Some comments on the argument made -
This is not true. Take a the devil for example. He doesnt love or like God. However, he has ample evidence for who and what God is. This is the point made by James contrasting true faith and an acknowledgement of God -
James 2: 19 -19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
Jesus himself talks about people “gnashing their teeth” when he will judge the world.
Its obvious from the bible that a revelation of God does not lead automatically to a loving response.
While i agree with your basic premise that Gods treasures love freely given, there is a hidden premise in your argument that assumes that knowledge of God leads to love for God.
This need not be true and is false in many cases.
I agree with this argument here. However, the fact that people will not believe inspite of evidence does not negate the fact that God provides evidence because of his righteousness.
Its this point which Paul mentions in Romans 1 when he argues that God is right in his judgement of all people, including those who refuse to acknowledge him.
Romans 1:8 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since 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.
In short, God provides sufficient evidence to believe in him and for any rational person to infer that he is the creator.
As per the bible this is not a valid question that athiests bring up (Refer Romans 1:18,19). I have heard many atheists arguing that there isn’t enough evidence for the existence of God. The arguments tend to be along the below lines -
- They argue that only some kinds of evidence (usually things that can be verified through the scientific method) are valid.
- They demand evidence that is irrefutable, i.e if materialists can think of some way to explain the evidence using material cause/effect; then its not evidence for God. So we have athiests who explain away the resurrection as fraud,myths, a hoax,mass hallucinations etc.
- They refuse to consider personal testimony of reliable witnesses.
- They refuse to accept anything as a miracle unless it falls within a narrow definition such as regrowing limbs (and would probably need to witness it to believe it anyway).
- They refuse to believe in their own nature as a living soul capable of having a legitimate experience of God and hence do not seek God in a spiritual sense (for example through prayer). And any experience of God involving dreams,visions etc would be explained away as some kind of psychological phenomenon.
So, its more accurate to say athiests ignore evidence for God and their own selves. Its more like a courtroom where many kinds of evidence are inadmissable. The only admissable evidence would be sanitised to remove all reference to God or the supernatural (mostly peer reviewed papers in todays times).
In short, they are very similar to the rich man and his brothers in the parable you mentioned. They refused to consider all the existing testimonies/evidence for God. They refused to seek him out… and now mistakenly think a dead man returning from the grave would convince them. This is also proven false with Israel’s rejection of Jesus.
That’s the point Jesus was making with the parable. Israel would refuse to believe in him even after he rose from the dead.