Belief and evidence

[Opti]

Some people simply believe,

Some feel that there is sufficient evidence and because of this, they believe.

Is one way better than the other?

What if there was more evidence, enough that it was preposterous not to believe, such that we all believed, would that be even better?

 

[ebia]

Some people simply believe,

Some feel that there is sufficient evidence and because of this, they believe.

Is one way better than the other?

What if there was more evidence, enough that it was preposterous not to believe, such that we all believed, would that be even better?

What matters is not what brings us to belief, but whether or not our response is one of faith and trust.

But the second part of your question seems to imply that volume of evidence correlates with number who believe (which seems dubious), assumes that will correlate with number who put their faith in Jesus, and also seems to have a hidden question.

What extra evidence would help if Jesus rising from the dead does not?

Most people come to faith because they see the evidence in the lives of people, they form relationships, they begin to belong, and they find it makes sense. And, according to Paul, because they hear the gospel, which is the power of God, told prayerfully, sensitively and appropriately.

 

[theVirginian]

But the second part of your question seems to imply that volume of evidence correlates with number who believe (which seems dubious), assumes that will correlate with number who put their faith in Jesus, and also seems to have a hidden question.

Yep. Evidence acquired through the natural realm isn't all that effective. God is stuck operating that way because the Natural Man is spiritually numb. Thousands witnessed Jesus performing miracles, yet there were only 120 hard core followers who obeyed Him and went to that upper room to wait on being annointed with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.

 

[drich0150]

Jesus answers this question in John 20:
24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." 26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." 28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" 29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

 

[Opti]

Thanks for the feedback.

I guess my question comes from the fact that faith is great, but where faith is in question the religious authorities point to evidence.

It would be great if everyone had faith or if everybody thought the evidence was sufficient,

but...

would it also be as good if, say, Jesus was to return and make sure we all saw a miracle? Then surely we would all believe?

 

[ebia]

Thanks for the feedback.

I guess my question comes from the fact that faith is great, but where faith is in question the religious authorities point to evidence.

It would be great if everyone had faith or if everybody thought the evidence was sufficient,

but...

would it also be as good if, say, Jesus was to return and make sure we all saw a miracle? Then surely we would all believe?

Nothing makes me think that would help.

 

[salida]

I'm a christian first spiritually even though there is overwhelming evidence of the Bible. You can show many people all the evidence in the world but this doesn't change their will of not believing. Also, people many times base their beliefs on pure emotion - what feels good only- even though this has nothing to do with reality.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Thanks for the feedback.

I guess my question comes from the fact that faith is great, but where faith is in question the religious authorities point to evidence.

It would be great if everyone had faith or if everybody thought the evidence was sufficient,

but...

would it also be as good if, say, Jesus was to return and make sure we all saw a miracle? Then surely we would all believe?

I don't think it would make too much difference. Even when Christ was on earth, He was performing daily miracles and people still chose not to believe.

Equally, He is still performing miracles today, and people reach for any alternative explanation - even if their explanation is far more tenuous than God doing it. But that doesn't matter: as long as they can discount the idea of Christ, they'll accept any alternative.

I think, the thing is, many don't believe because they just don't feel it's reasonable to do so. It's honestly understandable, and that'll change if and when God makes Himself known to them. But, by the same token, many choose not to believe simply because they don't want to, or can't bring themselves to. Either they don't want to face their sin, or they don't want to submit, or they equate God with religiosity. But God has made Himself known repeatedly over the last 2 thousand years, and there really is more than enough evidence to justify and foster faith.

I don't think His giving us more would really make any difference now.

 

[Opti]

I guess what I am asking, though obviously not eloquently....

Would there be a drawback to there being more obvious evidence? So that there was less need for faith?

Many suggest that there is enough evidence but the more sceptical must find themselves wondering why the Almighty doesn't go to a little more effort to demonstrate His 'existence'.

 

[ebia]

I guess what I am asking, though obviously not eloquently....

Would there be a drawback to there being more obvious evidence? So that there was less need for faith?

Many suggest that there is enough evidence but the more sceptical must find themselves wondering why the Almighty doesn't go to a little more effort to demonstrate His 'existence'.

What 'evidence' would work? God gives us a consistent world for a reason - constantly breaking that consistency would not so much prove God as destroy our capacity to learn about and work with that consistant world. When miracles become common place they cease to inspire awe, when exceptions to the normal working of creation become common place you loose the concept of normal working in which an exception can exist.

On the other hand miracles that do not violate the normal working of creation (which is most of them) will never inspire the committed sceptic.
Before the end of Apartheid in South Africa every informed commentator in the world expected it to fall, but for it to be a blood-bath of revenge and counter-revenge. The idea that reconcilliation might be possible seemed absurd. And yet a small, unassuming, powerless little black archbishop who spends the first 3 hours of each day in prayer lead his country into a process that more or less avoided that blood-bath and led to a truely remarkable degree of reconcilliation. That is (literally) a miracle in the New Testament sense - a wonderous thing that points towards the Kingdom of God. But it will always be open to someone saying "well, it might have just been...". No matter how implausible something seems before hand, the sceptic can always offer an alternative explanation afterwards. On the other hand, one in tune with God will see miracles in all sorts of every day events.

The idea that God just needs to provide a bit more evidence doesn't work. But when Christians form relationships, act as the light of the world, and tell the good news appropriately, sensitively and prayerfully, then hearts are opened.

 

[kotwebck]

God saved me with such a big bang of impossibilities, that I believed in him way before I started hearing and getting the evidance ... it does not matter how you believe as long as you do.

As for evidance here is something most Christain do not realise, in 700BC God promised his profet that he is going to prove that he is the only God, by showing that he knows the past, present and future. In 400BC he revealed the future of mankind in detail to Daniel up until (I'm not sure of the date right now) 1430 something.

If that is not evidance what is?

Our God does not want people to believe in a specific way ... no ... he wants you to believe in His Son Jesus, and Jesus only.