Why is god hiding?

[Neo-Scholastic]

There's a big difference between making a mistake and telling a lie. I didn't read the posts as carefully as I should have and went off half cocked. Even still I find it hard to understand the difference between assuming there is a natural but as yet unknown cause and never accepting something as evidence of God. But I never tried to decieve anyone. Unless you can prove that someone means to decieve others by knowingly misrepresenting the facts, then calling people liars is baseless slander.

Well, if you made a mistake then fine, I apologize. That said, I did point out your error in the thread you initially made it, on the same day you made it. From my perspective, the issue was settled.

As to your contention, what we had suggested doing- giving any supposed evidence of god a thorough investigation- is exactly what we would want done to evidence for any other claim. The whole idea behind science is to never just go with assumptions about the nature of things; any conclusions we draw would be tentative and subject to change via other evidence. We might find signs that point to god, but not enough, from what had been suggested, to unreservedly accept that conclusion.

This isn't an inconsistency, or an unfair privileging of naturalistic explanations; it's just treating god-evidence the same way we would treat the regular kind.

The next question is this how long will you hold out for a natural explanation? 50 years...100? If you say until all natural possibilities are exhausted that's the same as never being willing to acknowledge the supernatural. Natural theories seems unlimited to the point of saying space aliens or time travels are responsible for the inexplicable. What if any limits do you place on your bias toward naturalism?