Of course Not Ready has nothing to say about this one...

I didn't respond because it's completely off point. I've discussed these issues frequently and no doubt will do so again - start a thread on it if you like.

why ask the question if you won't reply to the answer...

Then you agree the fundamental problem isn't one of evidence? Because even if God provided indisputable evidence to everyone, some would not accept Him? So the evidence question is irrelevant for them?

What if God knows who they are and doesn't bother to provide them with evidence, knowing it wouldn't matter? What if He would provide evidence if they genuinely sought after Him, like He says to do in the Bible? But since they don't seek, they don't find.

Your laundry list of complaints against God had nothing to do with this thread. As I said, I've discussed those issue many times.

well i for one have looked for evidence of god and not found it. many in this forum have admitted that any concrete evidence would be cause for instant conversion.

I dont know anyone religious who claims to know everything about God - most of them say this is completely impossible even in theory. So I really dont see what your objection is. I believe in God - I just dont know every little detail about him, what he wants or what I should do about it. I just muddle along doing my best.

I call myself Christian, but that doesnt mean I think there is some christian who has the definitive answer as to who God is. Even in principle, knowing everthing it is possible for a human to know about christian doctrine wouldnt lead to a completely accurate portrayal of god. Following a religion doesnt have to mean blind devotion and adoration of the religion and in my experience, such hardcore members of congregations are on picket lines and blowing up abortion clinics, they're not sitting next to me on Sundays.

What's the problem with believing in something whilst admitting some ignorance? I believe in electrons too, but I have no real understanding of any of the best theories describing how they work (worse - I'm not even convinced that our "best possible theory" completely encapsulates everything there is to know about electrons anyway). Does that mean I dont really believe in electrons?

Good. Keep looking.

Yet.

But when that happens, all the scholars realize that any third party would have great difficulty realizing who is right. Why don't you get this simple point?

Sounds like a clever theory except:

1. There are plenty of people who would accept him if they believed he existed. Why hasn't God provided THEM evidence?

2. In order for God to not provide evidence to those who wouldn't accept him anyway, he has to withold miraculous cures or other miraculous solutions to suffering. (Interestingly this point is even stronger if God actually DOES sneak in a miracle or two. Because that would show he is willing to doa few as long as they are rare enough as to not provide irrefutable evidence to sceptics.)

I get it. I'm just pointing out that the fact there are different religions and different interpretations of the Bible with Christianity doesn't mean the truth doesn't exist or isn't attainable. The commandment to Eve was simple and didn't really require much interpretation. The central doctrines of Christianity aren't really much more complicated. The conflict between Christianity and Islam, for instance, isn't all that deep an intellectual problem. They are diametrically opposed on the nature of man (original sin), the need for repentance and forgiveness, the true identity of Christ and the meaning of the crucifixion and resurrection, as well as others. They can't both be right on these issues and the controversy isn't an esoteric intellectual disagreement anymore than Eve's disagreement with God on the meaning of His own words.

I believe He provides evidence to everyone. I was just arguing within the context of a hypothetical. And by evidence, I'm not talking about miracles.

I've said before that before anyone dies he will have received enough information to be held responsible. The case is just stronger if someone says he wouldn't believe(or accept God if he did believe) even if there was more evidence.

C'mon, I feel like I'm in an Abbot and Costello routine. First I say most atheists would believe in god if they had evidence. They you ask, so some wouldn't? I then respond by saying these few, find the god of the bible utterly unpleasant. Now you go back full circle and try to say, so the problem isn't evidence. What I want to know is, who's on first?

YOU said some wouldn't accept God even if they had sufficient evidence, so I asked why is evidence then an issue?

You're not even out of the box yet.

evidence is the issue because then a vastly greater percent of the population would go to heaven. of course not everyone could theoretically be saved by any amount of evidence, but at the very least all the other theists would be in the right religion if god came down and gave everyone evidence one religion was right

do you really not see the difference between some and all? some people will always blindly believe whatever they want, but i don't see how all those intelligent logical people should have to die simply for want of evidence

It does mean it's not attainable to the majority of people.

You're driving this one in circles too. David's main point was that if this were true, then everyone would believe the same thing. You need to either come out and admit that Christian scholars are smarter than all other religious scholars, or that they are just as likely to be wrong as a Hindu scholar who looks at the evidence and arrives at Vishnu.

He did that. We killed Him.

They don't. There is evidence, a lot of it.

Romans 1:

19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

And my main point is that he's wrong - the fact that people disagree doesn't mean no one is right.

give me one solitary example of undeniable evidence the christian god exists, is the true god and there are no others.

edit: evidence from a source other than the bible.

If "Don't eat the fruit" is deniable, what could possibly be undeniable?

The Bible says to seek, ask, knock and keep on seeing, asking, knocking - and God promises He will answer.

I've discussed many of these questions on this forum. I've recommended many sources. I could recommend many more. I don't have a silver bullet. But I believe God keeps His promise, and He does it in many different ways for different people.

NR- how much time have you spent researching Christianity opposed to the time have you spent researching Islam, Hinduism, or any of the other multitude of religions? Some have as long and longer traditions and historicity in their regions on of the world, and have followers as ardent as you. Are you really so arrogant to believe that if you were born and raised in one of those societies you wouldn't be espousing a different religion right now?

Why exclude the Bible?

I wouldn't be a Christian without God's grace wherever or whenever I was born.