I'm having trouble understanding you. Maybe you could rephrase what you are trying to say.
You were insisting that God is hiding because He doesn't want to compel anyone into belief.
I'm asking as to why you would be thinking that it would be a terrible thing when it comes to our personal judgement (apparently Satan still could rebel fine even when he didn't have option of not believing)?
You are using the term "believe" in the sense of "trusting and hoping in someone or something" which obviously will not apply when you see Christ as conquering King, for who hopes or trusts in that which he sees or for that which there is incontrovertible and undeniable evidence?
No, I was actually using it in an existential plausibility and likelihood sense. Let's say that someone said that you are an alien child of Uhzarm the Great of the planet of Erdom 100 billion lightyears away. Why would it be too late for you to trust that claim when the plausibility of it materializes with the full force of the evidence?
How can we trust the claims like the above when the plausibility hasn't been demonstrated?
That is why you will not be able to believe on Christ for the remission of your sins on the day of judgment. It will be too late then, for God is not interested in you giving some mere intellectual assent to His existence, but that you come to desire to enter into a saving relationship with Him and this can only be done on this side of things.
You can't trust something until you give it an intellectual assent of existence. Hence your above assertion makes zero sense.
As Ravi Zacharias once said, "God has put enough into this world to make faith in Him a most reasonable thing, but has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason alone."
I'd say that's debatable. And I'm either a lunatic, a liar, or I'm correct
. Or perhaps I am simply ignorant of this evidence or interpret it through the filters of my own upbringing, in which case it would actually create further problems for Ravi's assertion and drive my point even further, and make your God's expectations even more unreasonable, which would further put in question whether such God is plausible.
You want to talk about evidence? The Pharisees saw Jesus raise people from the dead and perform all sorts of miracles and yet still refused to believe in Him and put their hope and trust in Him and follow Him and live for Him. They had been given evidence but were evil and jealous of Jesus and so attributed the things He did not to the power of God, but to demons. They were not willing to believe.
How do you know that Jesus did any of that, and what Pharisees did or didn't do? So, let me see your logical pattern here:
1) You are asked to present better evidence that God exists
2) You say that the Bible says that such evidence wouldn't matter because...
3) The Bible says that many people saw that evidence and still didn't believe
It's sort of like me saying... hey I can jump over a house. And when asked to demonstrate it, I'd say... "hey, I've done it before and people still didn't believe me, so why would you believe me? Either believe me or not based on what I'm saying to you. I'm testing your trust levels here."
But, the trustworthiness is build on a framework of plausibility. That's how reliable methods work as far as what and who we do find trustworthy and what and who we don't.