Let's suppose God did....

[Elioenai26]

Let's suppose for a moment that God did do what many atheists here have said He has not done, and reveal Himself to mankind in a way that is undeniable.

How would you know it was God revealing Himself and not just some natural event with a natural explanation?

Let's suppose He caused a message to appear in the clouds in the sky over Israel. How would you know it was really God doing it and not just a chance, random arrangement of clouds to look like words?

Or let's suppose God appeared to you, an atheist, personally. How would you know it was really God and that you were not just hallucinating?

Let's suppose He appeared to hundreds of people at one time and did miracles. How would you know that it was not just some magician doing magic tricks with the help of people who were working secretly with the magician?

Let's suppose a booming voice from the sky cried: "I am God and Jesus Christ is my beloved Son, listen to Him!" How would you know it was not just you imagining the voice inside your head?

I keep hearing over and over again: "If God is real, then He can make His presence known." Well heck, I agree!

But if He did, how would you distinguish the supernatural from the natural?

What marks or qualities would such a revelation possess? Would you even be able to recognize it?

 

[Davian]

It would seem that you are describing your god as some sort of Penn and Teller act.

Why don't you tell me how to distinguish what you call 'supernatural' from the natural.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Let's suppose for a moment that God did do what many atheists here have said He has not done, and reveal Himself to mankind in a way that is undeniable.

How would you know it was God revealing Himself and not just some natural event with a natural explanation?

Let's suppose He caused a message to appear in the clouds in the sky over Israel. How would you know it was really God doing it and not just a chance, random arrangement of clouds to look like words?

Or let's suppose God appeared to you, an atheist, personally. How would you know it was really God and that you were not just hallucinating?

Let's suppose He appeared to hundreds of people at one time and did miracles. How would you know that it was not just some magician doing magic tricks with the help of people who were working secretly with the magician?

Let's suppose a booming voice from the sky cried: "I am God and Jesus Christ is my beloved Son, listen to Him!" How would you know it was not just you imagining the voice inside your head?

I keep hearing over and over again: "If God is real, then He can make His presence known." Well heck, I agree!

But if He did, how would you distinguish the supernatural from the natural?

What marks or qualities would such a revelation possess? Would you even be able to recognize it?

So if I paid a skywriter to write "I AM GOD" in the sky, you would take that as a sign from God?

Same if you became a schizophrenic?

Do you also believe the Miracle of the Sun was the direct work of God?

 

[Ken-1122]

Let's suppose for a moment that God did do what many atheists here have said He has not done, and reveal Himself to mankind in a way that is undeniable.

How would you know it was God revealing Himself and not just some natural event with a natural explanation?

Let's suppose He caused a message to appear in the clouds in the sky over Israel. How would you know it was really God doing it and not just a chance, random arrangement of clouds to look like words?

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']In such a case I would probably take the word of the scientists who observed the message.

Or let's suppose God appeared to you, an atheist, personally. How would you know it was really God and that you were not just hallucinating?

If it happened to me, even if it were a hallucination, I would probably believe it to be true.

Let's suppose He appeared to hundreds of people at one time and did miracles. How would you know that it was not just some magician doing magic tricks with the help of people who were working secretly with the magician?

Unless I were one of those hundreds of people observing, I would probably think it was a trick.

Let's suppose a booming voice from the sky cried: "I am God and Jesus Christ is my beloved Son, listen to Him!" How would you know it was not just you imagining the voice inside your head?

If I were the only one who heard it, I would assume it were only in my head; if everyone else heard it, I would believe

What marks or qualities would such a revelation possess? Would you even be able to recognize it?

Yes

K

 

[JGG]

Let's suppose for a moment that God did do what many atheists here have said He has not done, and reveal Himself to mankind in a way that is undeniable.

How would you know it was God revealing Himself and not just some natural event with a natural explanation?

Let's suppose He caused a message to appear in the clouds in the sky over Israel. How would you know it was really God doing it and not just a chance, random arrangement of clouds to look like words?

Or let's suppose God appeared to you, an atheist, personally. How would you know it was really God and that you were not just hallucinating?

Let's suppose He appeared to hundreds of people at one time and did miracles. How would you know that it was not just some magician doing magic tricks with the help of people who were working secretly with the magician?

Let's suppose a booming voice from the sky cried: "I am God and Jesus Christ is my beloved Son, listen to Him!" How would you know it was not just you imagining the voice inside your head?

I keep hearing over and over again: "If God is real, then He can make His presence known." Well heck, I agree!

But if He did, how would you distinguish the supernatural from the natural?

What marks or qualities would such a revelation possess? Would you even be able to recognize it?

I really can't tell you. Definitions of this God are diverse and limiting. I don't really know what I'm dealing with exactly, so I can't tell you what I'm expecting based on what he is capable of. I can't tell you what God is and is not (which is just about reason #1 why I'd tell you I don't believe), so I can't really say what sort of evidence I would require to believe.

But your God, I'm told, is fairly intelligent. Far more so than we are, right? If this god wants to convince me that he exists, I'm sure he knows of a very efficient and straightforward way to do it, right?

I confess, I'm also thrown off by the fact that in the OP you define this interaction as "undeniabe" and then offer instances of the interaction which you yourself can find reasons to deny.

What contact are we talking about that is undeniable?

 

[Davian]

So if I paid a skywriter to write "I AM GOD" in the sky, you would take that as a sign from God?

Same if you became a schizophrenic?

Do you also believe the Miracle of the Sun was the direct work of God?

To be fair, he is asking what you would accept as evidence for his god, not what he accepts. I don't think he sets the bar very high.

The problem I see is, how do you lower the (evidential) bar far enough for a god to get over, without letting other stuff climb over as well (voodoo, extraterrestrials visiting Earth in the past or present, Bermuda triangles, David Icke's reptilian humanoids, etc.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

To be fair, he is asking what you would accept as evidence for his god, not what he accepts. I don't think he sets the bar very high.

The problem I see is, how do you lower the (evidential) bar far enough for a god to get over, without letting other stuff climb over as well (voodoo, extraterrestrials visiting Earth in the past or present, Bermuda triangles, David Icke's reptilian humanoids, etc.

Well, no, I personally wouldn't, in case it wasn't obvious before.

(maybe I might believe if I were schizophrenic, but I've never been schizophrenic, so I can't really say)

The point of the post was that he hasn't really told me why (or how) I should differentiate between such events caused by man, and those that may be caused by a God.

 

[Davian]

Well, no, I personally wouldn't, in case it wasn't obvious before.

(maybe I might believe if I were schizophrenic, but I've never been schizophrenic, so I can't really say)

The point of the post was that he hasn't really told me why (or how) I should differentiate between such events caused by man, and those that may be caused by a God.

Why? He wants you to believe.

How? His first year anniversary here on this board is coming up - (on my birthday!) - and he has yet to find a way to convey that information, if it exists.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The distinction between "supernatural" and "natural" is one that I find quite meaningless and utterly irrelevant. And your scenarios demonstrate why that is so - at least to some extent.

Why couldn't God be "natural", huh? Or at least normal? Why the insistence on "supernatural"? I think that somewhere in there lies the implicit concession that God does not exist.



(On the other hand, I usually don't ask for undeniable revelation or some such. I have come to know better.)

 

[quatona]

Let's suppose for a moment that God did do what many atheists here have said He has not done, and reveal Himself to mankind in a way that is undeniable.

How would you know it was God revealing Himself and not just some natural event with a natural explanation?

Let's suppose He caused a message to appear in the clouds in the sky over Israel. How would you know it was really God doing it and not just a chance, random arrangement of clouds to look like words?

Or let's suppose God appeared to you, an atheist, personally. How would you know it was really God and that you were not just hallucinating?

Let's suppose He appeared to hundreds of people at one time and did miracles. How would you know that it was not just some magician doing magic tricks with the help of people who were working secretly with the magician?

Let's suppose a booming voice from the sky cried: "I am God and Jesus Christ is my beloved Son, listen to Him!" How would you know it was not just you imagining the voice inside your head?

I keep hearing over and over again: "If God is real, then He can make His presence known." Well heck, I agree!

But if He did, how would you distinguish the supernatural from the natural?

What marks or qualities would such a revelation possess? Would you even be able to recognize it?

I think you aimed a bit low and inadvertantly shot your own foot here.

 

[Freodin]

Let's suppose for a moment that God did do what many atheists here have said He has not done, and reveal Himself to mankind in a way that is undeniable.

How would you know it was God revealing Himself and not just some natural event with a natural explanation?

Let's suppose He caused a message to appear in the clouds in the sky over Israel. How would you know it was really God doing it and not just a chance, random arrangement of clouds to look like words?

Or let's suppose God appeared to you, an atheist, personally. How would you know it was really God and that you were not just hallucinating?

Let's suppose He appeared to hundreds of people at one time and did miracles. How would you know that it was not just some magician doing magic tricks with the help of people who were working secretly with the magician?

Let's suppose a booming voice from the sky cried: "I am God and Jesus Christ is my beloved Son, listen to Him!" How would you know it was not just you imagining the voice inside your head?

I keep hearing over and over again: "If God is real, then He can make His presence known." Well heck, I agree!

But if He did, how would you distinguish the supernatural from the natural?

What marks or qualities would such a revelation possess? Would you even be able to recognize it?

If that is a serious question, I can only respond: I don't know - how do you suppose people do and especially DID do that?

 

[Elioenai26]

The vast majority of atheists here, when asked why they lack belief in God, respond by saying as Bertrand Russell once proclaimed was his reason:

"Not enough evidence, not enough evidence." Paraphrase by the way.

Some here have even ventured to go beyond this and say that there is NO evidence.

Not only the vast majority of atheists here have this line of reasoning, but atheists in general as well.

Now, does this mean that this is the main reason that all atheists lack belief in God? Of course not. Several atheists or rather, anti-theists here have not used this line of reasoning. I know of one apatheist who really does not care one way or the other.

However, it is true that the majority of atheists here have used this line of reasoning as either part of why they lack belief in God or the main reason why they lack belief in God.

I believe all that has been said thus far is uncontroversial.

_______________________________________________________________

I have asked atheists who view the matter in this way, to give me some examples of what they would consider to be evidence of the existence of God. Evidence that would lead them to the conclusion that God existed. Evidence that could not be explained away by naturalistic/materialistic scientists in a purely naturalistic way.

Thus far, no atheist has been able to do this.

One person has said that if scientists were to discover said evidence then he would believe them. But how would scientists who presume from the very outset of their investigation that all that exists is matter and ultimately must have a natural explanation, distinguish between an effect which has a naturalistic explanation and an effect which has a supernatural explanation? If they presume that every event or effect is the result of only and purely naturalistic causes, then anything God did to prove His existence to us would be interpreted by them as not having come from God, but rather, purely from nature!

This is my point ladies and gentlemen.

An atheist cannot say that there is no evidence for the existence of God if they do not know what evidence for the existence of God would look like in the first place. This is undeniably true.

The argument:

1. If God existed, then there would be evidence for His existence
2. We do not know what evidence of God's existence would look like
3. There is no evidence of God's existence.
4. God does not exist.

Is not a sound argument because (3) does not follow from (2).

It is undeniable that humans are limited in cognition. This limitation prohibits us from saying that there is no evidence of God's existence because we do not know what said evidence would look like. In fact, to show this is false, all I need to say here is that there very well could be evidence of God's existence that we have yet to discern. So long as that is even possible, then there is no way to say God does not exist because we do not know what evidence for His existence would look like.

_______________________________________________________________

I will be charitable here and say that we ALL can agree that if God existed, then He would take certain measures to make His presence or existence known to us. After all, what kind of God would He be if He did not do this? I could not say that He could even rightly be called God if He left us all groping blindly in the dark for Him. Such a one would be akin to a mother giving birth to a baby and then placing the baby in a dark room to grow and fend for itself. Such a one could not be rightly called the Highest Good or Summum Bonum as Anselm put it.

If God exists, then He would want for us to know Him and have an intimate relationship with Him. All of this follows necessarily.

If God existed, then He would do something to make this a possibility as well.

But think about it for a moment. If God really does exist and He created the universe as we know it literally out of nothing, then He must be supernatural or "ultramundane". The question is, how could such a One let us know that He did it all?

Well, I suggest that if God is God and could create the universe and us, then He most certainly can communicate with us.

If God could communicate with us then He would want to communicate with us. This seems logical and reasonable.

So what would this communication look like?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

But think about it for a moment. If God really does exist and He created the universe as we know it literally out of nothing, then He must be supernatural or "ultramundane".

Hmmmm... I don't see at all why that would follow. It just seems like an ad hoc rationalization.

 

[Elioenai26]

Hmmmm... I don't see at all why that would follow. It just seems like an ad hoc rationalization.

You don't see why the Creator (assuming the existence of said Creator) of all spacetime reality must necessarily be ultramundane? It seems to me rather prima facie self evident that if something caused all matter, all energy, all space and time to come into existence literally out of nothing, then this entity could not be composed of matter or energy. Nor could it be spaciotemporal.

This conclusion is not ad hoc but in accordance with logic and reason. To maintain otherwise is to maintain that matter could bring itself into existence before it existed, which is nonsense! Natural laws find their terminus at the point of creation. Prior to this point, there are no natural or physical laws because there is nothing natural or physical in existence prior to creation. And nothing has no properties. Nothing is governed by no laws of physics. Nothing is nothing. Its what rocks dream about.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You don't see why the creator of all spacetime reality must necessarily be ultramundane?

What is it that you think makes this an ad hoc rationalization?

What do you mean by "ultra-" in this context? I could see two things: Firstly, ultra in the sense of extremly, or very much. And secondly, ultra in the sense of beyond. I have taken it in the latter sense, i.e. beyond mundane.

But back to your questions ...
1. No I don't see that. At all.
2. Hmmm ... Because it just doesn't follow? Plus, it seems to say that there is a way in which things ordinarily work, and that God apparantly is out of the ordinary. And that, I think, just doesn't mesh with a theists perspective at all.


ETA: Oh, sorry. I now see that I replied to an earlier version of your post and that you have changed it in the meantime.

 

[Paradoxum]

But if He did, how would you distinguish the supernatural from the natural?

What marks or qualities would such a revelation possess? Would you even be able to recognize it?

I think the best sort of way God could reveal himself would be as a constant Spirit. Comparable to how God was with Adam and Eve. Walking with them and talking to them. God as a close and loving Father, rather than a distant loud voice.

The possible doubt would be about whether advanced aliens could doing this to us as an experiment.

The problem might not be that atheists can't come up with a doubtless way of knowing God is real, but rather God is just the sort of thing that can't be known without doubt. God isn't physical so we can't never see God as he is... there is nothing to see. We, being physical, can only be influenced by physical things. So any limited physical expression of God could be copied by advanced technology.

So the best thing would be for God to show himself as a ever present Spirit, or many present Spirits... a manifestation of God for each individual. Still we would have to trust the claims of this powerful, wise, and knowledgeable Spirit.

I have asked atheists who view the matter in this way, to give me some examples of what they would consider to be evidence of the existence of God. Evidence that would lead them to the conclusion that God existed. Evidence that could not be explained away by naturalistic/materialistic scientists in a purely naturalistic way.

Thus far, no atheist has been able to do this.

Is this a problem for atheists, or an inherent problem of metaphysics? Maybe there can be no clear evidence for metaphysical claims. It wouldn't be our problem, it is the theists making the claim.

One person has said that if scientists were to discover said evidence then he would believe them. But how would scientists who presume from the very outset of their investigation that all that exists is matter and ultimately must have a natural explanation, distinguish between an effect which has a naturalistic explanation and an effect which has a supernatural explanation? If they presume that every event or effect is the result of only and purely naturalistic causes, then anything God did to prove His existence to us would be interpreted by them as not having come from God, but rather, purely from nature!

Science proven to work much better than speculation about gods and spirits. If there is a problem with the scientific explanation it will become more clear as we better understand the science around the issue. Consciousness could be one such subject. But it is hard to know whether consciousness can be explain by science or not until the brain has been better understood.

This is my point ladies and gentlemen.

An atheist cannot say that there is no evidence for the existence of God if they do not know what evidence for the existence of God would look like in the first place. This is undeniably true.

I would consider it very strange if God hid evidence of his existence so deep within the universe. One would think that God would want uneducated farmers 3000 years ago to believe in Him, not just people after the year 2050 AD.

The argument:

1. If God existed, then there would be evidence for His existence
2. We do not know what evidence of God's existence would look like
3. There is no evidence of God's existence.
4. God does not exist.

Is not a sound argument because (3) does not follow from (2).

Well there probably can't be scientific evidence of a non-physical being.

It is undeniable that humans are limited in cognition. This limitation prohibits us from saying that there is no evidence of God's existence because we do not know what said evidence would look like. In fact, to show this is false, all I need to say here is that there very well could be evidence of God's existence that we have yet to discern. So long as that is even possible, then there is no way to say God does not exist because we do not know what evidence for His existence would look like.

But if we currently have no evidence of God (or no understanding of this evidence) then we have no reason to say there is a God. Maybe there could be evidence for God, and maybe there could be evidence for invisible immaterial unicorns in my room, but until there is evidence I don't think such unicorns exist.

If God could communicate with us then He would want to communicate with us. This seems logical and reasonable.

So what would this communication look like?

Well he could probably communicate, but that doesn't mean we could know it was Him.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You don't see why the creator of all spacetime reality must necessarily be ultramundane?

What is it that you think makes this an ad hoc rationalization?

What do you mean by "ultra-" in this context? I could see two things: Firstly, ultra in the sense of extremly, or very much. And secondly, ultra in the sense of beyond. I have taken it in the latter sense, i.e. beyond mundane.

But back to your question ...
No I don't see that. At all.

It seems to me rather prima facie self evident that if something caused all matter, all energy, all space and time to come into existence literally out of nothing, then this entity could not be composed of matter or energy. Nor could it be spaciotemporal.

Yes, maybe. But it does seem to say to me, rather loud and clear, that matter and space and time are what is mundane, what is normal, what is "natural".

And does a theist really believe that? Should he or she???

This conclusion is not ad hoc but in accordance with logic and reason.

No, you just asserted something. Something which may be true, or which may be false. But that doesn't make it logical.

To maintain otherwise is to maintain that matter could bring itself into existence before it existed, which is nonsense!

Yeah, you get a maybe here too. But none of that would make God unnormal, unmundane, unnatural or un-what-have-you. To the contrary, I would think.

Natural laws find their terminus at the point of creation. Prior to this point, there are no natural or physical laws because there is nothing natural or physical in existence prior to creation. And nothing has no properties. Nothing is governed by no laws of physics. Nothing is nothing. Its what rocks dream about.

(Emphases mine.) And this doesn't make a lick of sense. But that is just an aside. Prior to the point (a point where????) there was nothing. Ugh!

(And again there is this uncanny implication that the natural world is the mundane, and that God on the other hand is not.)

 

[Non sequitur]

So what would this communication look like?

If everybody in the whole world, simultaneously and instantaneously, had the exact (same) belief, knowledge and understanding of this god.

I suppose this would suffice as evidence for whatever it said it was, etc. Not sure if we could trust what it was saying, but definitely accept that there is something that is powerful enough to do that; call it what you will.

 

[Freodin]

The vast majority of atheists here, when asked why they lack belief in God, respond by saying as Bertrand Russell once proclaimed was his reason:

"Not enough evidence, not enough evidence." Paraphrase by the way.

Some here have even ventured to go beyond this and say that there is NO evidence.

Not only the vast majority of atheists here have this line of reasoning, but atheists in general as well.

Now, does this mean that this is the main reason that all atheists lack belief in God? Of course not. Several atheists or rather, anti-theists here have not used this line of reasoning. I know of one apatheist who really does not care one way or the other.

However, it is true that the majority of atheists here have used this line of reasoning as either part of why they lack belief in God or the main reason why they lack belief in God.

I believe all that has been said thus far is uncontroversial.

_______________________________________________________________

I have asked atheists who view the matter in this way, to give me some examples of what they would consider to be evidence of the existence of God. Evidence that would lead them to the conclusion that God existed. Evidence that could not be explained away by naturalistic/materialistic scientists in a purely naturalistic way.

Thus far, no atheist has been able to do this.

One person has said that if scientists were to discover said evidence then he would believe them. But how would scientists who presume from the very outset of their investigation that all that exists is matter and ultimately must have a natural explanation, distinguish between an effect which has a naturalistic explanation and an effect which has a supernatural explanation? If they presume that every event or effect is the result of only and purely naturalistic causes, then anything God did to prove His existence to us would be interpreted by them as not having come from God, but rather, purely from nature!

This is my point ladies and gentlemen.

An atheist cannot say that there is no evidence for the existence of God if they do not know what evidence for the existence of God would look like in the first place. This is undeniably true.

The argument:

1. If God existed, then there would be evidence for His existence
2. We do not know what evidence of God's existence would look like
3. There is no evidence of God's existence.
4. God does not exist.

Is not a sound argument because (3) does not follow from (2).

It is undeniable that humans are limited in cognition. This limitation prohibits us from saying that there is no evidence of God's existence because we do not know what said evidence would look like. In fact, to show this is false, all I need to say here is that there very well could be evidence of God's existence that we have yet to discern. So long as that is even possible, then there is no way to say God does not exist because we do not know what evidence for His existence would look like.

_______________________________________________________________

I will be charitable here and say that we ALL can agree that if God existed, then He would take certain measures to make His presence or existence known to us. After all, what kind of God would He be if He did not do this? I could not say that He could even rightly be called God if He left us all groping blindly in the dark for Him. Such a one would be akin to a mother giving birth to a baby and then placing the baby in a dark room to grow and fend for itself. Such a one could not be rightly called the Highest Good or Summum Bonum as Anselm put it.

If God exists, then He would want for us to know Him and have an intimate relationship with Him. All of this follows necessarily.

If God existed, then He would do something to make this a possibility as well.

But think about it for a moment. If God really does exist and He created the universe as we know it literally out of nothing, then He must be supernatural or "ultramundane". The question is, how could such a One let us know that He did it all?

Well, I suggest that if God is God and could create the universe and us, then He most certainly can communicate with us.

If God could communicate with us then He would want to communicate with us. This seems logical and reasonable.

So what would this communication look like?

If God - who could create the universe and us, down to the framework of existence itself - could and wanted to communicate with us... could he not do so in a way that we would not misunderstand, misrepresent or ignore it?

What would this communication look like? Well, I cannot answer that. But I - as well as others here already did - can give you some ways that would work a lot better than a book or a miracle healer in some backwater province some thousand years back.

 

[Davian]

The vast majority of atheists here, when asked why they lack belief in God, respond by saying as Bertrand Russell once proclaimed was his reason:

"Not enough evidence, not enough evidence." Paraphrase by the way.

Some here have even ventured to go beyond this and say that there is NO evidence.

Not only the vast majority of atheists here have this line of reasoning, but atheists in general as well.

Now, does this mean that this is the main reason that all atheists lack belief in God? Of course not. Several atheists or rather, anti-theists here have not used this line of reasoning. I know of one apatheist who really does not care one way or the other.

However, it is true that the majority of atheists here have used this line of reasoning as either part of why they lack belief in God or the main reason why they lack belief in God.

I believe all that has been said thus far is uncontroversial.

_______________________________________________________________

I have asked atheists who view the matter in this way, to give me some examples of what they would consider to be evidence of the existence of God. Evidence that would lead them to the conclusion that God existed. Evidence that could not be explained away by naturalistic/materialistic scientists in a purely naturalistic way.

Thus far, no atheist has been able to do this.

One person has said that if scientists were to discover said evidence then he would believe them. But how would scientists who presume from the very outset of their investigation that all that exists is matter and ultimately must have a natural explanation, distinguish between an effect which has a naturalistic explanation and an effect which has a supernatural explanation? If they presume that every event or effect is the result of only and purely naturalistic causes, then anything God did to prove His existence to us would be interpreted by them as not having come from God, but rather, purely from nature!

This is my point ladies and gentlemen.

An atheist cannot say that there is no evidence for the existence of God if they do not know what evidence for the existence of God would look like in the first place. This is undeniably true.

The argument:

1. If God existed, then there would be evidence for His existence
2. We do not know what evidence of God's existence would look like
3. There is no evidence of God's existence.
4. God does not exist.

Is not a sound argument because (3) does not follow from (2).

It is undeniable that humans are limited in cognition. This limitation prohibits us from saying that there is no evidence of God's existence because we do not know what said evidence would look like. In fact, to show this is false, all I need to say here is that there very well could be evidence of God's existence that we have yet to discern. So long as that is even possible, then there is no way to say God does not exist because we do not know what evidence for His existence would look like.

Again with the straw man. We (I) am not saying "God" does not exist. If this god that you are positing is of significance, then it should be demonstrable, and the burden of evidence in on you - not just to supply said evidence, but to present it in a manner that is falsifiable.

Why are you so evasive on this point?

_______________________________________________________________

I will be charitable here and say that we ALL can agree that if God existed, then He would take certain measures to make His presence or existence known to us. After all, what kind of God would He be if He did not do this? I could not say that He could even rightly be called God if He left us all groping blindly in the dark for Him. Such a one would be akin to a mother giving birth to a baby and then placing the baby in a dark room to grow and fend for itself. Such a one could not be rightly called the Highest Good or Summum Bonum as Anselm put it.

If God exists, then He would want for us to know Him and have an intimate relationship with Him. All of this follows necessarily.

If God existed, then He would do something to make this a possibility as well.

But think about it for a moment. If God really does exist and He created the universe as we know it literally out of nothing, then He must be supernatural or "ultramundane". The question is, how could such a One let us know that He did it all?

Well, I suggest that if God is God and could create the universe and us, then He most certainly can communicate with us.

If God could communicate with us then He would want to communicate with us. This seems logical and reasonable.

So what would this communication look like?

Well, I suggest that you consider that a god that is nothing more than a fictional character in a book would be unable to communicate with us.