that we believe in it, yet you would not welcome having the standards and the being made known to you?

 

[KCfromNC]

My main contention that I am trying to get you to understand is that God is not going to force Himself upon anyone.

So basically you're saying that god is omniscient - therefore it knows what evidence would convince people. It is omnipotent - so it could provide this evidence if it wanted to. But it chooses not to and instead hides from some people, knowing that in doing so it condemns those people it is hiding from to hell.
And you're here in this thread blaming non-believers for not seeing this god-in-hiding? Seems a bit strange.

If a wild rebellious teen runs away from home seeking the "good life" out on his own with delusions of being "free" from the rule of his father, the father can call his sons telephone, write him letters, and even find out where he is staying and go and talk with him and try to persuade him to come home. But if the son is unwilling, nothing the father says or does can persuade him.

This has nothing to do with the question of evidence for god(s) existing. For one, you're confusing believing in the existence of something and following it. Those are two totally different things. The teen here isn't questioning the very existence of his father. Secondly, your father in this example is providing lots of evidence even though the son is unwilling to hear it - that's something you said your god wouldn't do. And third, the father in this example isn't [allegedly] omnipotent, so he's infinitely more limited than your god concept.

And nice attempt at belitting by using "wild rebellious teen" as an analogue for non-believers. An example like "a child who refuses to believe in Santa anymore" would be a more apt analogy.

 

[KCfromNC]

And if you had this "evidence", what would you do with it?

Come on, guys, don't let him derail this thread for another hundred posts...

The correct response - it depends on the nature of the evidence. What facts do you intend to present as evidence for your god?

 

[Skavau]

Elioenai's been constantly conflating believing in God with serving God probably since the inception of this thread.

This despite constant correction almost every time he does it. He knows better.

 

[Davian]

Why would you want to demonstrate it to others?
...

For someone like yourself, you could substantiate the claims you have made in these forums.

Just a thought.

 

[Elioenai26]

So basically you're saying that god is omniscient - therefore it knows what evidence would convince people.

That is correct.

It is omnipotent - so it could provide this evidence if it wanted to.

But it chooses not to and instead hides from some people, knowing that in doing so it condemns those people it is hiding from to hell.
And you're here in this thread blaming non-believers for not seeing this god-in-hiding? Seems a bit strange.

It would be strange if God's main concern was getting people to intellectually assent to the proposition "God exists."

But you have yet to demonstrate that this is His chief and primary reason for creating the world with humans in it in the first place.

The following should explain what I mean. It is taken from an article entitled "Is God Imaginary" from Reasonable Faith.

"Is God imaginary? I had an atheist professor agree with this sentiment. He said if God really wanted us to believe in him, he would be out there in the sky waving hello to everyone, parting more seas, and elevating massive objects.

The problem with this reasoning is that God is not interested in performing party tricks so we can say, “Wow, that’s really something else!” and go on and live a life unchanged, continuing in our sinful, self-centered ways. God would have a moral obligation to perform more miraculous deeds only if, in performing them, more people would come into a saving, personal relationship with him. But would they?

We have no good reason to think they would; the atheist has not provided us with a reason to think that if God revealed himself more overtly then more people would come to enjoy a saving relationship with him than would otherwise if God did not. While entertainment and party tricks would likely result in people coming to believe the proposition “God exists,” how could we know that would result in changing one’s heart (cf. Luke 16:30-31)? The New Testament says, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder” (James 2:19), and it’s plain that demons lack a personal relationship with God. Moreover, the Old Testament describes God revealing himself through various miraculous wonders — through the plagues upon Egypt, the pillar of fire and smoke, the parting of the Red Sea, among others — yet these events, miraculous as they were, did not produce long-lasting heart change in the Israelites. Time and time again they fell into apostasy.

Thus, even if God were to part more seas or elevate massive objects, there is no reason to think that merely producing propositional knowledge of God (like believing the proposition that China’s population exceeds one billion) would result in a personal, life-transforming relationship with him. The atheist has not shown that God has a moral obligation to reveal himself in such ways to all persons; to do so might be mere entertainment."

This has nothing to do with the question of evidence for god(s) existing. For one, you're confusing believing in the existence of something and following it. Those are two totally different things. The teen here isn't questioning the very existence of his father.

The son is ignoring the father's attempts at reconciliation, that was the point I was making.

Secondly, your father in this example is providing lots of evidence even though the son is unwilling to hear it - that's something you said your god wouldn't do.

Since I never said that, I will dismiss it as irrelevant.

And third, the father in this example isn't [allegedly] omnipotent, so he's infinitely more limited than your god concept.

Omnipotence does not mean God can do anything.

And nice attempt at belitting by using "wild rebellious teen" as an analogue for non-believers. An example like "a child who refuses to believe in Santa anymore" would be a more apt analogy.

We are all rebellious towards God and by nature are at enmity towards Him. No one is excepted here. That is why reconciliation is necessary.

 

[KCfromNC]

It would be strange if God's main concern was getting people to intellectually assent to the proposition "God exists."

But you have yet to demonstrate that this is His chief and primary reason for creating the world with humans in it in the first place.

Why would it matter if it was its primary concern or not? For an omnipotent being, there's no need to prioritize efforts since doing everything at once is by definition infinitely easy.

So its not a question of it being a primary concern. The issue is if god cares at all that we are able to find it. Looks like the answer, at least for your idea of god, is no it doesn't care at all. Oh well.

the atheist has not provided us with a reason to think that if God revealed himself more overtly then more people would come to enjoy a saving relationship with him than would otherwise if God did not.

I think it is pretty self-evident that the first step towards accepting god is having a reason to think it exists. But if god isn't interesting in starting this process and instead intends to hide from non-believers, there's no much more to discuss. And omnipotent being is going to be able to successfully hide from me no matter what I do.

While entertainment and party tricks would likely result in people coming to believe the proposition “God exists,” how could we know that would result in changing one’s heart (cf. Luke 16:30-31)?

I don't really care, since that's off topic for this thread. The question here is about evidence for believing your god exists, not about converting and worshiping it.

The son is ignoring the father's attempts at reconciliation, that was the point I was making.

Which is the exact opposite of your idea that God is hiding from non-believers.

We are all rebellious towards God and by nature are at enmity towards Him..

Proof of a God to be rebellious towards, please.

 

[Skavau]

It would be strange if God's main concern was getting people to intellectually assent to the proposition "God exists."

Why?

It would ensure that millions, if not billions more are saved from eternal torment. Many people may not believe but say that if they did they would serve and praise God.

But you have yet to demonstrate that this is His chief and primary reason for creating the world with humans in it in the first place.

This is irrelevant. I don't care what his purpose was in creating the world. Point is, if he is really omniscient and really omnibenevolent then he should inform people who are unaware and/or unconvinced of his existence what would convince them.

The following should explain what I mean. It is taken from an article entitled "Is God Imaginary" from Reasonable Faith.

From "Reasonable Faith", oh boy.

"Is God imaginary? I had an atheist professor agree with this sentiment. He said if God really wanted us to believe in him, he would be out there in the sky waving hello to everyone, parting more seas, and elevating massive objects.

The problem with this reasoning is that God is not interested in performing party tricks so we can say, “Wow, that’s really something else!”

Examples are just examples. He should be, if you prefer, performing or doing something that indicates his existence to people who don't believe.

and go on and live a life unchanged, continuing in our sinful, self-centered ways. God would have a moral obligation to perform more miraculous deeds only if, in performing them, more people would come into a saving, personal relationship with him. But would they?

Again: Many people would be Christians but they just are not convinced.

Sure, there would be people like me who would not serve but the bigger problem is that no-one at all can serve if they don't believe Christianity to be true.

We have no good reason to think they would; the atheist has not provided us with a reason to think that if God revealed himself more overtly then more people would come to enjoy a saving relationship with him than would otherwise if God did not.

This is absurd.

Are you seriously saying that out of all the 1 billion+ atheists/agnostics/secularists/non-religious individuals that no-one would be a Christian if they were convinced it was true?

Are you seriously saying that out of all the 1 billion+ Muslims that none of them would be Christians if they were convinced it was true?

Your argument, as usual relies on a complete denial of reality.

While entertainment and party tricks would likely result in people coming to believe the proposition “God exists,” how could we know that would result in changing one’s heart (cf. Luke 16:30-31)?

I'd imagine it would change at least a few people's hearts, making the endeavour worthy.

Of course as I write this response I realise William Lane Craig is scum who asserts that everyone on earth secretly believes in God anyway, so it is no surprise he would argue from this angle. He does not believe it is possible to sincerely disbelieve in God.

Thus, even if God were to part more seas or elevate massive objects, there is no reason to think that merely producing propositional knowledge of God (like believing the proposition that China’s population exceeds one billion) would result in a personal, life-transforming relationship with him.

What kind of inept comparison is that? What, pray tell does knowing the population of China mean for how one should change their behaviour? A better comparison would be knowing what causes lung cancer. By William Lane Craig's reasoning knowing the cause of lung cancer and informing every smoker of that would prevent no-one from smoking and do nothing to prevent deaths by lung cancer.

The atheist has not shown that God has a moral obligation to reveal himself in such ways to all persons; to do so might be mere entertainment."

If God does not, he is condemning by default billions to hell who would otherwise believe.

The son is ignoring the father's attempts at reconciliation, that was the point I was making.

"The son" in this analogy believes he has a different father.

Since I never said that, I will dismiss it as irrelevant.

You've said, repeatedly that God refuses to show people his existence. That has been the basis of your main argument: "Why should God show people he exists?"

Omnipotence does not mean God can do anything.

Perhaps not, but certainly gives him more options than a father.

 

[Freodin]

Omnipotence does not mean God can do anything.

You already said that and explained that this means that God cannot do anything logically impossible.

And now please explain why revealing himself to unbelievers is logically impossible for God.

 

[Davian]

...
It would be strange if God's main concern was getting people to intellectually assent to the proposition "God exists."

One would first have to establish what is 'normal' about deities prior to declaring what would be 'strange'.

But you have yet to demonstrate that this is His chief and primary reason for creating the world with humans in it in the first place.

Why would it need to be his 'chief and primary reason' for creating the world? What was his reason again?

The following should explain what I mean. It is taken from an article entitled "Is God Imaginary" from Reasonable Faith.

"Is God imaginary? I had an atheist professor agree with this sentiment. He said if God really wanted us to believe in him, he would be out there in the sky waving hello to everyone, parting more seas, and elevating massive objects.

Cannot faith move mountains? It would appear that it cannot.

The problem with this reasoning is that God is not interested in performing party tricks so we can say, “Wow, that’s really something else!” and go on and live a life unchanged, continuing in our sinful, self-centered ways. God would have a moral obligation to perform more miraculous deeds only if, in performing them, more people would come into a saving, personal relationship with him. But would they?

We have no good reason to think they would;

Who is asking for party tricks? Myself, I see no reason that this deity of yours, or the 'supernatural', cannot be measured, detected, or observed in some objective manner. Other than the obvious... that it isn't there.

the atheist has not provided us with a reason to think that if God revealed himself more overtly then more people would come to enjoy a saving relationship with him than would otherwise if God did not. While entertainment and party tricks would likely result in people coming to believe the proposition “God exists,” how could we know that would result in changing one’s heart (cf. Luke 16:30-31)? The New Testament says, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder” (James 2:19), and it’s plain that demons lack a personal relationship with God. Moreover, the Old Testament describes God revealing himself through various miraculous wonders — through the plagues upon Egypt, the pillar of fire and smoke, the parting of the Red Sea, among others — yet these events, miraculous as they were, did not produce long-lasting heart change in the Israelites. Time and time again they fell into apostasy.

Are you actually presenting bible stories as if they are history? As I was just telling another member, this is not the Christian Apologetics forum.

Thus, even if God were to part more seas or elevate massive objects, there is no reason to think that merely producing propositional knowledge of God (like believing the proposition that China’s population exceeds one billion) would result in a personal, life-transforming relationship with him. The atheist has not shown that God has a moral obligation to reveal himself in such ways to all persons; to do so might be mere entertainment."
...

The atheist is under no obligation to define the nature of something that, by every objective measure to date, appears to be imaginary.

 

[Gadarene]

Again, why is asking God to perform the sort of miracles he willingly performed for humans to witness once before a second time "party tricks"?

Either healing people's ailments was a party trick then, too, or there is no good reason for him not to be doing so now.

 

[pjnlsn]

That is correct.



It would be strange if God's main concern was getting people to intellectually assent to the proposition "God exists."

But you have yet to demonstrate that this is His chief and primary reason for creating the world with humans in it in the first place.

The following should explain what I mean. It is taken from an article entitled "Is God Imaginary" from Reasonable Faith.

"Is God imaginary? I had an atheist professor agree with this sentiment. He said if God really wanted us to believe in him, he would be out there in the sky waving hello to everyone, parting more seas, and elevating massive objects.

The problem with this reasoning is that God is not interested in performing party tricks so we can say, “Wow, that’s really something else!” and go on and live a life unchanged, continuing in our sinful, self-centered ways. God would have a moral obligation to perform more miraculous deeds only if, in performing them, more people would come into a saving, personal relationship with him. But would they?

We have no good reason to think they would; the atheist has not provided us with a reason to think that if God revealed himself more overtly then more people would come to enjoy a saving relationship with him than would otherwise if God did not. While entertainment and party tricks would likely result in people coming to believe the proposition “God exists,” how could we know that would result in changing one’s heart (cf. Luke 16:30-31)? The New Testament says, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder” (James 2:19), and it’s plain that demons lack a personal relationship with God. Moreover, the Old Testament describes God revealing himself through various miraculous wonders — through the plagues upon Egypt, the pillar of fire and smoke, the parting of the Red Sea, among others — yet these events, miraculous as they were, did not produce long-lasting heart change in the Israelites. Time and time again they fell into apostasy.

Thus, even if God were to part more seas or elevate massive objects, there is no reason to think that merely producing propositional knowledge of God (like believing the proposition that China’s population exceeds one billion) would result in a personal, life-transforming relationship with him. The atheist has not shown that God has a moral obligation to reveal himself in such ways to all persons; to do so might be mere entertainment."



The son is ignoring the father's attempts at reconciliation, that was the point I was making.



Since I never said that, I will dismiss it as irrelevant.



Omnipotence does not mean God can do anything.



We are all rebellious towards God and by nature are at enmity towards Him. No one is excepted here. That is why reconciliation is necessary.

Theologically or otherwise, anyone with an ounce of intelligence can think of an explanation as to why something isn't seen (or otherwise in effect). But that you can do that certainly doesn't make it any more likely that there is a deity, and obviously it doesn't mean it's been proven.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

That is correct.



It would be strange if God's main concern was getting people to intellectually assent to the proposition "God exists."

But you have yet to demonstrate that this is His chief and primary reason for creating the world with humans in it in the first place.

The following should explain what I mean. It is taken from an article entitled "Is God Imaginary" from Reasonable Faith.

"Is God imaginary? I had an atheist professor agree with this sentiment. He said if God really wanted us to believe in him, he would be out there in the sky waving hello to everyone, parting more seas, and elevating massive objects.

The problem with this reasoning is that God is not interested in performing party tricks so we can say, “Wow, that’s really something else!” and go on and live a life unchanged, continuing in our sinful, self-centered ways. God would have a moral obligation to perform more miraculous deeds only if, in performing them, more people would come into a saving, personal relationship with him. But would they?

We have no good reason to think they would; the atheist has not provided us with a reason to think that if God revealed himself more overtly then more people would come to enjoy a saving relationship with him than would otherwise if God did not. While entertainment and party tricks would likely result in people coming to believe the proposition “God exists,” how could we know that would result in changing one’s heart (cf. Luke 16:30-31)? The New Testament says, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder” (James 2:19), and it’s plain that demons lack a personal relationship with God. Moreover, the Old Testament describes God revealing himself through various miraculous wonders — through the plagues upon Egypt, the pillar of fire and smoke, the parting of the Red Sea, among others — yet these events, miraculous as they were, did not produce long-lasting heart change in the Israelites. Time and time again they fell into apostasy.

Thus, even if God were to part more seas or elevate massive objects, there is no reason to think that merely producing propositional knowledge of God (like believing the proposition that China’s population exceeds one billion) would result in a personal, life-transforming relationship with him. The atheist has not shown that God has a moral obligation to reveal himself in such ways to all persons; to do so might be mere entertainment."



The son is ignoring the father's attempts at reconciliation, that was the point I was making.



Since I never said that, I will dismiss it as irrelevant.



Omnipotence does not mean God can do anything.



We are all rebellious towards God and by nature are at enmity towards Him. No one is excepted here. That is why reconciliation is necessary.

Maybe atheists would believe, maybe they wouldn't, but he could at least try a little harder, I mean c'mon, sheeesh.

 

[Elioenai26]

Maybe atheists would believe, maybe they wouldn't, but he could at least try a little harder, I mean c'mon, sheeesh.

A person cannot be convinced of something if they are unwilling to be convinced. I am sure you will agree with me on this point.

If I go to the doctor's office for a routine physical and am informed by the doctor after being examined, that I have breast cancer (yes men can have breast cancer), but do not want to accept that inconvenient truth, then I am not going to believe him even if he gives me evidence in the form of test results that state I do have cancer. You see, if I do not want to believe his report for fear, or whatever the reason may be, I can rationalize it away and say: "Well, there must be some simple mistake....must be an error with the testing equipment, or there must be some other explanation, etc. etc....

See the point I am getting at?

As horrible as it would be to be told that one has cancer, I can imagine it would be much more horrible for someone to be given evidence that God exists if said person was an atheist who has spent their entire life living as if God did not exist. For the atheist who sees God as a phenomenally wicked, celestial tyrant, spoilsport, cosmic authority, and killjoy, I could not imagine them receiving any more nightmarish and horrific news than that God actually existed!

This would be like presenting clearcut evidence to a child that the boogeyman was really real, or that the monster under their bed was really real.

In either scenario, the natural defense mechanism would be denial. The response would be akin to: "SURELY THIS CANNOT BE TRUE!"

So you see....

Simply ask yourself what your response would be if you were convinced God existed....

What would your response be if He appeared before you right now and said: "I am!"

What would you do? What would you say?

The truth is, God has already told you He existed in several ways. But what do people like you do? What is your response?

Like the man in denial, you dismiss it as rubbish and explain it away in order to justify not dealing with the real issue at hand. The issue is that you are a sinner who needs a Savior. This is the real issue, righteousness and unrighteousness, light and dark, love and hate.

And this is where the work of the apologist comes to an end, for only God Himself can draw a man unto Himself and make him to see his true condition.

 

[Skavau]

A person cannot be convinced of something if they are unwilling to be convinced. I am sure you will agree with me on this point.

If I go to the doctor's office for a routine physical and am informed by the doctor after being examined, that I have breast cancer (yes men can have breast cancer), but do not want to accept that inconvenient truth, then I am not going to believe him even if he gives me evidence in the form of test results that state I do have cancer. You see, if I do not want to believe his report for fear, or whatever the reason may be, I can rationalize it away and say: "Well, there must be some simple mistake....must be an error with the testing equipment, or there must be some other explanation, etc. etc....

See the point I am getting at?

As horrible as it would be to be told that one has cancer, I can imagine it would be much more horrible for someone to be given evidence that God exists if said person was an atheist who has spent their entire life living as if God did not exist. For the atheist who sees God as a phenomenally wicked, celestial tyrant, spoilsport, cosmic authority, and killjoy, I could not imagine them receiving any more nightmarish and horrific news than that God actually existed!

This would be like presenting clearcut evidence to a child that the boogeyman was really real, or that the monster under their bed was really real.

In either scenario, the natural defense mechanism would be denial. The response would be akin to: "SURELY THIS CANNOT BE TRUE!"

So you see....

Simply ask yourself what your response would be if you were convinced God existed....

What would your response be if He appeared before you right now and said: "I am!"

What would you do? What would you say?

You're confusing denial of a fact with dislike of a fact.

Anti-theists such as myself would not bow and praise God if we believed God existed but we would acknowledge said God's existence.

 

[Elioenai26]

You're confusing denial of a fact with dislike of a fact.

Anti-theists such as myself would not bow and praise God if we believed God existed but we would acknowledge said God's existence.

You are a unique individual and as such, my comments were not directed towards you, but more to the atheists who claim that they do not believe in God because there is no evidence but would hastily acknowledge His existence if they were given evidence.

I know very well your views, and thank you for your honesty and transparency. I wish there were more people here like you who were not afraid to say what was on their mind.