(June 27, 2016 at 9:18 pm)Ayen Wrote:(June 27, 2016 at 6:54 pm)SteveII Wrote: Wouldn't we, by definition, be unable to comprehend a timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God? Why isn't it reasonable to assume that our level of comprehension is the highest we are capable given that we are exactly opposite to the list of these attributes. What would you expect to be different?
Why can't an all knowing, all powerful god be able to create a universe where its mere existence wouldn't be an impossibility and we'd be able to perfectly understand it so we wouldn't even be having this discussion?
I really don't know what you mean by "mere existence wouldn't be an impossibility".
But as to why the existence of God is not more obvious, I think that since 80-90% of the world believes in some sort of religion speaks to how obvious or not obvious that might be. Additionally, free will is a factor. Our chief purpose is to freely choose to know God so how obvious can God make it before that is affected? Of course you seem to be presupposing that the claims of the NT are completely false, so now you are arguing in a circle:
1. There is no evidence for God (i.e. supernatural events)
2. The NT does not count because of supernatural events
3. Therefore there is no evidence for God.
