Is our logic unfailing? Is the universe we observe, both macro and micro, true picture of reality? How good are our sensors? What if it’s a simulated illusion? Etc. I look at things from my little world, I don’t try to look at the bigger world. In concrete terms, not in abstract. If God is detectable and wants to be discovered, why does He evade me and many others? From investigation, those who say the’ve discovered Him, seems to me, are in the same darkness, but do a good job of wishful thinking. Then I look at facts of Christianity and I find humans at work, in the Bible, in the church, in lives of believers. No sign of God
You seem to me to be mixing up concrete (objective) with subjective. But, ok.
Logic is unfailing. Our logic, not so much.
Our "sensors" (senses?) are only good for what they do —give us a sense of the reality around us. Our perception is no doubt not conclusive, but good enough to get along for the most part, and good enough for science, which most atheists seem to exalt as the purest form of assessment.
The supposedly 'proven' notion that it is all a simulation is surprisingly promoted by some as a suggestion that God is not real. Yet it necessarily implies a simulator. But, neverminding who the simulator might be, the notion does nothing to undo the logical need for First Cause —it is a bit like suggesting that there may be other universes with other gods, because if so, there is a First Cause over them all, and this universe's god is not him —not God, not First Cause, not Omnipotent.
Your dedication to the concrete, not abstract, while commendable in some sense, doesn't recommend itself to Occam, I think. While it may seem so as regards your success in the small things, it does nothing to answer the notion of First Cause, (unless you go micro —but that's a discussion for another day).
"If God is detectable...", you say. Detectable to whom and what fulfilled parameters would be acceptable as 'detected'? Science certainly depends on cause and effect in all their calculations, so why abandon it now? That in itself should be enough to show first cause. But more to the point, what do YOU demand he do to show you his existence? But, anyhow, on to the last part of your statement: WHY would you assume he wants to be discovered by you? (If we are all as pig-headed as I think we are, I see no reason he would do so except by/for his own purposes —not ours. And that too, is in perfect logical keeping with the notion of first cause.)
I admit to the point that you see no difference between those who "claim to have discovered him" and those who have not. I see little real difference myself, even within myself, except for my reason for continued living, and my confidence and in life, my satisfaction over very little, a drive for other reasons, and a certain joy that holds me securely, resultant of the fact that if First Cause exists, this life is about him. In other words, in spite of the fact that I still have my old problems and failings, my home is no longer here, but I have a higher expectation, and an overwhelming desire for this First Cause I have come to believe in.
It makes more sense to me that there be a First Cause, than that even I should exist —yet, here I am. The apparent fact that I am, besides existing as a mere creature, a moral agent, able to turn one way or the other according to my own will and by an apparent conscience, compared to the larger-than-universe purity of force and will of First Cause, implies GRACE on his part towards me.
Again, what did you expect to see?