God could convince me...

Recently I saw a video where Frank Turek was answering questions on the Ohio State University campus.  Most of the questioners were believers, but there was this one guy, Javier who wasn't.  He jousted with Dr. Turek, and artfully evaded questions and arguments offered, however it was a good natured exchange.  One question he asked Dr. Turek though has stuck with me and I want to consider it with you today.

As I understood the exchange, and in my words, he argued that God, if he is God, would know exactly what type of evidence it would take to convince Javier that He [God] exists, so it is futile for him to seriously consider this 'unconvincing evidence' that was being presented, but instead it was incumbent on this 'God' to present sufficiently convincing evidence to convert him.

What do you think about that?  At least part of his point holds doesn't it?  I buy that since God is God, He knows and is capable of presenting evidence that would convince an honest skeptic right?  Oh, wait, did you catch that?  An honest skeptic.  Now I can't judge the heart of anyone, much less someone like Javier that I've just seen on a YouTube clip, however the question he artfully evaded was "If Christianity were true, would you be a Christian?"  Not exactly a hardball.  He argued [among other things] "Well, that depends on what you mean by truth...blah, blah, blah".  Anyone who is honest can be almost brain-dead and answer a "If this is true, would you accept it" question, but for some reason Javier couldn't bring himself to say "Yes, if Christianity is true, I will be a Christian".  Really?  If there really is a heaven and a hell, Jesus truly was resurrected, I will die and actually face Jehovah, standing before the Judgment seat of Christ and be eternally rewarded or condemned based on my response to this...and I can't bring myself to say, yes, if all that's true I'll follow Jesus?

That brings up my thought about Javier's question.  What kind of evidence would it take to convince Javier [or some other skeptic like him]?  He asked for direct evidence from God that he cannot reject.  But think about that request...there is a fundamental flaw in the request.  Unrejectable  evidence would remove the key human aspect of Christianity, faith. 

Consider the irony, he is using his free will to argue that, if there is a God, he should present evidence so undeniable that I will have no option than to accept it.  But if evidence is that strong, there is no point to free will, no need for faith, it is undeniable.  So his argument amounts to "If God wants me to believe in Him, he needs to remove my freedom to refuse to believe in Him."  Do you see the irony?

What I really think is that even if God presented undeniable evidence to someone who doesn't want to believe, they will still reject Him.  Doubt that?  Think about this.  Did Satan have undeniable evidence of God?  Oh yes.  Is there any doubt in Satan or his minions about God?  None.  But do they follow God?  No.  Why?  You'd think, if God is God He could give the devil sufficient evidence to convince them to follow Him, yes?  You see, the problem isn't with the evidence, the problem is with the heart of the one weighing the evidence.

A few years ago a young man approached me at church with questions [presumably from 'friends'] about the Christian faith.  Turns out he is a skeptic, just not 'sure' God exists.  Presenting it as though it is something noble, he tells me that he doesn't want to believe until/unless he's 100% sure that God is real and Jesus is His son.  Okay, that sounds noble, but it's really not.  What he is doing instead is believing that there [probably] isn't a God, even though he isn't 100% sure of that either.  He's just choosing to believe one less than sure option while rejecting another less that sure option because he "can't be sure".

Arguments like Javier's, on the surface have real appeal, but when you step back and think them through, they are just another smoke screen from someone who doesn't want to believe.