Personal relationship with God

[devolved]

If the body does things that occur apart from the conscious mind, why do we have to equate them with some other mysterious type of "mind". Just call it what it is - a reaction of the nervous system.

In short, I would say that we can't separate mind from function of the nervous system. There's very little reason to do that. Some of that function feeds into awareness (conscious function). Most of that function operates below the threshold of awareness (subconscious function). Hence conscious and unconscious mind is merely a label for these processes.

Of course, both of these processes are chain of events in a mechanism of our brain that fallow certain cause-effect patterns.

 

[Resha Caner]

You are seemingly attempt to detach mind from the activity of our nervous system and treat it as something "external" to it and thus separate.

I'm not. I'm saying "mind" as far as consciousness and intellectual activity goes is only a subset of nervous system functionality. But, use the term however you like.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I didn't think I was being evasive, but rather honest. The study you presented is a perfect example of the complexity involved, and the failure of the researchers in that particular case to address it. If you continue to think the results were perfectly valid, then I don't know what else to do.

I wasn't referring to the study, but to your claim God is physical but you won't (or can't) say in what way.

... As I've tried to explain through multiple analogies, this is not something you can do through intellect alone. You have to experience it. As such, the only resource I have to offer you is to actually go to an LCMS church and engage them - not as an outsider; engage them.

My wife loves me, and I am convinced of that. But if a stranger were to ask if he can learn about love by experiencing my wife, I would object (pardon the crude allusion). He has to have his own experience. If he then asked me how he could know that his wife loves him, I would be hard-pressed to answer. There are thousands of ways to show love. How am I supposed to know which one will be chosen by a complete stranger? I would have to get to know him and his wife - engage in their life. I don't know another way to do it. IMO, making comments about how she will be committed and value his needs is just throw-away, pseudo-psychological babble that lets me escape the conversation without putting any skin in the game....

OK - I hope you'll forgive my scepticism at the idea that to discover this physical entity, I should 'engage with' a particular religious group and experience it for myself... I'm sure you can appreciate how that sounds.

E.T.A. BTW, I grew up in the Roman Catholic tradition, and was told all about the RC 'special' belief, literal transubstantiation. This fueled my interest in people's ability to comfortably accommodate cognitive dissonance. Some can seemingly match the White Queen in 'Through the Looking Glass', and believe at least "six impossible things before breakfast".

 

[devolved]

I'm not. I'm saying "mind" as far as consciousness and intellectual activity goes is only a subset of nervous system functionality. But, use the term however you like.

We are in agreement here, but it's very difficult for me to figure out how you can know something if it doesn't involve mind, that's all. Nervous reflexes are generally not known until these enter into awareness, which is largely (if not all of it) is intellectual in nature.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We are in agreement here, but it's very difficult for me to figure out how you can know something if it doesn't involve mind, that's all. Nervous reflexes are generally not known until these enter into awareness, which is largely (if not all of it) is intellectual in nature.

It is possible to learn things without being aware that you're learning them (they 'soak in' below conscious awareness), then to find you know them at a later time, when non-conscious processes retrieve them and they 'pop' into consciousness - with the corresponding response, "I didn't realise I knew that!".

 

[Resha Caner]

OK - I hope you'll forgive my scepticism at the idea that to discover this physical entity, I should 'engage with' a particular religious group and experience it for myself... I'm sure you can appreciate how that sounds.

I've tried to get across several times that I'm not claiming the LCMS has exclusive access to God. I only answer that way because you're asking me about my experiences. Is that clear?

If you just want me to generalize about what it means that God can be physical, it means the same thing that it means for any person. He can speak to people, be seen by people, shake their hand, etc.

But tell me the truth. If someone told you they had seen God and talked to him, what would be your reaction?

 

[devolved]

But tell me the truth. If someone told you they had seen God and talked to him, what would be your reaction?

I'd certainly have questions, but it's a lot more conclusive claim than having various induced mental states when you partake in religious activities and attributing that to God IMO.

If 60% of my town's Christian population talked about seeing and speaking to God at least once in their lifetime , I think it would be worth giving such phenom a serious concideration... especially if it's something that I would experience personally and it would be similar to what the other people describe it as.

 

[devolved]

It is possible to learn things without being aware that you're learning them (they 'soak in' below conscious awareness), then to find you know them at a later time, when non-conscious processes retrieve them and they 'pop' into consciousness - with the corresponding response, "I didn't realise I knew that!".

You are speaking from a perspective of our perceived experience as opposed to the mechanism that constitutes such experience.

The claim I was responding to was to he likes of "not everything is known through intellectual mind", and I disagree, because such claim ignores that intellect is an abstract concept, and we have to examine what it really means in reality of our nervous system.

The reality of our mind seems to be much more along the lines of the conclusion of the Phillip K. Dick's "do androids dream of electric sheep" as opposed to the modern narrative of "god-like" mind that ushers causes and decisions into existence.

Our conscious experience seems to be an effect - a picture on a screen that appears after the fact when all of the decisions were already made by what we'd call "an intellect" as it reacts to the external stimuli. It's difficult to separate "conscious" and "unconscious" experience in such case, especially in context of "intellectual experience" vs "nervous reaction". Intellect is the process by which nervous reaction is interpreted in our brain, and our label for the entirety of that process is "mind". Thus equivocating between intellectual experience as merely an experience that we are aware of because of that "picture on the screen" of consciousness, is a bit misguided IMO, since it's difficult to separate the process that paints the picture from the process that calculates what exactly to paint.

The semantics of it can get confusing, especially in the field of psychology where we are dealing with evaluating behavior against a model of the "mind" as an abstract, as opposed to the model of the mind as a neural mechanism.

Of course, it doesn't make the actual reality of our perception any less puzzling as to how all of these otherwise unconscious processes translate into the entirety of what we would call experience, and I think that's more awe-inspiring than any religious claims of miracles or "god experiences". By comparison, performing a ritual and feeling at peace as a result is seems a lot more ordinary than above-described.

I don't think we'd find God in the "experience" the way Resha describes it to work. I think were we may find what we think of as God in the mystery of conscious perception, and we project our attempts to explain it on something external to our perception.

But, when you read PKD from philosophical point of view, the question becomes rather clear... what are we in respect to God? Is God a mechanism? Since, we seem to be a mechanism working in context of the environment. It seems to me that what people would label God would then merely be the totality of the mechanism of reality, as opposed to something external to the reality.

Hence, when we "graduate" from religious stages of our lives, the mere mechanics of the Universe in respect to life is really awe-inspiring, because it does communicate certain "fractal" expression of limitless possibilities of what otherwise is a rather "monolithic oneness". And our experience is merely a "localized progression" in the scope of the totality of the experience of the Universe.

Hence, the "life after" death concept is entirely unnecessary, because in such scope we don't need to see death as something terrible, anymore than we'd feel terrible that a single cell in our body dies off. It's a path that such expression has taken, and I think knowing that gives certain amount of peace, because a large chunk of who I am is in what I've "backed up" outside of my brain... into educating my son, into starting a business, writing blogs, communicating with friends, etc. Hence, there seems to be some advantage to being born not knowing things, because each copy of us is an "experiment" of its own that can specialize in "testing" something specific.

I know I'm rambling on at 3 AM, but I think you are one of the few people on this board who can understand what I'm talking about from the philosophical standpoint.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I've tried to get across several times that I'm not claiming the LCMS has exclusive access to God. I only answer that way because you're asking me about my experiences. Is that clear?

Sure. Although if others had clear physical evidence of God, I'd expect to have heard about it, or seen it.

If you just want me to generalize about what it means that God can be physical, it means the same thing that it means for any person. He can speak to people, be seen by people, shake their hand, etc.

I was asking for specifics. You seem to be saying God is in human form - so have you pictures? a description? does it have a gender? etc.

But tell me the truth. If someone told you they had seen God and talked to him, what would be your reaction?

My reaction would be sceptical; I'd want to see the pictures, and I'd want to know what verifiable evidence there was that this wasn't just a person claiming to be God, as has happened so often before. The burden of proof lies with the claimant - the burden would be extreme for God, but since God can presumably do anything and would presumably know exactly what would persuade or convince me of its existence, that wouldn't be a problem for it.

 

[devolved]

My reaction would be sceptical; I'd want to see the pictures, and I'd want to know what verifiable evidence there was that this wasn't just a person claiming to be God, as has happened so often before. The burden of proof lies with the claimant - the burden would be extreme for God, but since God can presumably do anything and would presumably know exactly what would persuade or convince me of its existence, that wouldn't be a problem for it.

But, what if you personally experienced something of the kind. Let's say that right now in the middle of the night a blindingly bright light appears in the middle of the room, and you hear a voice calling you by your name and saying "I am God, why do you reject me? Believe and be saved." Would you be as skeptical to Christian claims and your own experience in that particular case? Would you need a repeat experience to be less skeptical?

I guess, the question is as to which experience in your opinion would be a conclusive enough threshold of evidence for you to say ... ok Christian claims are likely true.

 

[Resha Caner]

But, what if you personally experienced something of the kind. Let's say that right now in the middle of the night a blindingly bright light appears in the middle of the room, and you hear a voice calling you by your name and saying "I am God, why do you reject me? Believe and be saved." Would you be as skeptical to Christian claims and your own experience in that particular case? Would you need a repeat experience to be less skeptical?

I guess, the question is as to which experience in your opinion would be a conclusive enough threshold of evidence for you to say ... ok Christian claims are likely true.

I'm glad you asked that question rather than me needing to ask it.

I was asking for specifics.

Why? Why does it matter that I give you the specifics of an actual experience? Based on the experiences I've had, I can tell you how God would physically manifest. Is it really that you want the details of my experience, or do you want to experience it yourself?

Is it that you want me to tell you the details of my experience, or is that you want to actually encounter the physical aftermath of that experience?

My reaction would be sceptical

Yes. I'll go one step further. You will attempt to find a natural explanation for whatever example I might give you. In order to explore that, let me ask you this: Do you think the multiverse is plausible?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are speaking from a perspective of our perceived experience as opposed to the mechanism that constitutes such experience.

Yes, of course; in my experience, it's usually easier to explain by describing common perceptions than getting into the distractions of mental models.

The claim I was responding to was to he likes of "not everything is known through intellectual mind", and I disagree, because such claim ignores that intellect is an abstract concept, and we have to examine what it really means in reality of our nervous system.

Fair enough.

The reality of our mind seems to be much more along the lines of the conclusion of the Phillip K. Dick's "do androids dream of electric sheep" as opposed to the modern narrative of "god-like" mind that ushers causes and decisions into existence.

Our conscious experience seems to be an effect - a picture on a screen that appears after the fact when all of the decisions were already made by what we'd call "an intellect" as it reacts to the external stimuli. It's difficult to separate "conscious" and "unconscious" experience in such case, especially in context of "intellectual experience" vs "nervous reaction". Intellect is the process by which nervous reaction is interpreted in our brain, and our label for the entirety of that process is "mind". Thus equivocating between intellectual experience as merely an experience that we are aware of because of that "picture on the screen" of consciousness, is a bit misguided IMO, since it's difficult to separate the process that paints the picture from the process that calculates what exactly to paint.

Yes; my current model for conscious experience is as a product of the interface between the simplified reflective internal model of self (used, like an avatar, to represent the whole in planning and social interaction) and the subconscious or pre-conscious processes that make up the bulk of brain activity (Kahneman's System 1).

I don't think we'd find God in the "experience" the way Resha describes it to work. I think were we may find what we think of as God in the mystery of conscious perception, and we project our attempts to explain it on something external to our perception.

Perhaps... I came across a talk on the BBC, by Paul Helm, on 'Faith and Reason'. A decent attempt to outline some reasons for religious beliefs, their rationality, and the relevance of evidence, both external and internal (what he calls 'eliminable and ineliminable person-relative beliefs')... I see what he's getting at, but it seems to be a loose rationalisation of irrational choices. YMMV.

But, when you read PKD from philosophical point of view, the question becomes rather clear... what are we in respect to God? Is God a mechanism? Since, we seem to be a mechanism working in context of the environment. It seems to me that what people would label God would then merely be the totality of the mechanism of reality, as opposed to something external to the reality.

That sounds like the Spinozan or perhaps Einstinian view. I can't see the point unless one imagines there's something more to it - some kind of supervening coherence or agency, pantheism, or Jungian collective unconscious... but I think 'imagine' is the operative word.

Hence, when we "graduate" from religious stages of our lives, the mere mechanics of the Universe in respect to life is really awe-inspiring, because it does communicate certain "fractal" expression of limitless possibilities of what otherwise is a rather "monolithic oneness". And our experience is merely a "localized progression" in the scope of the totality of the experience of the Universe.

An awesome universe (with hints of various kinds of multiverses) is plenty for me; my cup overfloweth...

Hence, the "life after" death concept is entirely unnecessary, because in such scope we don't need to see death as something terrible, anymore than we'd feel terrible that a single cell in our body dies off. It's a path that such expression has taken, and I think knowing that gives certain amount of peace, because a large chunk of who I am is in what I've "backed up" outside of my brain... into educating my son, into starting a business, writing blogs, communicating with friends, etc. Hence, there seems to be some advantage to being born not knowing things, because each copy of us is an "experiment" of its own that can specialize in "testing" something specific.

Agreed, although I'm not in the least bothered if my footsteps are washed away as if they'd never been.

It's always seemed to me that I'm at the end of a long, long chain of ancestral generations that fought, worked, and strived to survive - and probably one of the very few (perhaps the first) to be fortunate enough to be in a position where I can take a breath, stick my head up, and have a good look around; see where we've come from, where we may be heading, explore where we are now in the broadest sense, think about it, and try to get some perspective on it all. It's an opportunity not to be missed, and, as a personal conceit, I can see my purpose as small justification for that ancient struggle

I know I'm rambling on at 3 AM, but I think you are one of the few people on this board who can understand what I'm talking about from the philosophical standpoint.

You'll probably regret that in the morning, but I appreciate and reciprocate the appreciation

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But, what if you personally experienced something of the kind. Let's say that right now in the middle of the night a blindingly bright light appears in the middle of the room, and you hear a voice calling you by your name and saying "I am God, why do you reject me? Believe and be saved." Would you be as skeptical to Christian claims and your own experience in that particular case? Would you need a repeat experience to be less skeptical?

I dunno - given what I've learnt about such experiences, I'd first suspect I was having a lucid dream, secondly a florid hallucination, thirdly a temporal lobe seizure, etc. Unless there was physical evidence left behind, I would assume it was a purely mental phenomenon. Physical evidence would need to be persistent and beyond human capability (for independent verification). Without independently verifiable corroborating physical evidence, repeat occurrences would lead me to think I might have a serious neurological condition (tumour?).

I guess, the question is as to which experience in your opinion would be a conclusive enough threshold of evidence for you to say ... ok Christian claims are likely true.

As above, appropriate revelatory experience and physical evidence. True, there could be other potential explanations - a persistent dream or coma, aliens with advanced technologies, the universe is a simulation, brain-in-a-jar, etc., but after independent verification of the evidence, at least initially it would be a case of taking it at face value FAPP (For All Practical Purposes). If it looks like a God, walks like a God, and does what Gods do...

 

[devolved]

Yes. I'll go one step further. You will attempt to find a natural explanation for whatever example I might give you. In order to explore that, let me ask you this: Do you think the multiverse is plausible?

It depends what you mean by that.

Do you mean it in historical sense, that there's contraction/expansion events like Big Bang that create the variety of variations that are sequential?

Do you mean it in physical sense, that there are boundaries to these "Universes" and these are separated somehow and exist at the same time? In which case it wouldn't semantically be different from the word "Universe"

Or, do you mean it in QM Many-worlds sense, in which all of these occupy the same space, but merely exist in different "phase" of probable reality.

 

[Resha Caner]

It depends what you mean by that.

I guess I had Brane Cosmology in mind when I made the comment. However, I'm not a cosmologist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Brian_Greene.27s_nine_types

Frumious appears to be otherwise occupied today.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why? Why does it matter that I give you the specifics of an actual experience? Based on the experiences I've had, I can tell you how God would physically manifest. Is it really that you want the details of my experience, or do you want to experience it yourself?

Interesting that you said, "how God would physically manifest", rather than, "how God does physically manifest"...

I ask for specifics because want to know what you mean by 'God is physical'; now you've said that, "He can speak to people, be seen by people, shake their hand, etc." which suggests He manifests as a person. Now I'm curious to know what He looks like, how you know it's God and not someone who isn't God, and so-on.

Is it that you want me to tell you the details of my experience, or is that you want to actually encounter the physical aftermath of that experience?

If someone told you they communicated with an alien, wouldn't you be sceptical? If they told you it was just like any other person, wouldn't you want to know more? wouldn't you want to know how they knew it wasn't just someone saying they were an alien? If they suggested you pop over to their UFO club half way around the planet to see for yourself, wouldn't you want a little more detail before doing so?

Yes. I'll go one step further. You will attempt to find a natural explanation for whatever example I might give you.

Of course I would; it would be foolish not to.

Do you think the multiverse is plausible?

It depends on which type of multiverse you mean; I find the Hubble Volumes multiverse plausible (if our observable universe is an infinitesimal part of the whole volume, which seems to me quite possible).

I find bubble universes plausible to the extent that they're a consequence of inflationary theory, which is widely accepted and neatly explains several puzzling aspects of the universe we see, but itself needs an explanatory mechanism.

The Everettian 'Many Worlds' multiverse has me in two minds; many quantum mechanical phenomena are counter-intuitive in a very deep way, and seem totally implausible, but demonstrably exist. 'Many Worlds' is the most parsimonious and coherent interpretation, and entirely deterministic, but strains credulity. I find it implausible in an intuitive sense, but plausible - if incredible - rationally (I rather like it for this complex dual nature).

Tegmark's mathematical multiverse (our reality is a particular mathematical structure, and (all) other mathematical structures represent other realities) I find somewhat implausible, although I don't understand the physical or mathematical argument behind it, so I don't really see the justification for it.

There is another form of multiverse, the 'Brane Metaverse', where higher dimensional structures called 'branes' (short for membranes) float in a void, and when they collide, the 'points' of collision spawn universes (of which our is one) that spread out across the surface of the brane. This is highly speculative, but plausible and coherent enough in itself.

A key factor in deciding the plausibility of these models is the extent to which they're derived from observation and/or are an implication or extrapolation of the physics (i.e. maths) underlying the standard models of physics (from quantum mechanics to General Relativity). They all require some assumptions, the easiest of which for me to accept are the Hubbles Volumes assumption (the universe is very much bigger than it looks), and the Many Worlds assumption (that the universe is simply the unitary evolution of the Schrodinger wave function). Yet the former leads to what seems like a reasonable conclusion that things very far away may be very different, despite the Cosmological Principle; and the latter leads to 'everything that can happen does happen' - in separate branches of the universe...

Does my thinking they're plausible models mean I think that's how the universe really is? No, not really. They're speculative until they can be tested.

E.T.A. I see from the wiki link that there are more and slightly different descriptions (they call my 'Brane Metaverse' the 'Cyclic Ekpyrotic' model, and use that name for a different one). I don't understand how the Holographic universe is a multiverse, and I find the Simulated multiverse as implausible as Tegmark's Mathematical multiverse, if not more so. The others seem plausible enough given their assumptions.

 

[Resha Caner]

Interesting that you said, "how God would physically manifest", rather than, "how God does physically manifest"...

I think my post gave you the wrong impression. Maybe you think I'm baiting you? The questions were serious ones. My first draft for a reply was rather standard fare, but when I read it I inferred from our conversation to this point that you would find it completely unsatisfactory. So I deleted it, and I'm trying to go a different route. But I'll need your help to do that.

You asked for specifics. I asked why because I don't think telling you specifics will help. If I said (hypothetically) he manifests as a male, age 33, with Middle Eastern characteristics, my guess is that would only generate further disbelief and questions. Rather, what I think you're actually asking (as one option) is for your own experience. You would say, "Fine. Where and when can I meet him?" But I can't know for sure that is your true desire unless you confirm it. Maybe you have confirmed that, but replying with rhetorical questions left me unsure.

Or, as another option, if I said (again, hypothetically) that every time after someone hears God, a group of fireflies forms the words "God loves you" and they stay in that formation for 15 seconds before dispersing, you wouldn't accept me telling you that is what happens. Rather, what I think you're actually asking is to put the evidence in front of you. But if I gave you a photo of fireflies forming the words "God loves you", you would suspect it had been faked. You want to be there when it happens. But I can't know that for sure unless you confirm it.

There is another form of multiverse, the 'Brane Metaverse', where higher dimensional structures called 'branes' (short for membranes) float in a void, and when they collide, the 'points' of collision spawn universes (of which our is one) that spread out across the surface of the brane. This is highly speculative, but plausible and coherent enough in itself.

As I said to devolved, this is the one I was thinking about. But if you find Hubble Volumes or Many Worlds more plausible, those might work as well. You've already stated what you would think of devolved's scenario if you were alone. But what if more than one person were present to witness it: blinding flash of light, calls you by name, asks why you reject him, commands you to believe.

Now what is the natural explanation? Did this being come from another 3D brane?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Maybe you think I'm baiting you?

No, I take them at face value.

You asked for specifics. I asked why because I don't think telling you specifics will help. If I said (hypothetically) he manifests as a male, age 33, with Middle Eastern characteristics, my guess is that would only generate further disbelief and questions. Rather, what I think you're actually asking (as one option) is for your own experience. You would say, "Fine. Where and when can I meet him?" But I can't know for sure that is your true desire unless you confirm it. Maybe you have confirmed that, but replying with rhetorical questions left me unsure.

You and I both know that I'm not going to be convinced of the physicality of God (or it's existence) by, no offence, 'some guy online'. What I wanted to know was what makes you convinced of it - what evidence has convinced you that God is a physical entity; you presumably know what that entails.

Or, as another option, if I said (again, hypothetically) that every time after someone hears God, a group of fireflies forms the words "God loves you" and they stay in that formation for 15 seconds before dispersing, you wouldn't accept me telling you that is what happens. Rather, what I think you're actually asking is to put the evidence in front of you. But if I gave you a photo of fireflies forming the words "God loves you", you would suspect it had been faked. You want to be there when it happens. But I can't know that for sure unless you confirm it.

Naturally I would be sceptical, anyone would. But it would be informative.

...what if more than one person were present to witness it: blinding flash of light, calls you by name, asks why you reject him, commands you to believe.

Now what is the natural explanation? Did this being come from another 3D brane?

Multiverse universes don't interact (except possibly on cosmological scales); they're not like the sci-fi or comic book 'parallel or alternate dimensions' trope.

Unless there was some persistent (independently verifiable) physical evidence that could not be produced by any human means, I'd suspect an elaborate prank, a shared dose of psychedelic (e.g. psilocybin or LSD), or maybe a 'Folie à deux' - extremely rare, but in my view, a much higher prior probability than a joint visit from God. The mind can play extraordinary tricks.

 

[Resha Caner]

You and I both know that I'm not going to be convinced of the physicality of God (or it's existence) by, no offence, 'some guy online'.

Sure. Nor anyone else it would seem. I'll take that as an affirmative.

What I wanted to know was what makes you convinced of it - what evidence has convinced you that God is a physical entity; you presumably know what that entails.

You're studying me. Interesting. I've deleted one particular statement multiple times, but I guess I'll say it this time. Discussing this topic requires a certain willingness to make one's self vulnerable. It's not a deliberate, coldly-calculated test, but their is a certain reluctance that somewhat amounts to a test - a cautious series of steps where the reaction to one step determines whether we proceed to the next step or retreat. The venue doesn't seem conducive to explaining in full why I'm convinced God exists.

Unless there was some persistent (independently verifiable) physical evidence that could not be produced by any human means, I'd suspect an elaborate prank, a shared dose of psychedelic (e.g. psilocybin or LSD), or maybe a 'Folie à deux' - extremely rare, but in my view, a much higher prior probability than a joint visit from God. The mind can play extraordinary tricks.

So, still a mind thing - an internal anomaly. OK. I did have another possibility to suggest, but I'll skip it. No single event would be convincing. I'm not sure what you mean by "independently verifiable", but how persistent would it have to be?

Footnote: As engineering undergraduates who had to take physics classes, my fellow students and I had good reason to believe physics majors and psychedelic drugs were constant companions. YMMV.

 

[devolved]

So, still a mind thing - an internal anomaly. OK. I did have another possibility to suggest, but I'll skip it. No single event would be convincing. I'm not sure what you mean by "independently verifiable", but how persistent would it have to be?

1) this is a thread about a persona relationship claim

2) does God know each individual and what it would take for them to believe?

3) does God want for people to believe he exists?

4) does God want individual people like myself to believe?

5) since he knows what would convince me, why wouldn't he?

Why frame the terms of this relationship as "either you believe this very questionable evidence from your own perception of it.... or you will perish and suffer in your unbelief"