Changes

This has been puzzling me for a while and I'd be interested in hearing your opinions. The debate relies on the premise that people will follow a [[religion]] (particularly [[Christianity]]) because they have been presented with adequate evidence of God's existence. It follows that if you ask an atheist why they do not believe in God or a Muslim why they follow Islam instead of Christianity the answer will be that there is not sufficient evidence for them to convert.

This has been puzzling me for a while and I'd be interested in hearing your opinions. The debate relies on the premise that people will follow a [[religion]] (particularly [[Christianity]]) because they have been presented with adequate evidence of God's existence. It follows that if you ask an atheist why they do not believe in God or a Muslim why they follow Islam instead of Christianity the answer will be that there is not sufficient evidence for them to convert.

Secondly we need to acknowledge that some people require differing degrees of proof in order to follow a religion, some may be convinced on the word of the Bible alone, others may read Jewish sources about the life of Jesus and convert, others may need God himself to visit them in order to believe.

Secondly we need to acknowledge that some people require differing degrees of proof in order to follow a religion, some may be convinced on the word of the Bible alone, others may read Jewish sources about the life of Jesus and convert, others may need God himself to visit them in order to believe.

Thirdly we need to acknowledge that God, an all powerful omnipotent being, would recognise and understand these differences and is able to provide sufficient evidence (for instance by sending an angel or speaking directly to a non believer) without imposing on free will (noone is being forced to follow a religion, they are merely being told it speaks the truth).

Thirdly we need to acknowledge that God, an all powerful omnipotent being, would recognise and understand these differences and is able to provide sufficient evidence (for instance by sending an angel or speaking directly to a non believer) without imposing on free will (no one is being forced to follow a religion, they are merely being told it speaks the truth).

Now if my memory of the scriptures serves me correctly God is pained by the fact that people do not follow his teachings and cries out for their faith. Surely he can see that sending humans to convert others is a highly inefficient method because using earthly methods they are unable to satisfy the degree of proof of individuals that needs to be overcome for them to become Christians. Given this why doesn't God reveal himself to all non believers and end his own suffering? And if this question cannot be answered could it be considered proof that God does not exist?

Now if my memory of the scriptures serves me correctly God is pained by the fact that people do not follow his teachings and cries out for their faith. Surely he can see that sending humans to convert others is a highly inefficient method because using earthly methods they are unable to satisfy the degree of proof of individuals that needs to be overcome for them to become Christians. Given this why doesn't God reveal himself to all non believers and end his own suffering? And if this question cannot be answered could it be considered proof that God does not exist?