God doesn't want me to believe in him

[Justin108]

If there is a god, he knows exactly what it would take to convince me. He hasn't done it.

Does this logically conclude that God doesn't want me to believe in him?

[OnceConvinced]

If there is a god, he knows exactly what it would take to convince me. He hasn't done it.

Does this logically conclude that God doesn't want me to believe in him?

Either that or he just doesn't care about you. I agree that if God really wanted you to know him, he would know exactly what little it would take to convince you and loving you as he claimed would be only too willing to do it.

The bible tells us that one day every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is lord, so somewhere along the line you will get that proof. However if God waits until you are dead and standing before him on Judgement Day, one can hardly call him loving.

[ttruscott]

If there is a god, he knows exactly what it would take to convince me. He hasn't done it.

Does this logically conclude that God doesn't want me to believe in him?

Either that or he just doesn't care about you. I agree that if God really wanted you to know him, he would know exactly what little it would take to convince you and loving you as he claimed would be only too willing to do it.

The bible tells us that one day every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is lord, so somewhere along the line you will get that proof. However if God waits until you are dead and standing before him on Judgement Day, one can hardly call him loving.

Rom 1:20 For from the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. which refers to our seeing the creation of the physical universe, is the basis for the Christian belief that all have seen the proof of GOD yet will not accept the truth about HIM because they love their sin more as the rest of the chapter insists. HE gave the proof. It was rejected. How does that prove HE is unloving?

But you are right, the Great White Throne is the next time such proof will be seen.

[OnceConvinced]

We have the whole universe, the Earth, living animals and all of physical laws to show that God does exist.

These things appear to me to be evidence of evolution, not of any god. If it was evidence of God it would be a very malevolent god.

Be careful not to be that puddle that looks at the hole its in and thinks WOW! God must have created that hole for me its just so perfect.

However, these realities are not enough and are dodged as proof.

They are seen by many as proof of evolution.

I know there is nothing I can say to change your mind.

I think you are giving up to easy. If you have a god or the holy spirit behind you, shouldn't you be able to say something that would convince even the hardest of skeptics? Surely the god you believe in is not that impotent? Surely the holy spirit has way more influence and power than the credit you are giving it?

How can you claim to know any of the members here well enough to convince yourself that there is nothing you can say to change your mind? Powerful arguments have way more sway than you give them credit for. I can speak as someone who has been swayed to change beliefs due to powerful arguments.

.From the standpoint of a person who does except the Earth, universe and it physical law as evidence pointing to an intelligent creator, the opening statement is saying that you can only be convinced by your rules. You're expecting something specific are you not? Because if you weren't then just the fact that you're alive at all would be enough. But it's not. You're not getting the evidence that you want, therefore you really are making the rules that God must comply with in order to convince you.

Is a human making his own rules too much for your God?

There is no need to come up with any rules or any specifics. God supposedly knows each of us all so well he'd know exactly what it would take to convince us. He doesn't need to go by our rules. All he has to do is go by HIS rules and OUILA! We will be convinced.

God is in no way restricted by any rules that humans could possibly conjure up is he? Is he really that feeble?

Remember what the bible says. It says that every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is lord. So somewhere along the line even the hardest skeptic is going to be faced with unarguable proof that god is real. So clearly God is quite capable of giving this proof if he wants to. He doesn't have to abide by any rules we humans set.

I have watched it for years and I know until an atheist fully explores what they do have in evidence they will stayed anchored to atheism.

Actually I was a committed Christian for over 30 years. What I watched for years and what I know, is that until a Christian fully explores what they do have in evidence, they will stayed anchored to Christianity.

You wish to use the universe as proof of God. However I wonder just how much you have explore the possibilities that evolution is the cause of what we have today. I'm betting not much.

The fear I have seen from many atheist is if they are convinced there is a God, then that would mean there are rules that they would have to follow.

Whether there are rules to follow or not is completely relevant. All that's needed is proof that god exists. REAL proof. Not just wishful thinking, like looking at the universe, not being able to understand it and then resorting to ignorance by saying "goddidit".

For someone to reject God's rules, they must first have proof... proof good enough for them... that there is a god who has rules. Only then can they be in a situation where they can accept or reject those rules.

Just because one believes in God does not suddenly mean you are going to follow his rules. And it would be silly just to reject belief in something simply because you don't like the sounds of it.

I had one atheist tell me if there was a God then it would mean he'd have to admit that he is not as strong as he thought he was then a feeling of weakness came over him and that feeling of weakness make him sick.

So if he was given proof of God wouldn't it then be a good thing? He would be in a position where he would have to deal with those feelings of weakness. He could then ask God to overcome those feelings. Surely God would want that?

So I get it.

I don't think you do. It matters not what we skeptics may think of God. We may think he's malevolent or whatever. It makes no difference. For us to be able to change those mindsets we need real proof that he actually exists and that he's not as bad as we have been led to believe.

Make God convince you in the way you want.

Wouldn't you want God to make himself known to you if he existed?

I for one would want God to force himself upon me if it means I can avoid burning for all eternity in Hell. I would welcome it. I might not like this god very much at least there will be no questions about whether he exists or not. I would be in a much better position to be able to deal with my negativity, don't you think?

But I don't even ask god to convince me in the way I want. I ask God to convince me in the way HE wants. If he is real I know he would know exactly what it would take and because he loved me he would do it. It certainly doesn't have to be done my way.

So far He hasn't answered you in the way you want so you get to convince yourself there is no God.

For me I would be asking why God hasn't convinced me of himself in a way HE wants.

Why 2timothy is God incapable of convincing us skeptics he exists in a way HE wants?

[OnceConvinced]

Rom 1:20 For from the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

this is clearly a bible lie as I do not see God's invisible qualities in this world. I see proof of evolution.

which refers to our seeing the creation of the physical universe, is the basis for the Christian belief that all have seen the proof of GOD yet will not accept the truth about HIM because they love their sin more as the rest of the chapter insists. HE gave the proof. It was rejected. How does that prove HE is unloving?

But you are right, the Great White Throne is the next time such proof will be seen.

You can preach all you like that we were around before the creation of the earth. I don't buy it.

You can also preach that we are without excuse, that the universe is obvious proof of his existence. That is clearly not true for many of us here. I know for a fact it's not the case with me. So I can safely say that the scripture in Romans is not true. No doubt it's not true for many others too. But you go ahead and keep believing it if you like.

[OnceConvinced]

The flaw in your own logic is that you are talking to a being that you know for a fact is limited in abilities, such as arriving at specified co-ordinates in a very short amount of time.
With God? Not so much. I hear from God believers all the time that nothing is beyond him, he can do whatever he wants.

Yes He can do whatever He wants. He wanted to create the universe but that is not enough evidence is it? There's the Bible as well...but that's not good enough either is it? So what is good enough? Nothing...

You have very low faith in your God it seems. Nothing? Hardly. An old book which shows the ancient beliefs of bronze aged tribesman is not going to cut it. A book so full of absurdities, contradictions and errors... no way.

And you keep going on about the universe. It is proof of evolution, not any god.

Is your god really so feeble he is incapable of providing any more convincing proof? Why do you presume that what's good enough for you is good enough for everyone else?

Don't you think that your god is capable of convincing skeptics? Is he that weak?

[Justin108]

Yet you are making the rules.

I'm not making any rules. I'm using a reasonable argument.

- God is omniscient, therefore he knows exactly what it would take to convince me he exists
- God is omnipotent, therefore he can easily convince me
- God did not convince me, therefore it must mean he does not want to

I'm not making any "rules" here

We have the whole universe, the Earth, living animals and all of physical laws to show that God does exist.

If this proves God exists then lightning must prove Zeus exists. Does lightning prove that Zeus exists?

I know there is nothing I can say to change your mind

No, but there is certainly something God can say to change my mind

From the standpoint of a person who does except the Earth, universe and it physical law as evidence pointing to an intelligent creator, the opening statement is saying that you can only be convinced by your rules.

You make it sound like I decided what it would take to convince me. I didn't decide. Either something convinces me, or it doesn't. It's an automatic process

Because if you weren't then just the fact that you're alive at all would be enough.

Why would me being alive prove that God exists? And just to be clear, we're talking about the Christian God, so "there must be some kind of intelligent designer out there" is not enough. I'm talking about belief in the Christian God

It's the same when an atheist will not study the Bible or listen to scientist that have come to conclude there is an intelligent creator.

Many atheists have studied the Bible and many atheists have listened to these "scientists"

The fear I have seen from many atheist is if they are convinced there is a God, then that would mean there are rules that they would have to follow.

What makes you think you understand the mindset of an atheist?

I had one atheist tell me if there was a God then it would mean he'd have to admit that he is not as strong as he thought he was then a feeling of weakness came over him and that feeling of weakness make him sick. So I get it.

So based on the testimony of one atheist, you think you now understand all atheists?

For the record, I don't care to get into another merry-go-round debate about if there is a God or not with atheists.

Then why are you on this site?

I do however find their tactics in convincing themselves there is no intelligent creator interesting.

This post is about the Christian God specifically, not about a general "intelligent creator"

Even theist know your not going to get the convincing you're seeking because of the dismissal of the evidence that is already available now. Any new evidence would be dismissed as well.

Paul didn't believe in God until Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus. Why did he deserve this kind of revelation but I don't?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 19 by TheBeardedDude]

I told you at the beginning that excuses don't matter thus you shouldn't have asked questions at all. The opening post does the same thing. The OP has concluded that 'God doesn't want me to believe in him' because he asked God to do something and nothing happened. It's a flawed logic don't you agree?

Would you consider it "flawed logic" for a person to genuinely believe that Lord Voldemort, the villain of the Harry Potter books is real, even though they have actually never had contact with him, and cannot provide any actual physical evidence that such a being ever existed in the first place? Believers often claim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Yet, if a thing can never actually be physically produced, just exactly what MIGHT be considered evidence of absence?

People often confirm that God is there for them answering their prayers. When they get that promotion they have been praying for, or when their team wins the big game. Just as they prayed it would. And yet when a psycho comes into a classroom full of six year old's armed with a hand gun and an intent to shooting each one in the head at point blank range, or when a tornado causes a brick church wall to collapse on and kill worshipers in the very ACT of praying to God... in other words when faith comes face to face with physical reality, physical reality inevitably prevails. And God is nowhere to be found. A God who is not there for these individuals and who does not act at a moment of extreme physical peril is in no obvious way different from a God who never existed to begin with.

In 2012, after shooting and killing his own mother, a mentally unstable man went to the Sandy Hook Elementary School and methodically shot 20 six year old children and a teacher in the head. A Supreme Being would really have come in handy that day. Did God just sit there and watch the whole thing? Or was he distracted, too busy fulfilling the mundane prayers of others? And if his failure to act in the moments of greatest need is not evidence of His absence, exactly would one suggest is evidence of His existence? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hoo ... l_shooting

In 1994 a tornado hit the Goshen Alabama Methodist Church during Sunday service, causing the walls of the church to collapse. Twenty people died including six children. Why would God allow the deaths of those in His own house of worship, including the most innocent, who were there in the very act of worshiping him, when all He had to do was to prevent the walls from collapsing? The problem is that when put to the test, make believe is invariably unaffected by the harsh realities of real life. If a wall falls on you, or a mad man shoots you in the head, make believe does not serve as protection. Even for innocent children.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/03/us/pi ... holds.html

The point is, in real life what we actually observe is that when the chips are down and faith is confronted by reality, reality will ALWAYS win out. When the chips are down and a Supreme Being would really REALLY come in handy, God, invisible unknowable but assumed to exist anyway God, will invariably act in exactly the same manner as a God who isn't actually there. In fact a God who refuses to act even in the face of the ultimate crisis of life and death for the most innocent of His followers is a God who corresponds in every way to A GOD WHO NEVER EXISTED TO BEGIN WITH! What exactly is the difference? This is as close to an empirical test for the actual existence of God as one might reasonably hope for. And in these sorts of make or break tests, the result for the question "does God exist," invariably corresponds in every way to a negative finding.

Now let me make it clear. I do not blame God for what occurred at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, in EXACTLY the same way that I hold no grudge against Santa for not actually coming to my house every Christmas.

[ttruscott]

Rom 1:20 For from the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

this is clearly a bible lie as I do not see God's invisible qualities in this world. I see proof of evolution.

Actually, this is exactly why I do not think that Rom 1:20 refers to a study of nature by any scientific discipline - as you say science does not do what the verse says it does.

BUT our pre-earth existence fits perfectly into this verse that what gave us the proof of GOD so we are all without an excuse is the contention that we all saw the creation of the physical universe with our own eyes ! and we all sang HIS praise as Job 38:7 tells us! This verse and your rejection of the orthodox meaning of it is a main building stone upon which PCE theology rests.

[ttruscott]

Is your god really so feeble he is incapable of providing any more convincing proof? Why do you presume that what's good enough for you is good enough for everyone else?

Don't you think that your god is capable of convincing skeptics? Is he that weak?

My Christian answer is that IF Rom 1:20 is true (as Christians accept) and we all did see the creation of the physical universe then we are indeed without excuse for our scepticism. HE did convince us but we did nothing with that proof. The rest of the chapter goes on in some detail that sinners who saw that proof were not edified or converted by that proof but rather repressed that proof from their conscious minds because they loved sin more.

As people living in that same sin, would another round of proof fare us any better? This is the way we think rather than believe that HE is too feeble or weak to prove HIMself to anyone...

[Willum]

[Replying to post 58 by ttruscott]

This assertion misses the Christian mark which is set by Rom 1:20 which tells us that every person in creation has in fact already seen the proof of GOD's divinity and power by witnessing the creation of the physical universe before our very eyes (and every knee did bow and every voice did sing HIS praises, Job 38:2) so that no one has any excuse for not putting their faith in HIM. But instead, as the rest of Rom 1 repeats in various ways, because we are sinners we all repressed the memory of HIS giving us the proof because we loved our sin more, quite contrary to your assertion that all a sinner needs is proof.

I am afraid any non-Christian could care less about missing a Christian mark, not being derisive, just matter of fact.

The problem is, I observe physical universe and see no need for a creator.
I find it is wonderful and magical without such a being.

Even more so.

And I need remind you apparently:

You Judeo-Christians believe YOU were born in sin.
I believe I was born in AWESOME.
You respect my belief, I respect yours.