Why won't God convince atheists?

[Hatuey]

Many atheists are so for valid and defendable reasons. Why would a punishing deity choose not to make himself known to reasonable people who do not believe he exists?

A decent god would know how to convince decent people to believe and care for him as he cared for those decent people.

What sort of god doesn't care to convince sensible people that he exists?

[bluethread]

Many atheists are so for valid and defendable reasons. Why would a punishing deity choose not to make himself known to reasonable people who do not believe he exists?

A decent god would know how to convince decent people to believe and care for him as he cared for those decent people.

What sort of god doesn't care to convince sensible people that he exists?

If we are to follow rationalism, a god that doesn't care to convince sensible people that he exists. Anything beyond that would indicate the application of an arbitrary moral standard to a deity.

[Hatuey]

If we are to follow rationalism, a god that doesn't care to convince sensible people that he exists. Anything beyond that would indicate the application of an arbitrary moral standard to a deity.

Correct.

The key word to consider in that syntax is "punishing," though, as in punishing for disbelief.

[Divine Insight]

What sort of god doesn't care to convince sensible people that he exists?

A non-existent God?

A non-existent God wouldn't care about anything.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Many atheists are so for valid and defendable reasons. Why would a punishing deity choose not to make himself known to reasonable people who do not believe he exists?

Kinda hard to convince folks when ya ain't there to do it.

I've never met a punitive god. I've sure met my share of punitive theists though.

A decent god would know how to convince decent people to believe and care for him as he cared for those decent people.

I'd prefer the worshipable god who gives us all Lamborghinis.

What sort of god doesn't care to convince sensible people that he exists?

One that ain't there.

[Elijah John]

Could it be that God cares more about how we behave, than what we believe? And there are many well-behaved atheists inhabiting our planet, as well.

[Overcomer]

I'm sure you're not going to like my response, but here it is anyway.

Paul put it this way in Rom. 1:18-20:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world Gods 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.

God has made himself evident in nature and in an individual's conscience, but people choose to repress that knowledge. Therefore, there is no excuse for anybody to reject God.

God has revealed himself and continues to reveal himself all the time. The fact that not everybody acknowledges him doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. Nor does it mean he hasn't provided convincing evidence of himself. It just means that some people will reject him in spite of the evidence for a variety of reasons.

Those who reject him for so-called rational reasons should be willing to listen to rational arguments about the existence of God and come to a saving faith in Christ. And the atheists in this category are the most likely to.

But those who reject him for emotional reasons (anger at him for tragedy or hardship in their lives, for example) or for volitional reasons (they don't want him to exist because they don't want to give up their sins) may never allow him into their lives. The people who fall in these two categories will often use the first category to hide behind rather than admit the real reasons for their rejection of God.

For more on that, read here:

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/wh ... convinced/

J. Warner Wallace admits that he was in the third category, choosing to be an atheist because he didn't want to give up his sins. People like Lee Strobel were in the first category and, when presented with the rational evidence, followed it to its rational end -- belief in God.

The second category is the trickiest one. If emotion drives a person, it's hard to reason with him. He needs healing, but he rejects the one who can heal him, that is, Jesus Christ.

[Hatuey]

Could it be that God cares more about how we behave, than what we believe? And there are many well-behaved atheists inhabiting our planet, as well.

Yes. And that god would be worthy of some respect. However, if believing or having some "relationship" with god is worthwhile, it seems that god may have some interest in obtaining that belief or relationship through reasoning with an atheist--something similar to the Doubting Thomas sort of dynamic.

[Hatuey]

I'm sure you're not going to like my response, but here it is anyway.

Paul put it this way in Rom. 1:18-20:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world Gods 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.

God has made himself evident in nature and in an individual's conscience, but people choose to repress that knowledge. Therefore, there is no excuse for anybody to reject God.

God has revealed himself and continues to reveal himself all the time. The fact that not everybody acknowledges him doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. Nor does it mean he hasn't provided convincing evidence of himself. It just means that some people will reject him in spite of the evidence for a variety of reasons.

Those who reject him for so-called rational reasons should be willing to listen to rational arguments about the existence of God and come to a saving faith in Christ. And the atheists in this category are the most likely to.

But those who reject him for emotional reasons (anger at him for tragedy or hardship in their lives, for example) or for volitional reasons (they don't want him to exist because they don't want to give up their sins) may never allow him into their lives. The people who fall in these two categories will often use the first category to hide behind rather than admit the real reasons for their rejection of God.

For more on that, read here:

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/wh ... convinced/

J. Warner Wallace admits that he was in the third category, choosing to be an atheist because he didn't want to give up his sins. People like Lee Strobel were in the first category and, when presented with the rational evidence, followed it to its rational end -- belief in God.

The second category is the trickiest one. If emotion drives a person, it's hard to reason with him. He needs healing, but he rejects the one who can heal him, that is, Jesus Christ.

Liking or not liking your response is of little relevance. You end your post explaining that a person driven by emotions most likely does not use correct reasoning, but you consider the emotional aspect of your post above all else in your primacy of its placement.

My question is not about god revealing himself to all, it's about his ability to convince those who are swayed most by logic and rationality. You might save time by simply stating that you don't consider atheists to be rational because you, yourself, from your perspective find yourself convinced by evidence that fails to convince the vast majority of people on the planet who remain convinced of a different god and/or a different way of realizing a reward by him.

I'll simplify the question for you, though.

Because your god is able to convince atheists, why doesn't he?

[Divine Insight]

I'm sure you're not going to like my response, but here it is anyway.

Paul put it this way in Rom. 1:18-20:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world Gods 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.

God has made himself evident in nature and in an individual's conscience, but people choose to repress that knowledge. Therefore, there is no excuse for anybody to reject God.

Paul had no clue what he was talking about. He's making the same mistake as a lot of religious people. They think they see "design" in nature because they simply aren't aware of how nature works.

For someone like Paul this is excusable since he lived in a time before this reasoning was shown to be without merit.

But people living today actually have no excuse for even thinking like Paul. Today a person can be educated to know better.

There is nothing in nature that "reveals" that there is any conscious purposeful designer behind anything. To the contrary, there actually exists tons of evidence for why it makes far more sense to conclude that things happened by chance given the laws of nature.

So quoting these ancient words from Paul is like quoting the words of someone who never went to college and has no clue about the natural world.

There is absolutely nothing in nature that suggests that anything was created by any purposeful creator. To the contrary, the evidence actually points to precisely the opposite conclusion.

The claim that some God has revealed himself in nature is simply a false claim that has no merit. And to claim that people are "without excuse" for not jumping to this totally unwarranted conclusion is a claim that has absolutely no merit at all.

There is no valid rational or logical reason to jump to this conclusion at all.

If Paul were living in today's world he would be "without excuse" for making this claim when sound arguments cannot be given to back it up.