In conclusion, it appears that God has deliberately avoided my requests for proof in mere 'knowledge of existence', despite decades in earnest prayer to demonstrate His existence. This conclusion represents a direct contradiction to claimed omnibenevolence, as avoidance in genuine prayer demonstrates a paradoxical conclusion, in direct contrast to the many verses in the NT regarding answered prayer.
In conclusion, God had no problem demonstrating or revealing His proof of existence to Satan, fallen angels, Sal, etc... All specific individuals whom did not ask for proof of existence, and were still apparently aware of His existence. Some of which, went on to paint God in a great light - (like Sal). And yet, my continued requests appear to go intentionally unanswered? There appears no consistency in logic, for any viable conclusion to such a case.
In conclusion, 'knowledge of existence' by all, would represent a level playing field for all. Many wars would never have happened, or may never happen in the future. Yes, many may rebel, but belief in existence would not be the crux of the mater; and the term 'atheism' would cease to exist, as it would not be a necessary term - just as much so a 'asantanclausist'. Seems odd that, thousands of years later, philosophers are still severely divided, in regards to the sheer question of existence for a God, as opposed to instead ONLY arguing for which attributes are actually just or divine, from this 'known' specific God(s). What point does God accomplish, by continuing to remain the world's greatest hide-and-seek champion for so many?
In conclusion, humans have a natural tendency to apply 'intentional agency' and 'false positives'. Humans also have a natural tendency to draw connections, where no connections may apply. This could be due to our selfish nature, and applying 'closure' to unknown propositions. Many times, all such unknown attributes may also lead to 'knee-jerk' reactions for 'God', via fallacious argumentation. (i.e.) 'Can you explain this to me? Oh, you can't? Well then, God best demonstrates the answer, until proven otherwise.' Or in other words, the argument from ignorance, or shifting the burden of proof, often times prevails as one's 'justification', rather than instead receiving direct 'evidence' for knowledge of existence.
In conclusion, one does not need to mentally prepare themselves for 'knowledge of existence.' Whether I like it or not, I could be made aware of a diagnosed disease. I could certainly deny it, but it would be lying to myself to do so. I find it offensive when some accuse me of denying the 'truth.' They do not know me. And yet, accuse me of lying, as if I somehow 'know' God exists, and are just in denial. My honest conclusion, as stated in my OP, is that my doubt for God/gods is the same as extra terrestrials. I have no evidence of either, in the very same capacity. And yet, the same level of 'proof' has been brought forth to me, for both gods and extra terrestrials. Hence, I am a skeptic for both. Can and do both such claims be true? Of course. However, I legitimately doubt both currently.
In conclusion, God appears inconsistent in His agenda. God provides divine revelation for some. And yet, expects others to go a lifetime instead instilling 'faith', for the hope and belief that this actual God is real. Again, seems inconsistent and odd....
Seems peculiar, that thousands of years later, the best apologetics arguments for the existence of God appear to be the ontological argument, teleological argument, moral argument, Pascal's Wager, Kalam, etc... And not instead everyone just 'knowing' of His actual existence (with 'better' evidence), and instead then assessing what one will actually do with this 'known' fact (Like Sal, doubting Thomas, etc...).
For me personally, the knowledge of existence to Jesus would mean the following. I would have NO choice but to reconcile that the Bible was actually inspired by a higher power. I would then have NO choice but to then reconcile that many of my own personal conclusions about the Bible, are simply mistaken. Or, I would not instead simply currently dismiss them, when such assertions do not appear to align with my discovered reality to the contrary. I would have NO choice, but to view the Bible from an entirely different lens - (just like the many devout Christians do now - by rationalizing the many parts in which they may find discomfort with). I feel believers do this because they have their 'knowledge of justified existence', and then associate the Bible as absolute truth, because they feel they have no choice, as such believers think the risen Christ is reality.
In conclusion, no more debates, arguments, or wars would logically exist, in regards to 'which God is the real God or the better God.'
The only remaining conflict would then be for all to reconcile the passages in which do not appear to jive with many. However, the conflict between many would not be, in correlation to 'atheism', but instead disagreeing with the verbiage, context, or meaning of such passages.
And yes, many would still argue that maybe this God is fallible. However, no one in their right mind, would state He does not at least exist. That specific argument would be put to rest once and for all.
But as it stands, many reject the Bible, because they simply dismiss such a book as man written (absent of any divine authorship).
Hence, the reason I feel the 'knowledge of existence' becomes the crux of the matter at hand.
Does anyone have any additional comments, observations, suggestions, advice, 'epiphanies', justifications, etc...?
