Why no proof?

[bling]

Now I understand the general rule that I'm not supposed to tell God what to do, or say that I know better than him, but it's hard to explain where I'm coming from without doing just that. So apologies if I offend anyone with my following example.

Imagine you are in a class about to take a test. The teacher tells you that he is writing a number on a piece of paper but he won't show it to you. However, knowing the number that he wrote down is 90% of your grade. Why wouldn't the teacher be obligated to show me that piece of paper if he's going to grade me on it?

The trouble I have with faith is that I have no reason to believe in the supernatural of any kind. The only "strange thing" I have ever witnessed was a person "speaking in tongues" at an Apostolic church. But because I heard the pastor tell a story in passing about another church that told newly baptized Apostolics to say, "Yabba dabba do" as fast as you can to simulate speaking in tongues, even that becomes fake to me. I have prayed, but I don't hear the voice of God, not even a whisper. So most people like to tell me that I'm not listening, but I can't believe that either. I know myself and when I am earnestly seeking and when I am not.

Now theres the part about people who got to see Jesus's miracles in person and then still didn't believe, but at least they got to see something. I assure everyone reading this, that if God showed up in my back yard, fifty feet tall, I would become a Christian that instant. Who am I to tell God that he ought to do that? Nobody in the grand scheme of things. But I either need to understand why I should believe short of evidence like that, or God needs to want me in Heaven bad enough to do just that. If I at least believed he existed, I could try to follow his teachings. Without his beliefs I'll try to be good on my own because there is satisfaction in that, but not everything that the Bible might say.

Would knowledge of God’s existence be good or bad for you?

Just suppose a 50 ft. Jesus did show up in your backyard and only you saw him, what would you do with that information? Would that make you feel truly special? Would you tell others this fantastic story in a way they too would become believers in God’s existence (how would you do that)? Would it grow your faith or would you be even more reliant on a “sign” (knowledge without faith) from God to know what to do next, since God gave you the first sign?

Does God need you to acknowledge His existence or does God want you to just accept something?

It is not that God needs you to have faith in Him, but it is you who need to have faith in the existence of a benevolent Creator to help you fulfill your earthly objective. This is not some arbitrary requirement that you are being graded on and it is not for God’s sake.

It is all very logical and practical if you understand your objective.

 

[aiki]

I'm not saying to hang out on Earth as a human. He should be here in all the glory he can muster, as that would be more proof than looking like a human.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1431698694306-1'); });

I suppose because your view of God is very small you don't see the problem with Jesus showing up with all "the glory he could muster." If he did, none of us could bear it. In any case, Jesus is not so pressed by our skepticism that he feels compelled to give us each the sort of evidence for belief that we want. His offer of salvation and fellowship to us is utterly gratuitous. He is in no way obliged to save or fellowship with any of us. So, we may accept what he offers to us or reject it. Regardless of how we choose, he remains perfect. But, as I said, we lose out horribly if we spurn him.

Demanding that God meet our demands of proof turns the proper dynamic between Creator and creature on its head. It makes us the one in control, the one setting the parameters for interaction, which is utterly the reverse of how it should be. God calls the shots; He is God, after all. He tells us how it's going to be, on what basis we may approach Him and interact with Him. That's His prerogative as the Lord God of All. So, you'll have to come to God via the means He has provided. He'll have it no other way. He is not about to jump through every hoop of proof we put before Him.

There are plenty of reasonable theories and explanations as to where the substance of my being came from. Even if I accept that the only logical conclusion is that the KCA is correct, it doesn't mean God ever communicated with his creation, and if he did, that the Christian version is the correct one.

I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested that the KCA proves God has communicated with His Creation. If you want that sort of evidence, you'll have to look into the Bible and more particularly into the Resurrection of Jesus.

So God does not have the power to show himself to me without obliterating me? I disagree with any argument that limits God's abilities if God is supposed to be omnipotent.

I did not put limits on God in my remark about Him obliterating you with His presence, but on you. He is under absolutely no obligation whatever to make Himself small enough to suit you and cater to your limits. He has already done so once through Christ and will not repeat that performance. As I said, one day we will all see Him in His full glory, but at that point converting to the faith won't be an option.

And that is the whole point of this thread. Faith is required. Some parts of the answers I find here are that proof is everywhere, I'm just not looking, and other parts tell me that faith is required. If there was proof, then faith would be unnecessary. At least proof that there is an enormously powerful being that I ought to follow.

Faith and proof are not mutually exclusive, as you seem to think. In the Christian scheme of things, faith rests upon knowledge, not blind hope. That knowledge is not perfect, it is not utterly full and complete (we don't know all there is to know about God), but it is sufficient to warrant our belief and trust.

Some part of belief may be out of love for God, but that certainly isn't supposed to be all it is. We are supposed to fear God as well. God was wrathful in the Old Testament, the New Testament puts his wrath in the idea of a Hell, and he's coming back in Revelation to violently judge the Earth. So if I am to adhere to the Bible based on fear (at least in part) then I could fear the 50-foot tall God that I mentioned much easier than I could some human telling me that Hell exists.

We are to fear God, but that term "fear" does not mean what you seem to think it does. "The fear of the Lord" is a respectful awe of Him, not craven terror. We are to hold God in the highest possible regard and reverence; that is what it means to "fear" Him. We are not to be terrified of Him as a wrathful Judge - unless, of course, we are living in unrepentant defiance of Him.

The "first and great commandment," Jesus said, was not to fear God, but to love Him with all our being. This is what God desires of us. Commanding us to love Him is simply to direct us toward the best possible existence - the existence for which we were made. The apostle John taught that those who fear God have "not been made perfect in love." Your idea, then, that the fear of God (at least in the sense in which you mean it) is an important component in relating with Him is mistaken.

Lots of smart people believed the Earth was flat too. A lot of smart people believing something is not evidence.

I never said it was. I said only that there is evidence for Christian belief and that it has been persuasive to many. That was a comment on the existence and nature of the evidence, it was not an attempt to employ the argumentum ad populum fallacy. You said there was no evidence, but as the persuaded millions show, that is not the case.

Selah.

 

[Moral Orel]

You said there was no evidence, but as the persuaded millions show, that is not the case.

There's no evidence for a flat Earth either. We didn't need spaceships to see a boat disappear over a horizon and look like it is sinking. We didn't need higher technology to understand the concept that the Earth revolves around the sun either. People are persuaded by astrology everyday too. There's even a thread about it here on christianforums. Does that mean that there is real evidence that astrology is real?

We are not to be terrified of Him as a wrathful Judge - unless, of course, we are living in unrepentant defiance of Him.

Why even make a Hell then if not to persuade people to do good out of fear?

Faith and proof are not mutually exclusive, as you seem to think.

Yes they are. There is a difference between absolute proof and evidence. I'm not asking to understand everything about God, just a reason why he doesn't verify his existence.

Demanding that God meet our demands of proof turns the proper dynamic between Creator and creature on its head. It makes us the one in control, the one setting the parameters for interaction, which is utterly the reverse of how it should be.

I'm not demanding that God do anything for me. I'm not talking to God right now, I'm talking to you and asking why it is that God doesn't want to prove his existence. I'm not telling God what he ought to do, I'm asking what purpose there is for him to hide himself.

He is not about to jump through every hoop of proof we put before Him.

Why does it have to be "jumping through hoops" as it were. I mean, Barack Obama is the president. Would you say that he is jumping through hoops to prove he exists simply because he shows up, in person, or on television? No, of course not. It is just a matter of how he is that he is readily visible to anyone who looks.

I did not put limits on God in my remark about Him obliterating you with His presence, but on you.

This is just arguing semantics though. God made me. God made me unable to perceive him. If I can't perceive him, then he can't make me in a way that allows me to perceive him.

Like you said, he's under no obligation to do anything for me, sure, I agree with that. God can do anything he wants. But why would he choose to remain so hidden instead of just being openly available? If he is omnipotent then there is no reason that he cannot be anywhere and everywhere on the planet, in "person", revealed and full of glory except that he doesn't want to. So why doesn't he want to? Why does he want us to rely on witness testimony, the most unreliable sort of evidence in the world, to affirm for ourselves that he is real?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nicholas,

... Imagine you are in a class about to take a test. The teacher tells you that he is writing a number on a piece of paper but he won't show it to you. However, knowing the number that he wrote down is 90% of your grade. Why wouldn't the teacher be obligated to show me that piece of paper if he's going to grade me on it?

Your attempt to be logical here is appreciated, but I don’t think I’m persuaded that your classroom scenario succeeds as an analogous illustration to the existential situation you’re inquiring about here. I say this mainly because your scenario consigns a 0% probability to the likelihood of gaining knowledge about pertinent data. I’d agree with your scenario if I perceived that it accurately represented your case, and I’d definitely agree that God makes unfair demands of us in that He appears to give us little to no evidence by which to respond...if zero evidence is indeed what we can get.

However, I’d like to point out that in the real world in which we live, there are some evidential pieces that put at least a hair-line crack in your scenario. For instance: 1) Jewish people actually exist and have existed as a historical ethnic entity--and we all know this, and 2) Other people groups of the world have, through time, documented their own historical interactions with these same Jewish people—and we all know this, and 3) These same Jewish people, along with their genetic and spiritual descendants, have been historically tied to a collective identity through a collection of writings--and we all know this, too, and 4) This mainly Jewish collection of writings has a reputation for being a repository consisting of various accounts from individuals who claim to have had various kinds of interactions with a Divine Being—and we all know this as well. So, I don’t think you can really say that there is a 0 sum game going on in your case. Of course, I understand if it may feel this way.

Now, in consideration of a revision to your scenario so as to make it a bit more analogous to the real world situation in which you and I find ourselves, you need to factor in the possibility, however small, that the number on the teacher’s piece of paper has more than just a 0% probability of reaching your cognitive position and possession in the classroom. Maybe—just maybe--we want to say that at least one kid in the class, other than you, just happens to be informed of the number that is on the piece of paper in the teacher’s hand. If we can say that, and I think we should so as to make things more pertinent, it would then just be a matter of probability, however small, that another student in the classroom could be tipped off by the already informed kid; the previously out-of-luck student then also becoming enabled to give the teacher the "secret" number requested.

The trouble I have with faith is that I have no reason to believe in the supernatural of any kind.

Well, believing that the supernatural can take place is a distinct consideration from that of expecting the supernatural to take place in the here and now. Also, I think saying that you have “no reason” to believe is probably a bit of an overstatement, if we consider all of the relevant cognitive processes and analytical structures in the epistemological structure. Besides this, you’re not dead yet, and we can’t assume you’ve had the actual opportunity to turn over every rock or look behind every metaphysical bush.

The only "strange thing" I have ever witnessed was a person "speaking in tongues" at an Apostolic church. But because I heard the pastor tell a story in passing about another church that told newly baptized Apostolics to say, "Yabba dabba do" as fast as you can to simulate speaking in tongues, even that becomes fake to me.

I’ve had similar opportunities to see Christians jibber-jabber, and I’m not yet convinced that ‘speaking-in-tongues’ is a bona-fide sign that a person is a Christian or filled with the Spirit, or whatever. It’s typically the Pentecostal, Charismatic, Third Wave, and Faith Movement brand churches that think tongues is a sin quo non—of sorts (but this is a side issue which I won’t get into here.)

I have prayed, but I don't hear the voice of God, not even a whisper. So most people like to tell me that I'm not listening, but I can't believe that either. I know myself and when I am earnestly seeking and when I am not.

Hmmm .... Ok. Nicholas, I’ve been a Christian for almost 30 years, and God has never audibly spoken to me either, or appeared to me, or magically tied my shoe-lace. Not that I wouldn’t like that too, mind you, and not that I haven’t asked it of Him. But, nowadays I don’t really expect it. In fact, with the view of Christianity I currently have (all ensconced in a plethora of philosophical considerations), I’m not sure I’d want Jesus to show up all dressed in Shiny Glory. I do, but I don’t.

Now theres the part about people who got to see Jesus's miracles in person and then still didn't believe, but at least they got to see something. I assure everyone reading this, that if God showed up in my back yard, fifty feet tall, I would become a Christian that instant. Who am I to tell God that he ought to do that?

You do realize that for the last few guys to whom Jesus directly appeared there were some really heavy and serious ‘strings’ attached to the deal, don’t you? God doesn’t give His appearances away for free…He didn't during Biblical times anyway. Are you sure you’d actually be ready for what He will likely ask of you if He shows up point blank in your backyard? Call me a jerk if you want to, but somehow I’m not sure you would be ready; I probably wouldn’t be. He won't just let you 'believe' and leave it at that.

Nobody in the grand scheme of things. But I either need to understand why I should believe short of evidence like that, or God needs to want me in Heaven bad enough to do just that. If I at least believed he existed, I could try to follow his teachings. Without his beliefs I'll try to be good on my own because there is satisfaction in that, but not everything that the Bible might say.

Well, you have to start somewhere to get to faith, but typically, to get to that somewhere, you’ll have to not only put your best foot forward (and both hands upward), but you’ll also probably have to question what you think you already know about knowing about God…

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

[Moral Orel]

Now, in consideration of a revision to your scenario so as to make it a bit more analogous to the real world situation in which you and I find ourselves, you need to factor in the possibility, however small, that the number on the teacher’s piece of paper has more than just a 0% probability of reaching your cognitive position and possession in the classroom. Maybe—just maybe--we want to say that at least one kid in the class, other than you, just happens to be informed of the number that is on the piece of paper in the teacher’s hand. If we can say that, and I think we should so as to make things more pertinent, it would then just be a matter of probability, however small, that another student in the classroom could be tipped off by the already informed kid; the previously out-of-luck student then also becoming enabled to give the teacher the "secret" number requested.

You're right. I tend to dismiss eye witness testimony outright, but that doesn't mean necessarily that some of it doesn't happen to be true. But if we are going to consider witness testimony we actually need to make the problem a little more complicated. Instead of me being the only person in class, there are 30 of us. And each and every one of my classmates claims, "Hey, I saw the number and its..." but all their answers are different. None of them could be right, or one of them could be right, but not more than one of them could be right.

The reason I point out my lack of belief in the supernatural isn't proof that it doesn't exist, it is just another item in a long list of evidence that I find lacking. There are things that I could consider to be credible evidence, if not proof, and some form of supernatural world would be evidence that there can be a God. There are a lot of things that I would like to see to be evidence of God. For instance, a lot of people believe that the Bible is 100% infallible, which it is not. But if it was, then it would give some credence to the eye witness testimony that it contains, wouldn't it? I mean, it's possible that a book could be written error free over the course of centuries, but highly unlikely. But since it does contain errors, it ends up just begging the question, "How do I know which parts are true then?" which a separate discussion all together.

 

[South Bound]

I'm sure you all have had to answer this age-old question a thousand times, but why is it a matter of faith in God in that he withholds evidence of his mere existence?

Who says He does?

And before people say that he reveals himself to those who seek him, I mean visibly, tangibly, audibly in the real world to an audience of anyone and everyone who just asks to see him.

He wouldn't be much of a god if he was obligated to do parlor tricks for His enemies, would He?

On a side note, someone can answer why God made it so that we can't handle looking at him

God didn't "make" it that way. It's the result of the differenced between His Holiness and our sinfulness.

why doesn't he have Jesus hang out on Earth continuing to teach, perform miracles, and generally prove that God at least exists?

For what purpose? Do you really think everyone who encountered Jesus believed He is God? Do you really think they fell to their knees and repented on the spot? No, they tried to kill Him eight times.

What would be the purpose of proving God exists to the unregenerate, except to increase God's wrath against them?

 

[aiki]

There's no evidence for a flat Earth either. We didn't need spaceships to see a boat disappear over a horizon and look like it is sinking. We didn't need higher technology to understand the concept that the Earth revolves around the sun either. People are persuaded by astrology everyday too. There's even a thread about it here on christianforums. Does that mean that there is real evidence that astrology is real?

I'm not really following your line of reasoning here...I don't see that people who believed in a flat Earth or who take astrology seriously are, in terms of evidence for their beliefs, anything like those who hold a Christian worldview. And you haven't actually shown that they are; you've just asserted that they are. But an assertion, by itself, does not constitute a valid argument.

Why even make a Hell then if not to persuade people to do good out of fear?

It is a place of punishment of the unrepentant wicked, not a threat God hangs over His children. Hell reflects God's holiness and justice; it expresses His hatred of sin; it is a testament to the incredible evil that our sin is; it is a place of eternal separation from God that gives the rebellious sinner in the afterlife the liberty from His Maker that he desired in his temporal existence. But Hell is escaped entirely by those who by faith in Christ as Saviour and Lord have been adopted into God's family.

Yes they are. There is a difference between absolute proof and evidence. I'm not asking to understand everything about God, just a reason why he doesn't verify his existence.

Ah, I see. Well, let me clearly define what I mean, then. You'll note that I said nothing of absolute proof. I was using the term "proof" rather loosely as a synonym for evidence. But if you want to make careful distinctions between proof and evidence, that's fine. Yes, there is a difference between absolute proof and evidence. I believe - as most other thoughtful Christians do - because I have good evidence in support of my belief, not because I have absolute proof for it (at least of the sort you would accept). But this kind of belief is not, of course, unique to Christians. When any person entrusts their mail to the post, or their body to a surgeon, or their teeth to a dentist, or their hair to a barber, or their money to a bank, or any of a myriad of other such instances they exercise faith, too.

In any case, God has supplied sufficient evidence. It may not be exactly the sort of evidence you want, but that has nothing to do, really, with whether or not it is sufficient. A homicide detective may have wanted to see the murder he is investigating happen with his own eyes rather than depend upon the residual evidence that shows a murder has taken place. But regardless, he has sufficient evidence to know that a murder has occurred. Likewise, the Christian may not be able to see God with his own eyes, but he still has sufficient evidence to recognize that God exists.

I'm not demanding that God do anything for me. I'm not talking to God right now, I'm talking to you and asking why it is that God doesn't want to prove his existence. I'm not telling God what he ought to do, I'm asking what purpose there is for him to hide himself.

Well, obviously, I don't think God has hid Himself. So you're question seems quite...unnecessary.

Why does it have to be "jumping through hoops" as it were. I mean, Barack Obama is the president. Would you say that he is jumping through hoops to prove he exists simply because he shows up, in person, or on television? No, of course not. It is just a matter of how he is that he is readily visible to anyone who looks.

But Obama isn't God. They are both by situation and nature vastly different beings. And that has an important bearing, I think, upon what we can expect from either of them. In any event, I can imagine a hard-core skeptic in the heart of, say, Mongolia saying to himself, "I think this Obama fellow is a fake, an actor, maybe even a CGI character, but he certainly doesn't persuade me he is who he appears to be on t.v.. I won't believe Obama is president, or that he even actually exists, unless I see him in person and shake his hand and question him myself." Would it be entirely reasonable for this man to have this expectation of Obama? And would it be reasonable to expect Obama to fulfill it? I think not. So, too, with God. He made an extended appearance on Earth; He left us a text full of His wisdom and truth, and eye-witness testimony to His in-person time on Earth; and He has stamped His signature on every particle of the universe. I don't think it is reasonable to expect Him to do more.

This is just arguing semantics though. God made me. God made me unable to perceive him. If I can't perceive him, then he can't make me in a way that allows me to perceive him.

I perceive Him quite clearly. So do many millions of others. I don't think, then, that the problem is that you can't perceive Him but that you don't wish to.

But why would he choose to remain so hidden instead of just being openly available? If he is omnipotent then there is no reason that he cannot be anywhere and everywhere on the planet, in "person", revealed and full of glory except that he doesn't want to. So why doesn't he want to? Why does he want us to rely on witness testimony, the most unreliable sort of evidence in the world, to affirm for ourselves that he is real?

I don't think God has remained hidden. I see evidence for Him everywhere! And I don't think the eye-witness testimony of the Bible is (if that is what you are referring to) "the most unreliable sort of evidence in the world." Certainly, no homicide detective or prosecutor believes that of all eye-witness testimony. Regardless, it is not solely the eye-witness testimony of the Gospels that secures my faith in God. There is the evidence found in Creation, the evidence of reasoned argument, the evidence of the special revelation of God in the rest of the Bible, and my own personal experience of Him upon which to rest my faith.

Selah.

 

[South Bound]

But Obama isn't God.

Good luck trying to convince Obama of that.

 

[com7fy8]

I'm sure you all have had to answer this age-old question a thousand times, but why is it a matter of faith in God in that he withholds evidence of his mere existence?

All this universe is evidence of His existence - - though, of course, I can't prove to you that it is evidence.

Our own nature has a lot to do with what we accept as being evidence. If we set up and dictate what God is not going to do, then we won't get what we're dictating for Him to do.

And before people say that he reveals himself to those who seek him, I mean visibly, tangibly, audibly in the real world to an audience of anyone and everyone who just asks to see him.

The real evidence is in us > our "faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6) shows us how God is. Faith has us in union with God Himself > 1 Corinthians 6:17. And in actual union with Him we have our proof, not only that He is but how He is in His love (Romans 5:5), and how He effects our character to become like His love (1 John 4:17).

On a side note, someone can answer why God made it so that we can't handle looking at him, but even if that all adds up, why doesn't he have Jesus hang out on Earth continuing to teach, perform miracles, and generally prove that God at least exists?

He didn't make it this way; our own nature makes us so we can't behold Him in all His glory. It is like how if we look straight at the sun, our eyes can get burnt . . . because of our own eyes' nature.

But we have Christians on this earth, who are evidence of how His love has a person becoming, and how this is better than human and we all need this.

But Satan was in Heaven itself and he was not satisfied. He was right there with Jesus - - all the evidence you would think would be enough. His nature, though, made him not satisfied. Also, the twelve disciples were walking with Jesus, but they could fight about which one of them was the greatest. So, having such "proof" is not enough; we need how God changes our character so we can believe in Him and benefit like we can, in His peace.

"'Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:29)

How He gives you rest and enjoying Him in His peace, and has you discovering loving any and all people . . . this is the proof you will especially appreciate . . . in you

 

[JESUSKiDtommy]

You said why didn't HE leave JESUS here? If you investigated the real heart changes that have occurred in peoples lives as a result of their faith, you may could be better equipped to "SEE JESUS" in the lives of people... the REAL THINGS that do happen .... My own life has played out in stages that can be looked back upon and see where the growth was taking place and at the time I did not see what was going on.... aka had my head so far down in the bucket, there was no way to realize where I was headed until I finally looked.... (don't know how much sense that made but) what I am saying is that in looking back at how GOD has been forming me there were many instances where my life was caught up in some real chaos and terrible times. Back then I was in the middle of it... could not see the purpose, and now in light of the knowledge I have of the BIBLE there is so much that makes perfect sense. I guess that's what every person who questions GODS existence is really looking for... the perfect sense of it all rather than a face to face "OH THERE YOU ARE" experience.... I have a few testimonies from my life that are so odd that they could not be coincidence. I would be glad to share them with you if you would like. One is already on the testimony forum within this site... it's a pretty cool story that would almost play from the pages of Forest Gump... but it did indeed happen. If you would like to read it you can go to the testimony forum and look for "this one is a bit different"...

Let me leave you with a thought.... "IF" there is anything that could possibly have a chance of being eternal and never dying... would it not have to be the kind of LOVE we see in the heart of JESUS? ... I mean they were killing HIM and HE was praying for them to be forgiven.... THAT KIND OF LOVE CAN NOT DIE MY FRIEND....

CHRIST CARING,
Tommy

 

[Moral Orel]

The answer I keep hearing over and over is that I am just not accepting real evidence, or I am just not seeing real evidence. So I guess I should ask, what evidence is there, for a person who does not believe yet, that the Christian God is real?

I'll add a bit more detail. If you are already a Christian, God gives you evidence. You hear him, or he makes things work out for you in some special way, or you feel him, etc... Those things don't happen for me as an unbeliever, so what is the evidence that exists to make me a believer? You could say that I should listen to your testimony, but testimony is the least reliable source of evidence there is. Imagine any other religion and their testimony about miracles, and then see if you understand where I'm coming from on the basis of evidence.

You could say that I should see how it changed people to become better people than they were. But I see people manipulate and use Christianity to do terrible things all the time as well. So it could very well be that people who are already basically good become Christians and do more good, but people who are already basically bad become Christians and continue to do more bad.

I've also examined all of the major logical arguments for the existence of God, from KCA, to fine-tuning, to objective morality, to intelligent design and they all fail as well. There's no sense arguing those here, but if that's the only answer you feel there is, we can.

So what evidence is there for a non-believer to become a believer if this is somehow all my fault that I can't find the evidence that I am looking for? Did anyone else start out in a non-religious home, go through life as an un-believer, and then become a believer later in life? Can no one relate to my dilemma? Because this has gotten a lot more confrontational than I ever expected or wanted it to be, and I'm not sure where the hostility is coming from when I just want a better understanding of "why?".

 

[AvgJoe]

On a side note, someone can answer why God made it so that we can't handle looking at him, but even if that all adds up, why doesn't he have Jesus hang out on Earth continuing to teach, perform miracles, and generally prove that God at least exists?

God already did that, have Jesus hang out on the earth, and we killed Him.

 

[aiki]

I've also examined all of the major logical arguments for the existence of God, from KCA, to fine-tuning, to objective morality, to intelligent design and they all fail as well. There's no sense arguing those here, but if that's the only answer you feel there is, we can.

Saying "all the major arguments for the existence of God" fail is one thing; proving that they do is quite another. Are you able to show us how all these major arguments fail? Or are you just parroting what you've read on atheist websites?

You could say that I should see how it changed people to become better people than they were. But I see people manipulate and use Christianity to do terrible things all the time as well.

But it doesn't follow necessarily from this that God does not therefore exist. People manipulate all sorts of good things to serve evil purposes but that is a testimony to the evil inherent in human beings, not necessarily to some deficiency in the good things they pervert.

So it could very well be that people who are already basically good become Christians and do more good, but people who are already basically bad become Christians and continue to do more bad.

I have seen people who would be generally regarded as "very bad" fundamentally transformed by the power of God at work in their lives. Mind you, I don't subscribe to the idea that there are some people who are "basically good." The clear teaching of Scripture is that "there is none righteous, no, not one." God has to take all of us who are unrighteous and make us more like Christ. This process of transformation goes farther in some people than in others, but among those who are genuinely born-again, there is always some improvement God makes in them. The unfortunate truth, though, is that the majority of people identifying as Christian today are no such thing. For many, the term "Christian" is a cultural thing. It is connected to place of birth and a particular cultural heritage rather than a personal relationship with Christ. For many others being a Christian has nothing to do with being like Christ but with having a religious or spiritual dimension to one's life. Their interest is in being a "fully-rounded" human being, not with taking up their cross and following Jesus. And this is consistent with what Jesus himself said:

Matthew 7:14
14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

So what evidence is there for a non-believer to become a believer if this is somehow all my fault that I can't find the evidence that I am looking for?

It isn't, I think, that you can't find any evidence but that what evidence you've encountered you've dismissed as invalid. But the grounds for your dismissal you've not yet established as reasonable and justified. Until you do so, we can't agree that your invalidation of the evidence is warranted.

You could say that I should listen to your testimony, but testimony is the least reliable source of evidence there is. Imagine any other religion and their testimony about miracles, and then see if you understand where I'm coming from on the basis of evidence.

I'm afraid you are mistaken about personal testimony being the least reliable kind of evidence. This is not the case in courts of law. Yes, some such testimony may be corrupt and cross-examination is used to expose such corruption, but no lawyer or homicide detective would tell you that in general eye-witness, or first-hand testimony is the least reliable source of evidence. If there is good reason for skepticism concerning claims of supernatural intervention in a Christian's life, then a cross-examination of the testimony is reasonable. Sometimes, though, people rule out the supernatural a priori and no amount of evidence or successful answering of skepticism will be sufficient. But this is a problem of philosophical presupposition and bias, not evidence.

If you are interested in the subject of miracles and want a thorough and well-reasoned treatment of the subject from a Christian perspective, check out Craig Keener's 2-volume set "Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts."

In the end, God is a personal God. He promises He will meet those who sincerely and wholeheartedly seek Him out. He makes no promises, however, about how, exactly He will do so. But if He is real, and personal, and wants you to know Him, then He has to reveal Himself to you. No amount of argument will ever bring you to a personal experience of God. What you need, then, is not to be convinced by argument and evidence, but to have God step into your life as only He can and show you He is there. But as He is a Spirit, that experience of God will, of course, be of a spiritual nature. Though, again, He meets us only when we are wanting, truly wanting, Him to.

The problem for most people is that God can only enter our lives as the God that He is. When He relates to us it is only necessarily as our infinite Superior and the One to whom we must, therefore, humbly bend our knee. We instinctively understand this, I believe, and being naturally disposed to calling all the shots for ourselves, we resist relating to our Maker. We don't want to yield, we don't want to surrender, to Him as we all must if we are going to truly know and walk with Him. How about you? Are you willing to lay down all you are at the feet of your Maker? Do you really want to know and relate to Him in this way? If not, I suspect God will remain a figure you are keen to deny even exists no matter what evidence you may encounter.

Selah.

 

[Moral Orel]

Saying "all the major arguments for the existence of God" fail is one thing; proving that they do is quite another. Are you able to show us how all these major arguments fail? Or are you just parroting what you've read on atheist websites?

I didn't really want to get into the whole argument about these things, but it seems as though I am giving the impression that I have not actually put a lot of thought into this, so I'll go ahead and explain everything I have considered.

KCA
If something has a beginning, then it has a cause.
The universe has a beginning, so it has a cause.

The cause only needs two qualities though. It needs to be eternal and it needs to have an infinite supply of energy. It doesn't need to have intelligence or benevolence to create the Universe. Think of it this way, a river created the Grand Canyon, but it has neither intelligence or benevolence. In fact, just like a river, the universe could just have a way of recovering the energy it spent creating itself to start the process all over again.

Objective Morality
If there isn't objective morality, then there is subjective morality.
God provides objective morality, humans can only provide subjective morality.
The question is not "Is it good because God does it?" or "Does God do it because it is good?" the answer is "God does it because he is good".

Firstly, so what if morals are only subjective and they can't be turned into absolutes. It may be depressing, but it is possible. Secondly, morals are still subjective in this scenario because the things that are moral for God to do are not moral for humans to do. And if that is contended, the things that humans do because God commanded it are different than what we are allowed to do. So what things are moral if we just say "God does things because he is good" then we have no definition for actions are good or bad.

Fine Tuning
The universe wouldn't exist if things weren't just right.
The universe doesn't insist for itself that it is just right.
The chances that the universe is just right are so slim, it can't be mere chance.
Therefore it requires a designer.

True, the universe wouldn't exist if it wasn't just right, I won't argue against that. However, there are a lot of different theories as to why the universe exists despite this such as the multiverse. There are a lot of other theories that can be made up that can't be tested or observed, but neither can God, so that theory is not superior to any other.
Also, just because chances are slim, no matter how slim, it doesn't mean that chance being the reason is impossible.
Lastly, universal constants don't have to always be constant. Physicists have proven that some of them can change as long as some others change as well.

Intelligent Design
If something is incredibly complex and intelligent then it requires intelligent design.
Humans are incredibly intelligent and complex, therefore they require intelligent design.
God is more intelligent and complex than us, yet this law is never applied to him. If something necessitates intelligent design based on its complexity and intelligence, then God needs a designer, and his designer, and so on. If God exists then he is proof that intelligence and complexity can exist without being designed.

"aiki, post: 68079491, member: 178791"]But it doesn't follow necessarily from this that God does not therefore exist. People manipulate all sorts of good things to serve evil purposes but that is a testimony to the evil inherent in human beings, not necessarily to some deficiency in the good things they pervert.

I'm not saying it disproves God, it just invalidates the idea that Christianity changing people is evidence that he does exist. If it was evidence, then it would change people all the time, not just some of the time. Think of it like a science experiment. If mixing chemical A with chemical B produces chemical C some of the time but it produces chemical D other times, then there is likely something else going on besides the interaction between chemical A and Chemical B.

I'm afraid you are mistaken about personal testimony being the least reliable kind of evidence. This is not the case in courts of law. Yes, some such testimony may be corrupt and cross-examination is used to expose such corruption, but no lawyer or homicide detective would tell you that in general eye-witness, or first-hand testimony is the least reliable source of evidence.

Here is just one study on witness testimony: http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm
I don't think that courts use witness testimony because it is so reliable so much as it is more compelling to a jury. That, I will admit, is just my own personal theory, but the fact still remains that testimony is often wrong and easy to manipulate. Add to that a personal bias, such as a Christian who wants to believe in miracles, and you have a problem where people can see connections and patterns in places that they don't exist or ignore evidence to the contrary of what they are actually seeing.

 

[aiki]

KCA
If something has a beginning, then it has a cause.
The universe has a beginning, so it has a cause.

The cause only needs two qualities though. It needs to be eternal and it needs to have an infinite supply of energy. It doesn't need to have intelligence or benevolence to create the Universe. Think of it this way, a river created the Grand Canyon, but it has neither intelligence or benevolence. In fact, just like a river, the universe could just have a way of recovering the energy it spent creating itself to start the process all over again.

The idea that the universe has a personal Cause is reasonable to believe in light of the fact that the universe is not perfectly concurrent with its cause. As you have noted, the Cause of the universe must have been timeless, without a beginning of its own, which is not, of course, true of the universe. But it is only true of personal causes that they can produce an effect that is not concurrent with them. For instance, the words of this post are caused by my personal choice to cause them. But I existed long before this post existed. This difference in the duration of my existence and the duration of the existence of this post is the result of my capacity to choose to cause this post, which is a capacity unique to persons. In contrast, an impersonal cause is always concurrent with the effect it produces because it cannot choose to do otherwise. For example, water freezes only and when the temperature drops below zero degrees celsius. And as long as the temperature remains below zero any water in the area of the freezing temperature will remain frozen. We know that the universe began to exist a finite time ago in the past and we also know that the Cause that produced the universe would need to be timeless. But in light of what I've explained above, from this follows the deduction that the Cause of the universe is personal.

Objective Morality
If there isn't objective morality, then there is subjective morality.
God provides objective morality, humans can only provide subjective morality.
The question is not "Is it good because God does it?" or "Does God do it because it is good?" the answer is "God does it because he is good".

The Moral Argument is not as you've laid it out here. It actually goes like this:

1.) If God exists, objective moral values and duties exist.
2.) Objective moral values and duties exist.
3.) Therefore, God exists.

And the Christian answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma is that God's moral commands to us emanate from His own holy, righteous, perfect character, not that "God does it because He is good."

Firstly, so what if morals are only subjective and they can't be turned into absolutes. It may be depressing, but it is possible. Secondly, morals are still subjective in this scenario because the things that are moral for God to do are not moral for humans to do. And if that is contended, the things that humans do because God commanded it are different than what we are allowed to do. So what things are moral if we just say "God does things because he is good" then we have no definition for actions are good or bad.

"So what"? That's your first response to the Christian's observation that there are some serious philosophical problems with subjective morality? That is not anything like a reasoned response. And the Christian's contention isn't just that subjective morality exists but that objective moral values and duties do as well. And your response doesn't begin to address this contention.

I don't see how morality is subjective because what God commands of us morally is not always what He requires of Himself. Can you explain your reasoning? How does the fact that God is not as we are in some very profound and significant respects factor into your reasoning? Does it not matter to this issue of morality that God has created all things and sustains them moment by moment? If not, why not?

What things are moral if we just say, "God does things because He is good"? Well, we say those moral values and duties God commands of us constitute what is moral. How does this not work as a means of defining for us what is moral?

However, there are a lot of different theories as to why the universe exists despite this such as the multiverse. There are a lot of other theories that can be made up that can't be tested or observed, but neither can God, so that theory is not superior to any other.

You aren't really making a case here so much as you are excusing your lack of one by arguing that God cannot be proved. But pointing at the other side and saying, "Your side is weak, too," doesn't actually strengthen or even justify your own.

Also, just because chances are slim, no matter how slim, it doesn't mean that chance being the reason is impossible.
Lastly, universal constants don't have to always be constant. Physicists have proven that some of them can change as long as some others change as well.

You would not argue that slim doesn't mean impossible if you knew just how incredibly slim the possibility of a life-sustaining universe is. To add to your problems, I would suggest you look into the matter of Boltzmann brains.

Intelligent Design
If something is incredibly complex and intelligent then it requires intelligent design.
Humans are incredibly intelligent and complex, therefore they require intelligent design.
God is more intelligent and complex than us, yet this law is never applied to him. If something necessitates intelligent design based on its complexity and intelligence, then God needs a designer, and his designer, and so on. If God exists then he is proof that intelligence and complexity can exist without being designed.

God is not more complex than us. He is in essence simply a Mind. A disembodied, transcendent, timeless and awesomely powerful Mind, to be sure, but without all the complexities of a corporeal form that are attendant upon us. So, no, God is not more complex than we are, only different.

The Christian conception of God does not and cannot entail that He is Himself created. Asserting that God has a designer is like asserting that circles have right angles, or fish have feathers. By definition, circles have no right angles, fish have no feathers, and God has no designer. As soon as you start talking about a God who is created or designed you cease to speak of the Christian God.
Trying to argue from God to ourselves doesn't work because we are in two very distinctly different categories of being. Only on the most superficial level are there similarities between us, which is why, I suppose, there are mistaken attempts such as you make above to extrapolate illegitimately from God to ourselves. Can we argue that because God exists in an intelligent and complex form without a designer that we can make the same claim for ourselves? We are effects, contingent beings, with a finite beginning in the past. God is not. He is the First Cause, uncaused and infinite. And He is unique as such. What is true of Him, then, is not necessarily true of any part of the universe He brought into being including us.

I see from your last post that you have done some thinking - or at least some study of atheist websites - about your position, but I'm afraid what you have offered is not nearly sufficient to solidly justify your atheistic position or erode that of the Christian believer in God.

Selah.

 

[Moral Orel]

The idea that the universe has a personal Cause is reasonable to believe in light of the fact that the universe is not perfectly concurrent with its cause. As you have noted, the Cause of the universe must have been timeless, without a beginning of its own, which is not, of course, true of the universe. But it is only true of personal causes that they can produce an effect that is not concurrent with them. For instance, the words of this post are caused by my personal choice to cause them. But I existed long before this post existed. This difference in the duration of my existence and the duration of the existence of this post is the result of my capacity to choose to cause this post, which is a capacity unique to persons. In contrast, an impersonal cause is always concurrent with the effect it produces because it cannot choose to do otherwise. For example, water freezes only and when the temperature drops below zero degrees celsius. And as long as the temperature remains below zero any water in the area of the freezing temperature will remain frozen. We know that the universe began to exist a finite time ago in the past and we also know that the Cause that produced the universe would need to be timeless. But in light of what I've explained above, from this follows the deduction that the Cause of the universe is personal.

I'll admit that you have me puzzled here. I'm not understanding 100% the connection between personal and concurrent. I don't know if you can clarify any more than that, maybe I'm just dumb. Can I ask though, what about the river scenario? If there is some source that the energy of the universe comes from and then returns to, why is it impossible to create a universe from an unintelligent source? Imagine the source of energy that created the universe is the ocean. It feeds water into the top of the river, the river flows down, and then flows back into the ocean. In the middle a canyon is carved. And that requires no intelligence or a personal cause.

The Moral Argument is not as you've laid it out here. It actually goes like this:

1.) If God exists, objective moral values and duties exist.
2.) Objective moral values and duties exist.
3.) Therefore, God exists.

And the Christian answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma is that God's moral commands to us emanate from His own holy, righteous, perfect character, not that "God does it because He is good."

The way I had it laid out was from one of the websites you recommended.

"So what"? That's your first response to the Christian's observation that there are some serious philosophical problems with subjective morality? That is not anything like a reasoned response. And the Christian's contention isn't just that subjective morality exists but that objective moral values and duties do as well. And your response doesn't begin to address this contention.

I don't see how morality is subjective because what God commands of us morally is not always what He requires of Himself. Can you explain your reasoning? How does the fact that God is not as we are in some very profound and significant respects factor into your reasoning? Does it not matter to this issue of morality that God has created all things and sustains them moment by moment? If not, why not?

What things are moral if we just say, "God does things because He is good"? Well, we say those moral values and duties God commands of us constitute what is moral. How does this not work as a means of defining for us what is moral?

I say "so what" because I don't see a necessity for absolute morals, or at least not all things that are moral are absolutes. It may be depressing and it may make you feel meaningless if morals are just things that humans designed that made conditions for ourselves as nice as possible, but why does it have to be any other way? I don't see the necessity that comes from this line of thinking.

If we say that there are moral absolutes, don't murder, don't steal, etc... Then we are saying that those actions are morally bad all of the time, right? But if God does an immoral action, that we have agreed are immoral actions all of the time, then is God immoral or moral? If he is above all that, and I recognize that if he existed he very well could be, then why describe him as good if morals don't apply to him?

What about what God commands us to do? Sometimes he commands people to do terrible things (Old Testament) sometimes he commands us to be nice (New Testament). Morals are now subject to time periods and are no longer absolute. If they were absolute, then God commanded people to do immoral things, which would contradict his nature, wouldn't it?
Just take the Amalek people as an example. God commanded genocide, but genocide would be a moral absolute in that it is always wrong. God also commanded Israel to take slaves when they conquered their distant neighbors, but slavery being wrong would be a moral absolute.

So given these contradictory actions, one could say that there is only one moral with God, and that is to do as God says. That is the only moral absolute that can exist in Moral Objectivity with a God, that I can see, since God shouldn't be commanding people to do immoral actions.

You aren't really making a case here so much as you are excusing your lack of one by arguing that God cannot be proved. But pointing at the other side and saying, "Your side is weak, too," doesn't actually strengthen or even justify your own.

Ironically, I feel that is exactly what believers are doing by stating this. They say you can't observe the multiverse, so throw that out as an option, and what you are left with is God. So I feel like we are both doing this exact illogical conundrum to each other. And it isn't meant to strengthen the position that the multiverse is true, or any other specific position. It is only meant to show that there isn't any observable evidence for any position, so there isn't any reason to pick any of them to choose as the one you believe. If you felt one was more likely than another, you could go about looking for proof of your hypothesis, but it doesn't mean it's right. So that statement just states, "no one knows better than anyone else, so there is no proof or evidence for one or the other".

With that being said though, if I had to bet on one explanation being proven before the other, I have to bet on science because it has a track record. People theorized the atom before it was proven, people theorized that the Earth revolved around the Sun before we could see it from outer space. If we took these arguments back in time a few hundred years, we would be arguing over the creation of the planet, and not the creation of the universe, but we can see how a solar system with planets comes into being in a natural process now. But religion can't ever be quantified or measured at all. We can't find out how many people become better people by accepting God, nor can we figure out how many prayers are answered out of all the prayers made. It makes it reasonable, in my opinion, that although we don't know the origins of everything, we will gradually get a better understanding of it as time goes on until we quite possibly understand it all (given enough time). The only thing that can prove religion to be true just as well, is for the events of Revelation to come true.

You would not argue that slim doesn't mean impossible if you knew just how incredibly slim the possibility of a life-sustaining universe is. To add to your problems, I would suggest you look into the matter of Boltzmann brains.

I did look up Boltzmann brains... I'm going to need to look harder till I can find an explanation for dummies, because that is way over my pay grade. Or at least the explanation I found so far. But it still doesn't prove without a doubt that chance isn't all it takes. Since all of these discussions came out of the idea that I should place my bets on God, but that doesn't work because I can't doubt him, I have to acknowledge that chance or I'm being dishonest about my belief.

Trying to argue from God to ourselves doesn't work because we are in two very distinctly different categories of being. Only on the most superficial level are there similarities between us, which is why, I suppose, there are mistaken attempts such as you make above to extrapolate illegitimately from God to ourselves. Can we argue that because God exists in an intelligent and complex form without a designer that we can make the same claim for ourselves? We are effects, contingent beings, with a finite beginning in the past. God is not. He is the First Cause, uncaused and infinite. And He is unique as such. What is true of Him, then, is not necessarily true of any part of the universe He brought into being including us.

But God is only infinite and uncreated if you define him to be (unless he happens to be real of course) but you can't put those qualities into the argument. The point is that if there can be one exception to the rule that things need to be created, then there can be other exceptions. And since there is very good evidence for evolution, there is a very good reason to believe in something other than creation. As a throwback to one of your arguments that I kept misconstruing, there are a lot of Christians who have accepted evolution as being true, except that they attribute the initial "spark of life" as it were to God. They say that Genesis was a myth to explain what we couldn't understand, and that it is the rest of the Bible that is factual and not myth.

 

[Moral Orel]

I say "so what" because I don't see a necessity for absolute morals, or at least not all things that are moral are absolutes. It may be depressing and it may make you feel meaningless if morals are just things that humans designed that made conditions for ourselves as nice as possible, but why does it have to be any other way? I don't see the necessity that comes from this line of thinking.

If we say that there are moral absolutes, don't murder, don't steal, etc... Then we are saying that those actions are morally bad all of the time, right? But if God does an immoral action, that we have agreed are immoral actions all of the time, then is God immoral or moral? If he is above all that, and I recognize that if he existed he very well could be, then why describe him as good if morals don't apply to him?

What about what God commands us to do? Sometimes he commands people to do terrible things (Old Testament) sometimes he commands us to be nice (New Testament). Morals are now subject to time periods and are no longer absolute. If they were absolute, then God commanded people to do immoral things, which would contradict his nature, wouldn't it?
Just take the Amalek people as an example. God commanded genocide, but genocide would be a moral absolute in that it is always wrong. God also commanded Israel to take slaves when they conquered their distant neighbors, but slavery being wrong would be a moral absolute.

So given these contradictory actions, one could say that there is only one moral with God, and that is to do as God says. That is the only moral absolute that can exist in Moral Objectivity with a God, that I can see, since God shouldn't be commanding people to do immoral actions.

It feels strange quoting myself, but I wanted to add to something I said, and I didn't want it taken out of context, so here goes.

The argument seemed to constrain me by not being able to deny the first premise: that morality of humans can only be subjective. But I actually deny that claim. Moral absolutes can be determined and discovered by humans without the use of a God. Some things are absolutely wrong, such as slavery and genocide. There is no time, place, culture, or society that should ever need the use of either of these two things. Simply because some other person claims that they have good reason to utilize them does not mean they are wrong. Morals must be weighed by how much benefit they offer to anyone or anything. Genocide and slavery can only offer a limited benefit to a limited group, therefore they cannot offer as much benefit as not committing these atrocities.

Consider this, if Alexander Fleming was a slave, would he have discovered penicillin? Undoubtedly he would not. Someone else later could have, but then there would be a deficit of benefit to everyone that Alexander Fleming helped between these times. Can complete domination over another person ever lead to a benefit in a quicker or more efficient manner than allowing freedom? I say that it is impossible. With what we understand about human motivation it is proven that people work harder and perform better when they are happy.

The same goes for genocide. There is no telling what things can be gained from the people who would be killed in a massacre, but massacring people based on their culture, race, or ethnicity can never lead to a benefit such as a new scientific discovery or new moral philosophy that can better society. We, as humans, can make these value judgements. We can weigh evidence to determine what is in everyone's best interest and what is in the interest of the few and create morals that reflect that evidence. If someone were to deny those morals in the face of evidence that they cannot refute, then their morals are incorrect. And because no one can make a valid case for slavery or genocide creating a larger overall good, there can be absolute morals without the use of God.

 

[orangeness365]

Yes, I am aware that the New Testament exists. Notice that my question uses the word "continuing" and not just a one time, short lived trip that I have to take people's words for it that he ever did anything miraculous in the first place. I'm sure he existed, I'm sure he was a "teacher" if you will, I'm not sure that he was the son of God. Why no proof?

The miracles are that he fulfilled prophecy, and will fulfill even more at his second coming. He also performed miracles during his time on earth, even if you didn't witness them. Even now the believers perform miracles in Jesus' name.

Mark 16:17-18
17And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

 

[orangeness365]

There's no evidence for a flat Earth either. We didn't need spaceships to see a boat disappear over a horizon and look like it is sinking. We didn't need higher technology to understand the concept that the Earth revolves around the sun either. People are persuaded by astrology everyday too. There's even a thread about it here on christianforums. Does that mean that there is real evidence that astrology is real?


Why even make a Hell then if not to persuade people to do good out of fear?


Yes they are. There is a difference between absolute proof and evidence. I'm not asking to understand everything about God, just a reason why he doesn't verify his existence.


I'm not demanding that God do anything for me. I'm not talking to God right now, I'm talking to you and asking why it is that God doesn't want to prove his existence. I'm not telling God what he ought to do, I'm asking what purpose there is for him to hide himself.


Why does it have to be "jumping through hoops" as it were. I mean, Barack Obama is the president. Would you say that he is jumping through hoops to prove he exists simply because he shows up, in person, or on television? No, of course not. It is just a matter of how he is that he is readily visible to anyone who looks.


This is just arguing semantics though. God made me. God made me unable to perceive him. If I can't perceive him, then he can't make me in a way that allows me to perceive him.

Like you said, he's under no obligation to do anything for me, sure, I agree with that. God can do anything he wants. But why would he choose to remain so hidden instead of just being openly available? If he is omnipotent then there is no reason that he cannot be anywhere and everywhere on the planet, in "person", revealed and full of glory except that he doesn't want to. So why doesn't he want to? Why does he want us to rely on witness testimony, the most unreliable sort of evidence in the world, to affirm for ourselves that he is real?

He hides himself from us because of our sins. In the garden of eden, adam and eve used to talk to God directly.

Isaiah 59:1-2
1Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save,
or his ear dull, that it cannot hear;
2but your iniquities have made a separation
between you and your God,
and your sins have hidden his face from you
so that he does not hear.

 

[Hammster]

The answer I keep hearing over and over is that I am just not accepting real evidence, or I am just not seeing real evidence. So I guess I should ask, what evidence is there, for a person who does not believe yet, that the Christian God is real?

I'll add a bit more detail. If you are already a Christian, God gives you evidence. You hear him, or he makes things work out for you in some special way, or you feel him, etc... Those things don't happen for me as an unbeliever, so what is the evidence that exists to make me a believer? You could say that I should listen to your testimony, but testimony is the least reliable source of evidence there is. Imagine any other religion and their testimony about miracles, and then see if you understand where I'm coming from on the basis of evidence.

You could say that I should see how it changed people to become better people than they were. But I see people manipulate and use Christianity to do terrible things all the time as well. So it could very well be that people who are already basically good become Christians and do more good, but people who are already basically bad become Christians and continue to do more bad.

I've also examined all of the major logical arguments for the existence of God, from KCA, to fine-tuning, to objective morality, to intelligent design and they all fail as well. There's no sense arguing those here, but if that's the only answer you feel there is, we can.

So what evidence is there for a non-believer to become a believer if this is somehow all my fault that I can't find the evidence that I am looking for? Did anyone else start out in a non-religious home, go through life as an un-believer, and then become a believer later in life? Can no one relate to my dilemma? Because this has gotten a lot more confrontational than I ever expected or wanted it to be, and I'm not sure where the hostility is coming from when I just want a better understanding of "why?".

You have all the evidence you need. You are just suppressing the truth.