Q: do you, Christian, claim that God exists, rather than you believe that he exists?

[Faith No More]

---

Evidence has no power in and of itself. Evidence does not force or coerce you to accept it. Accepting or rejecting evidence is something that you as a person decide to do. It is an act of the will. So yes you have a responsibility to accept it. If you reject it then that is an act of the will.

To prove my point, lets assume that there exits evidence for the divinity of Christ. We will label this evidence (E1). This evidence is empirical proof for the existence of God and the scientific community has just released a press conference about the discovery of this evidence. You have just watched the press conference.

What follows?

Does the fact that this evidence exists force you to accept it? Does it Coerce you to accept it? Or do you decide/choose to accept it?

Clearly the latter is the case, not the former. Just because the evidence exists it does not therefore follow that you will accept it. To reason so would be to commit a logical fallacy of the non-sequitur type. If one were unwilling to accept the findings of the scientific community all they would have to do was say that they were wrong or that it was a conspiracy orchestrated by Christians or whatever.

You may object and say well if scientists said God existed then I would believe it. You very well may. Many might. Many might not. Those who did not want to believe it would simply find a reason not to. It is just that simple.

The point remains. If a person does not want to believe God exists then nothing will force them to believe God exists. It has often times been said that the human will is the strongest force in the universe. I do not quite agree with this, but I agree with what it hints at.

People walk around in denial all the time, denying things that they know very well are true. It has been recorded, how some who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness, never accept the diagnosis because they are so horrified at the prospect of an immanent death, that they literally convince themselves that the diagnosis was incorrect and they live in denial until their death. There have been instances when people have been convicted in clear cut cases of murder or rape or some other heinous crime and the parents or loved ones of the convicted adamantly swear that their child or loved one could not have committed the crime. This denial is so strong that the parent or loved one refuses to accept that their child or loved one could be guilty even when the evidence is indisputable.

In these instances it is clear that a person can be so opposed to the clear cut truth that they deny this truth in the face of indisputable evidence.

But some atheists would have me believe that things like this never happen at all. This is simply incorrect.

How many times have we heard of women who continue to stay in abusive relationships despite their being beaten daily. What do they usually say? Oh....he loves me! I know he really loves me!

Is this not denial in the face of indisputable evidence? The evidence is indisputable because it is in the form of busted lips, blackened eyes, and other physical, visible, undeniable injuries. Yet the woman lives in denial of what so many around her see so clearly.

To recap, evidence itself does not force or coerce a person to believe. You as a person are responsible for accepting evidence or rejecting it.

---

I'm not denying that people will deny the obvious in the face of overwhelming evidence. After all, some people think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

But the thing about evidence is that it speaks for itself, and if the evidence spoke as loudly as the strength of the conviction of Christian's beliefs would lead you to think it does, there wouldn't be a need to muddy the whole subject with talk of what people will and won't accept. To use your example, if you were to try to convince the abused woman that she needs to leave the relationship, would you first give her a spiel about what she is and isn't willing to accept?

It's the same diversionary tactic lawyers use. When the evidence isn't in your favor, obfuscate the argument, so the focus isn't on the quality and totality of the evidence.