No, I do NOT reject God

[Giants]

Trurl
**
There is this argument about hell, that God does not send anyone to hell, rather there are people to reject God and God merely grants them their wish. Not a good argument. Non-christians are logically incapable of “rejecting” God, since they do not believe that God exists.**

Not believing that God exists is a rejection of God, no matter how you cut it.

Only if God’s existence is self-evident. Which it is not.

 

[thenobes]

There is this argument about hell, that God does not send anyone to hell, rather there are people to reject God and God merely grants them their wish. Not a good argument. Non-christians are logically incapable of “rejecting” God, since they do not believe that God exists. Only christians could “reject” God, but I don’t think that they would not do that, since it would make no sense.

Of course the non-christians DO reject the arguments for God’s existence, they DO reject the concept of God. But to say that rejecting the “concept” is the same as rejecting the “alleged referent” of that concept is yet another logical error.

The acceptance of this argument of course presupposes the acceptance of the existence of a God.

The rejection of God is not the rejection of God but the Goodness which He is the source of.

The question is “Does this Goodness exist?” Or rather, is the morality system we believe is “good” actually a “good” system.

Now the “goodness” of a morality system depends upon the standards by which it is judged. Similarly the goodness of those standards is based on the standards used to judge them.

And so on, infinitely… or to a supreme standards-giver… or to one’s gut.

Since the athiest does not believe in a supreme standards giver, he ultimately belives in the “goodness” of his “gut feeling” (since, to any reasonable person, an infinite hierarchy of standards is really no source of standards at all).

Or the athiest does not believe in standards at all, ie is amoral.

So we are left with “gut feeling” or “amoral (moral nihilist)”.

If there is a God of standards, why would he let an amoral person remain with Him for eternity. Why would such a person want to remain?

OTOH, if an athiest believes in a moral code, he is just following is “gut feeling”, so how can he be said to make in any way a “rational moral decision”? It is purely emotional at its basis. If he accepts a moral code, he must accept his irrationality in doing so.

If there is a God of standards, an irrational athiest may have an easier time with Him, because at least he would be humble enough to realize his rational shortcoming.

However, this is why I am not an athiest. I accept morality and I accept it’s rational basis.

peace
steve

 

[Portofino]

The acceptance of this argument of course presupposes the acceptance of the existence of a God.

The rejection of God is not the rejection of God but the Goodness which He is the source of.

Not necessarily. An atheist can reject God as a concept, whereby all we know for sure is that he is intellectually mistaken. Most believers I’m aware of will freely admit that there is such thing as a “good atheist”, meaning an atheist with his “heart in the right place.” This is, indeed, a form of emotional – or, if you prefer, intuitive – awareness. Therefore, such an atheist has not rejected goodness, per se, but simply the idea of God.

The fact that believers have crises of faith – moments of doubt and uncertainty – shows that there is an important respect in which – for a believer – God is both self-evident, and non-self-evident.

the athiest does not believe in a supreme standards giver, he ultimately belives in the “goodness” of his “gut feeling” (since, to any reasonable person, an infinite hierarchy of standards is really no source of standards at all).

As respects an atheist that does have this gut feeling you are describing, you ultimately are chalking up the atheist’s non-belief to a form of intellectual error, at least in part. I do realize that it is difficult for a believer to feel convinced that a non-believer is not knowingly, pre-meditatedly rejecting God, with full conscious awareness (i.e., knowing full well that God exists, but choosing to reject Him).

If the atheist does not believe in standards at all, ie is amoral.

This certainly exists. A sort of de facto amorality also exists in believers who are not aware of the contradiction between their behaviors and their own moral principles. Let’s keep in mind that more than 9 in 10 Americans have answered “yes” to the question “Do you believe in God?” So, whatever ills our society is suffering, it is primarily attributable to a portion of those who claim to believe in a higher power.

we are left with “gut feeling” or “amoral (moral nihilist)”.

There is a stable foundation for morality, that most non-believers experience. It is what I would call a natural and a social foundation, as opposed to a metaphysical one. They make a good point that it is the likely origin of those few tenets of morality we can all agree upon – do not kill; do not rape; do not steal. These are basic social norms, obviously. No society can know civil peace, if these behaviors are perfectly legal and acceptable. Even the dictum, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” makes sense on a purely immanent level – as one commentator put it, “treat others as you would like to be treated, because that’s usually how it works” (i.e., you will be treated as you treat others, whether you like it or not).

there is a God of standards, why would he let an amoral person remain with Him for eternity. Why would such a person want to remain?

If there is a God, a truly hateful person would indeed feel lost in heaven. Then again – and even more sadly, in a way – so would those Christians who are full of hate, without realizing it. For example, the Fundamentalist Christian who, when asked, “why do you hate gays?” responds, “I don’t hate them; God does.” The bigger irony, to me, would be the hell-bound believer (“not everyone who proclaims ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom”).

if an athiest believes in a moral code, he is just following is “gut feeling”, so how can he be said to make in any way a “rational moral decision”? It is purely emotional at its basis. If he accepts a moral code, he must accept his irrationality in doing so.

Obviously, the big difference of opinion is that the non-believer is not convinced that you, as a believer, truly have a rational foundation for your morality. This is because they’re not convinced that you have rationally proven the existence of God. Thus, one cannot say, “my morality is rational because it rests on a foundation that I am unable to demonstrate rationally.”

Of course, many believers hold that God can be demonstrated rationally. To a non-believer, however, the theist’s argument sounds exactly as follows: “my morality has a firm, rational foundation, because I base it on the existence of Zeus. What do you base your morality on?” In other words, this rational foundation that is evinced sounds utterly non-compelling to them.

 

[vera_dicere]

If an atheist gets a hold of a Host and desecrates it by giving it to his dog or desecrates it in another fashion and posts it on YouTube, does he go to Hell if he thinks it’s 1-inconsequential 2-just flour and water, and nothing else. He doesn’t have knowledge that it’s grave matter and probably doesn’t know what a mortal sin is either. If he does that seconds before dying, and he has no mortal sin on his soul prior to this event, is he saved?

I’m not sure if he’s going to hell, but he sure is an @r$ehole if he pulls a stunt like that. Be an atheist all you want, reject God or gods or whatever, but everyone and their dog’s uncle should know for lots of people there are things that are sacred and Holy. To willfully desecrate something so many people worship, even if that person does not themselves understand or believe it, is mean spirited and cruel.

As it stands, I’d wager such an atheist would know gosh darn well what he’s doing, as why bother descecrating something people don’t care about? I know Protestants who have normal sliced bread and a bit of juice from that awful powdered stuff, they see it as a symbol, not like us Catholics seeing it, recognising it as Christ present.

He’d know how Catholics see it if he went out of his way to do that. He’s not acting out of ignorance, he’s being a jerk.

 

[Burdensome1]

Of course the non-christians DO reject the arguments for God’s existence, they DO reject the concept of God. But to say that rejecting the “concept” is the same as rejecting the “alleged referent” of that concept is yet another logical error.

This is dumb.

Non-believers do not reject the “concept” of God. A concept is a mental representation of something, and the word itself is fraught with contention among philosophers about the exact nature of the mental representation it is. This is great for late night internet debates but says nothing about what it means to reject God. If you want to debate the classical versus prototype theory of concepts, feel free to start a thread about it, but your statement

they DO reject the concept of God.

Is not self-evident, since you have not explained what you mean by “concept” and I suspect that was on-purpose and you’d like this to wander on forever.

---

To get back to the OP, to reject God can mean something as simple as disobeying God’s commands. It can also mean disbelieving in His existence and the possibility of His existence. “Reject” is not a technical term, don’t apply one arbitrary meaning to it for your argument if that’s not what the Church means by it.

 

[SpeakInSilence]

I think the question I ask my self is “Who was Christ”? I know that a lot of people go straight to talking about God, but I’ve come to understand God through the reality of who Christ was.

There is no God if there was no Christ in my opinion, he was a real historical figure, and is still the greatest way to find out who God really is.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

I think the question I ask my self is “Who was Christ”? I know that a lot of people go straight to talking about God, but I’ve come to understand God through the reality of who Christ was.

There is no God if there was no Christ in my opinion, he was a real historical figure, and is still the greatest way to find out who God really is.

Very good!

I actually go beyond that, in that I ask, “What is truth?”

If there is such a thing as Truth, then there is a God, for God is Logos, the Truth (John 1:1).

Therefore, if anyone, even atheists or agnostics, admit that there is such a thing as Truth, then they believe in God.

I love this lecture of Peter Kreeft, on Truth: youtube.com/watch?v=Yq4A0vf4eeI

He says that “I think there is only one honest reason why anyone should believe in anything at all: because it is true.” He then says this funny story about what he believe is a possible future encounter in heaven between a “dishonest Christian”, who believes everything about Christianity because it feels good, or it makes him responsible or what not, and an “honest agnostic” who does not believe in Christianity because he cannot believe it is true, but still keeps on searching for truth.

And in that scenario God tells them, “You both need to go to Purgatory.” He then turns to the “dishonest Christian,” “You, Christian, you need Purgatory more than this pagan! You learned lessons #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and so on, but you didn’t learn lesson #1, the most basic lesson: you were not searching Truth above everything else, but you believed what I revealed, not because that it was true, but because you liked it!”

God then turns to the “honest agnostic”: “Mr. Agnostic, you, on the other hand. You didn’t want to be an agnostic, you wished you could believe the Truth, but you just couldn’t believe it. And yet good for you! You learned lesson #1: you’re honest! You disbelieved in me because you believed in Truth, so you really DID believe in Me.”

“And you, you fake Christian: you did believe in Me, but you didn’t believe the Truth, so you really DIDN’T believe in Me.”

This part of the talk starts here: youtube.com/watch?v=Yq4A0vf4eeI&t=38m47s

However, it is so fulfilling, IMHO, to watch the whole thing

 

[Biblepoe]

After skimming the thread, I thought it would be helpful to use an analogy to help clarify the difference between rejecting (or rather, suspending) belief in a god versus rejecting the god.

I got the idea of this analogy from this interesting video, so the credit of this analogy should go to him.

If Theresa asks Anthony on a date and he declines, Anthony has rejected Theresa.

However, lets say Theresa tries to set Anthony up with a blind date with Gloria, but Anthony doesn’t believe that Theresa knows Gloria, is an agent on Gloria’s behalf, or that Gloria even exists (perhaps Theresa described Gloria as too ideal). Is Anthony rejecting Gloria by not believing that Gloria exists (even if Gloria actually does exist)? No.

If, on the other hand, Gloria later contacts Anthony directly and he decides not to go out with her, then he has rejected her.

Similarly, when someone cannot, in spite of their best efforts to seek evidence for the existence of a deity, believe that a god exists, they are not rejecting the god, they are only rejecting (or rather, suspending) belief of that god.

 

[Trurl]

After skimming the thread, I thought it would be helpful to use an analogy to help clarify the difference between rejecting (or rather, suspending) belief in a god versus rejecting the god.

I got the idea of this analogy from this interesting video, so the credit of this analogy should go to him.

If Theresa asks Anthony on a date and he declines, Anthony has rejected Theresa.

However, lets say Theresa tries to set Anthony up with a blind date with Gloria, but Anthony doesn’t believe that Theresa knows Gloria, is an agent on Gloria’s behalf, or that Gloria even exists (perhaps Theresa described Gloria as too ideal). Is Anthony rejecting Gloria by not believing that Gloria exists (even if Gloria actually does exist)? No.

If, on the other hand, Gloria later contacts Anthony directly and he decides not to go out with her, then he has rejected her.

Similarly, when someone cannot, in spite of their best efforts to seek evidence for the existence of a deity, believe that a god exists, they are not rejecting the god, they are only rejecting (or rather, suspending) belief of that god.

Thank you very much for the excellent analogy!

 

[Linux]

+JMJ+

People go to hell because they don’t want Mercy, Peace, and Joy. Pure and simple.

Wrong. People go to hell because they don’t want to be servants of Love.

 

[Linux]

The argument is that God gives us free will so we can choose freely whether to believe, but then robs us of free will by saying we’ll go to hell if we don’t believe.

It’s a silly, transparent attempt at coercion based on a very confused understanding of God, that must put a lot of people off Christianity,

Its not my understanding that Catholicism teaches that people go to hell simply because they don’t believe in the existence of a supreme being. Belief in a Christian sense involves more than simply believing in supreme being.

I agree, that would be ridiculous, if that was what the Catholic church taught, which it does not.

 

[Linux]

Rejecting “arguments for God’s existence” is finding “convincing” arguments for God’s existence and merely relying to equally-non-reliable arguments against God’s existence. Thus, if one knows that God is necessary to exist, yet “argue” that He cannot exist is equivalent to DENIAL and hence REJECTION. No matter how we “rationalize” that one does not reject God when the premise that God exists is not accepted, one still in principle trying to reject God. This, I believe is one of those sins (under the catholic Faith) against the Holy Spirit.

Knowing God exists, and rejecting him anyway is a sin against the holy spirit. Not knowing that God exists and rejecting the concept because it doesn’t make sense is either due to rational justification or rational ignorance. That is not a sin.

 

[Linux]

First of all, the Catholic Church does not teach that one who does not believe in God consciously automatically goes to Hell because of that. For example, we know that baptised babies go to Heaven without such conscious belief. For all we know, it might be somewhat similar with some atheists. You should check if the beliefs that you are arguing with are what the Church teaches and not what the Church condemns - like some sort of Protestantism or Feeneyism.

Second, when one speaks of going to hell as a result of rejection of God, this “rejection of God” means mortal sin without repentance, not atheism.

Thus I’m afraid that you ended up arguing against a strawman…

 

[Linux]

If an atheist gets a hold of a Host and desecrates it by giving it to his dog or desecrates it in another fashion and posts it on YouTube, does he go to Hell if he thinks it’s 1-inconsequential 2-just flour and water, and nothing else. He doesn’t have knowledge that it’s grave matter and probably doesn’t know what a mortal sin is either. If he does that seconds before dying, and he has no mortal sin on his soul prior to this event, is he saved?

They will not go to hell for what they honestly don’t believe to be true. If a person went around killing people and honestly did not think it was wrong, he or she would not go to hell for it. However, that does not mean they should be treated as a good person. The person going around killing people would have to be locked up in-order to protect society, and the person desecrating religious objects should receive some kind of temporal punishment. Just because you don’t believe in something does not give people the right to disrespect other peoples beliefs.

 

[JRKH]

Wrong. People go to hell because they don’t want to be servants of Love.

…I LIKE this…

Says it very concisely

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I agree with Trurl…This is an excellent analogy. I say this simply because there are a number of useful questions that could be asked within this analogy that could be useful in both sides understanding where we can do better…Of course no analogy is ever perfect so we need to allow for that…

If Theresa asks Anthony on a date and he declines, Anthony has rejected Theresa.

However, lets say Theresa tries to set Anthony up with a blind date with Gloria, but Anthony doesn’t believe that Theresa knows Gloria, is an agent on Gloria’s behalf, or that Gloria even exists (perhaps Theresa described Gloria as too ideal). Is Anthony rejecting Gloria by not believing that Gloria exists (even if Gloria actually does exist)? No.

I see what you mean about Anthony not “rejecting” Gloria. What I see here is a rejection of Theresa. It appears that Anthony does not trust Theresa.
So the question becomes, why does Anthony not trust Theresa? Has Theresa acted in some manner to cause Anthony to not trust her?
On the other hand does the problem lie with Anthony? Does he have trouble trusting and believing others, even friends?
In both of these cases…there are interesting questions to ponder as to why Anthony does not wind up in a relationship with Gloria.

If, on the other hand, Gloria later contacts Anthony directly and he decides not to go out with her, then he has rejected her.

Point taken…
As I pondered this though, I started to think of analogous methods of contact other than “face to face”. I came up with things like letters, e-mails, a photograph etc. All things that, if Anthony is really skeptical, could be explained as coming from somewhere other than Gloria.
So - If Anthony receives beautifully written e-mails from Gloria, and then a picture of the most beautiful woman he has ever seen, but (for whatever reason) he still believes that there is no Gloria…that someone is playing a trick on him…
Has he rejected Gloria at this point or not?

As a second view on the matter of contacting…If Theresa tells Anthony that Gloria needs for Anthony to contact her first and then she will reply, is Anthony rejecting Gloria if he refuses to attempt to contact her?

Similarly, when someone cannot, in spite of their best efforts to seek evidence for the existence of a deity, believe that a god exists, they are not rejecting the god, they are only rejecting (or rather, suspending) belief of that god.

You make a good point here with a fine analogy.
I believe that what we should take away from this is the idea of examining our own motives and methods in approaching one another. In the above analogy, Anthony has problems trusting Theresa and I guess, Therese’s motives…Why? As sincere Christians or sincere Atheists we should each consider why we have trouble trusting one another. How can we each improve our communication and our brotherly love toward each other so as to move more closely to Truth.

Peace
James

 

[Trurl]

I see what you mean about Anthony not “rejecting” Gloria. What I see here is a rejection of Theresa. It appears that Anthony does not trust Theresa.
So the question becomes, why does Anthony not trust Theresa? Has Theresa acted in some manner to cause Anthony to not trust her?

If we drop the analogy at this point and go back to the original problem, then this is the case : Theresa has “overplayed” her “selling pitch”. She has adamantly argued for things that are unacceptable for Anthony, because they are simply “out of this world”. You know, if something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

On the other hand does the problem lie with Anthony? Does he have trouble trusting and believing others, even friends?

Trust should be the starting position in a new relationship. But as time goes on, and that trust has been violated over and over again, then one is justified to demand more evidence on a new claim.

As I pondered this though, I started to think of analogous methods of contact other than “face to face”. I came up with things like letters, e-mails, a photograph etc. All things that, if Anthony is really skeptical, could be explained as coming from somewhere other than Gloria.

Very well said. Secondary methods can be faked, or they can be honestly incorrect and mistaken. Let’s remember the Chinese tearoom experiment, where a message gets transferred around the room, by whispering it into your neighbor’s ear… the ending “variant” will have no resemblance to the original one… not because anyone wanted to distort it, but simply because the inaccuracy of the method employed.

So - If Anthony receives beautifully written e-mails from Gloria, and then a picture of the most beautiful woman he has ever seen, but (for whatever reason) he still believes that there is no Gloria…that someone is playing a trick on him…
Has he rejected Gloria at this point or not?

No he did not; for the reasons above.

As a second view on the matter of contacting…If Theresa tells Anthony that Gloria needs for Anthony to contact her first and then she will reply, is Anthony rejecting Gloria if he refuses to attempt to contact her?

The problem comes when Theresa tells Anthony a certain method to contact Gloria; then Anthony attempts the communication and nothing happens… this is where Theresa will LOSE all her credibility, if she starts to argue

1. Gloria replied, but Anthony did not open her letter (and Anthony KNOWS that no letter was received), or
2. Gloria cannot be forced, she will answer whenever she is ready, and on further inquiry Theresa admits that she has no idea when that might happen, or
3. Gloria sees no point in answering, because she already knows that Anthony will reject her anyhow, or
4. Anthony was dishonest in the attempt to contact Gloria (did not REALLY want to meet her)… or… or… I could give you hundreds of cop-outs; all from this board.

In the above analogy, Anthony has problems trusting Theresa and I guess, Therese’s motives…Why?

As I said, because Theresa insists on impossible arguments. Anthony is far from all-knowing, and is aware of this shortcoming, but he is no so gullible that he would trust Theresa if she offered him the Brooklyn bridge at a cheap price. And this is the fundamental problem. Too much is presented with no real evidence. That is why Anthony does not trust Theresa.

As sincere Christians or sincere Atheists we should each consider why we have trouble trusting one another. How can we each improve our communication and our brotherly love toward each other so as to move more closely to Truth.

This is good proposition, worthy to persue.

 

[JRKH]

If we drop the analogy at this point and go back to the original problem, then this is the case : Theresa has “overplayed” her “selling pitch”. She has adamantly argued for things that are unacceptable for Anthony, because they are simply “out of this world”. You know, if something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

Yes - Often times I think that these things come about because each person’s “world view” is so completely different that neither side can understand why the other can’t see the “obvious”…

Trust should be the starting position in a new relationship. But as time goes on, and that trust has been violated over and over again, then one is justified to demand more evidence on a new claim.

Amen - And I think that this is an area that is strongly effected, not by the trust between individuals such as Anthony and Theresa, but by more general things - how believers and non-believers view one another as a group…
You know the old saying that “Generalizations are always wrong”…
Yet how often do we each generalize about the other…
From my side of the fence, I see one of the greatest problems in winning converts as being Christians who do not live and act in a Christian way…Too much preaching…not enough living…These things do not engender trust and respect.
I’m sure that you are equally frustrated by some Atheists who act in ways that simply do not engender trust and respect in others.

Very well said. Secondary methods can be faked, or they can be honestly incorrect and mistaken. Let’s remember the Chinese tearoom experiment, where a message gets transferred around the room, by whispering it into your neighbor’s ear… the ending “variant” will have no resemblance to the original one… not because anyone wanted to distort it, but simply because the inaccuracy of the method employed.

Amen - I remember that game being called “telegraph” but yes it is very true and very hilarious.
That said, I think that these things speak to the need for patience on the part of all…

The problem comes when Theresa tells Anthony a certain method to contact Gloria; then Anthony attempts the communication and nothing happens… this is where Theresa will LOSE all her credibility, if she starts to argue

1. Gloria replied, but Anthony did not open her letter (and Anthony KNOWS that no letter was received), or
2. Gloria cannot be forced, she will answer whenever she is ready, and on further inquiry Theresa admits that she has no idea when that might happen, or
3. Gloria sees no point in answering, because she already knows that Anthony will reject her anyhow, or
4. Anthony was dishonest in the attempt to contact Gloria (did not REALLY want to meet her)… or… or… I could give you hundreds of cop-outs; all from this board.

I agree…
This is kind of where the analogy breaks down a bit.
Yet - sticking more closely to the analogy - Theresa could provide reasonable explanations why Gloria did not respond that Anthony might reject because he has already taken the position of non-belief…
Possibilities…just possibilities…
We each need to seek more deeply…and have great patience

As I said, because Theresa insists on impossible arguments. Anthony is far from all-knowing, and is aware of this shortcoming, but he is no so gullible that he would trust Theresa if she offered him the Brooklyn bridge at a cheap price. And this is the fundamental problem. Too much is presented with no real evidence. That is why Anthony does not trust Theresa.

Yes - this gets back to the problem of greatly different world views. Sometimes things that seemingly cannot be overcome I’m afraid. Still we try - each in our own way - and out of a common love and desire (misguided perhaps) for the good of the other.

Of course I mean you are misguided, not me……just kidding…

Peace
James

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I see what you mean about Anthony not “rejecting” Gloria. What I see here is a rejection of Theresa. It appears that Anthony does not trust Theresa.

It may not be just a matter of trust but a matter of corroboration. I told a coworker of mine that I had a brother. But over the course of the five years that I interacted with her I could never tell her where my brother was, he was always missing from family photographs, and he always managed to be absent when ever she came around. While she considered me an otherwise honest person everything that she was seeing was more consistent with me not having a brother.

(Walk down memory lane, from around 1970 to 1985 on Sesame Street no one believed that Big Bird’s friend Mr. Snuffleupagus existed He finally convinced them of his existence by using a credible lure (food) and arranging for Snuffy to be there at the same time).

 

[JDaniel]

There is this argument about hell, that God does not send anyone to hell, rather there are people to reject God and God merely grants them their wish. Not a good argument.

Trurl:

In the above paragraph, you asserted that the argument, as you presented it, is “not a good argument.” Then, you proceed by altering the generally accepted parameters. There is a fallacy that puts a name to this, but I can’t think of it just now. In any event, it stands as a naked assertion, and nothing more.

Non-christians are logically incapable of “rejecting” God, since they do not believe that God exists.

This is not true. Any human being that has been so sequestered away from society so as to have never been supplied with a modicum of knowledge of God, is handled. It is called invincible ignorance.

Only christians could “reject” God, but I don’t think that they would not do that, since it would make no sense.

Well, now you’ve have made an assertion that I can live with! It is true, it makes no sense for a Christian to reject God. That said, they still do. I consider these “Christians of convenience,” rather than “real” Christians. We have no way of knowing how many return home, but such returns can take place in the final moments of their lives, or, in a prior, but unfulfilled intention.

Of course the non-christians DO reject the arguments for God’s existence, they DO reject the concept of God.

Some do; some don’t

But to say that rejecting the “concept” is the same as rejecting the “alleged referent” of that concept is yet another logical error.

You’re smart enough to know that you have presented a red herring. There’s much more to affirming a concept of God that merely thinking of him as a great, bearded man above the clouds. If a non-Christian has been presented with all (or, most) of the rationale for God, and still simply rejects him on, say, the basis that adherence is too inconvenient, then that person is rejecting the referent that the preponderance of evidence has shown him.

Why do you think we have been commanded, by Christ, to go out and present God to the world, especially that part of the world that has been hidden from him?

God bless,
jd