How much evidence is enough?

How much evidence does it take to believe in God, Jesus, or the reliability of the Bible?  Most of the time when this question is asked or implied it's really not the question that's at hand.  The question really should be what evidence does it take to believe?

Many naturalists (those who take faith that science and the natural world is all there is) will say "I want to see God appear before me" or "I want physical evidence of God".  Because of their commitment to naturalism they except no other evidence for God.  Since God is not a physical being they think they've proved their case that God doesn't exist.  The problem with this is they accept all sorts of other things about our world that are not material, physical things.  They accept love as being real but you can't touch, see, measure, or weigh love but yet no one is saying love doesn't exist.  They might point to acts people do out of love but that's not love because all those things can be done just as easily in the absence of love.  The most obvious problem with the premise that the natural world is all there is, is that it can't be proved through science or natural means yet they accept it any way.  The statement fails to hold up under it's own assertion.

I think a parallel that comes to mind are the Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson murder trials.  The evidence seems to be overwhelming in favor of a guilty verdict yet 12 jurors let them go free.  Some of the jurors said afterward that they weren't comfortable convicting without an eyewitness.  Despite a lot of very convincing evidence they were asking for the one piece of evidence they were never going to get. 

Naturalists aren't going to see God.  However, that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of very convincing evidence to support the existence of God.  They'll believe things contrary to their own worldview to avoid considering God.  They'll believe that the universe was created from nothing by nothing despite no one ever having observed this and it could never be observed (you can't observe nothing because once you observe it there isn't nothing).  They'll believe that complex things we observe in the ancient past like pyrmiads or cave drawings were created by a mind but the most complex things in the universe that appear designed aren't, like the universe itself or the human biology.

Everyone believes in things they can't see, touch, measure, or weigh but the question of God brings with it other implications.  If there is a God then we will be held accountable for what we do in this life.  There is a standard above ours and if God exists that standard is set by God and we all fall miserably short of it.  So it's not really that there isn't enough evidence for the existence of God it's more about the implications of the existence of God.

If you fall into this category have you actually looked at the evidence?  If you haven't why not?

Resources