My House Did not have a Builder (or did it?)

[brewer]

Going to ask again, if Leviticus outlines gods cure, and these are gods words, why is the cure still not being used, from that day to this? Is it that god is ineffective?

Or is it that this was a man made cure simply attributed to god?

Why did you post about current antibiotics? Trying to divert the subject yet again?

It obviously wasn't ineffective, since it I showed from various sources that it does work. And I showed the antibiotics that are used nowadays and their side effects, to point out that the prescription God issued was superior top it, since not only does it not have side effects, it actually treats the side effects the antibiotics we use today cause. I also showed that people used at least part of His prescription long after the biblical times, and there are even holistic doctors who encourage the use of either hyssop oil or cedarwood oil or both for various skin issues an other things, which sometimes even include leprosy (because it still is effective.) 
Now of course the modern medical industry doesn't want to associate themselves with that old, "archaic" method of dealing with sickness and disease. They want to be thought of as more intelligent in this age of the medical and scientific pseudo-renaissance. But just because there is an inferior alternative method of dealing with a certain disease, it doesn't mean that the one God gave was ineffective. I already proved that it was. 
And the reason I posted about the current antibiotics used for leprosy is to show their inferiority to the treatment God gave, because they have a multitude of side effects that His treatment doesn't have. And not only does the biblical treatment not have side effects, but it's been shown, and known, that at least the two main items, cedarwood and hyssop, both are used, or can be used to treat the very issues that are caused by the side effects of the antibiotics that are used today. 
I do think that some of the aspects of the actual method used are symbolic, but that doesn't mean that the elements used in it have no literal effectiveness against the disease. You can look it up for yourself that people used those two main elements to cure and treat leprosy for a long time after the times of Leviticus, and you can even find doctors who recommend it today. 
So the fact that the local hospital doesn't use the biblical cure has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the biblical cure.

bold mine

OMG, we've found a total idiot!

If gods treatment was so effective why did there continue to be leper colonies?

Please list the holistic doctors (any doctors) that advocate the biblical cure for leprosy. 

Please list the studies that indicate that the current antibiotic regimen to treat leprosy is inferior to cedarwood and hyssop.

You're delusional and have proven nothing.

[Dan Brooks]

I was thinking about this this morning on the way to the job site. What Whateverist was saying, or asking. Is there any type of evidence that I think would count as adequate justification for his believing in God. And I had told him that I don't know what type of evidence would suffice for that.
But then I thought about it this way. If someone were to try to convince me that Santa Claus was real, and they took me to the mall at Christmas time and said, "See? Look over there on that big chair. It's Santa Claus!" That wouldn't do a single thing toward convincing me that Santa Claus is real. 

See, I'm in a similar boat with gods - for different reasons, but I think you'll understand.  Like The Real Santa™, people take me to see their Real Gods™.  In both cases, I wouldn't need to comment on or from any notions of whether or not there is a santa or a god to know that the broken wretch they're pointing at is neither.

So I'm thinking that trying to convince someone who doesn't believe in God that God is real is kind of like taking them to the mall at Christmas time to show them Santa Claus. If it's already in the person's mind that God isn't real, it really doesn't matter what evidence is shown, it won't convince you in the least. A completely neutral mind may be able to at least accept the possibility, but a mind already convinced otherwise is not going to be persuaded, just like I couldn't be persuaded about Santa Claus.

That's certainly not what the fishers of men and all the "I used to be an atheist but now I know the truth" stories we see peddled here day in and day out are telling us.....

I don't know. What does anybody else think of this?

I feel like, if the above were conceptually true, then one of my favorite songs, amazing grace...would sound even sillier than it already does.  I think it's more likely that there has been a failure to convince a person than for the person in questions mind to have been somehow specifically defective in this area - such that they're completely immune to compelling demonstrations.  We know that's not true.  We know that humans beings are, in point of fact and directly to the contrary, susceptible even to the most ludicrous and false "demonstrations" of x y or z. 

I'd spend more time working on my delivery, and less time blaming the audience...if I were an apologist.  I definitely wouldn;t actively diminish the transformative nature and alleged power of coming to belief if I were a particularly christian apologist.  It would seem wildly cross purpose.  Rather than concede some shortcoming in my ability as an orator or educator, diminish the central event of the christian faith in a person's life?  The day they became convinced that god was real and that god was christ?  I'd have to be an awfully cynical believer.

Thank you for that very interesting response. I appreciate it. I do believe myself that really the only one who can prove God is God Himself. I guess I was trying to figure out the thought process of someone who doesn't believe. You know, what's going on psychologically. But I know there is a spiritual aspect to this. It's just interesting to me that there is enough evidence for God for some people to believe easily, and others see the evidence as suspect, but at least concede that there is a possibility, and others are so sure that God doesn't exist, that there is no type or amount of evidence that will convince them. And in a way, I don't think it's the fault of the apologist, or the unbeliever. I think the main problem lies with the spiritual aspect. The Bible, which I believe, says that the word of God is spiritually discerned, and that the natural man cannot discern or receive the things of the spirit. For someone who doesn't believe in anything supernatural or spiritual, they can't possibly believe that God exists, because He is necessarily spiritual and supernatural. Someone who believes in the existence of the spiritual and supernatural may believe in some god or another, but may not believe in the God the Bible tells us of. And there is a Spirit of God who convinces and convicts those who do believe, and confirms what is written in His word, and shows us the truth about all sorts of things, even in every day life. As it says, He shall guide you into all truth. 
So in a sense, it's pretty unfair to blame the unbeliever for their unbelief. God judged Israel for their unbelief, but He had already proven Himself to them, and they were stubborn and, as it says, stiffnecked. Just like we would be upset with someone if we proved a certain thing to them over and over again and they persisted in their unbelief. It also says that the times of ignorance God winked at, but now He calls everyone to repent. So I think if someone is going through their life in a state of ignorance to spiritual things, this won't so much be judged against the person. But it also says that without faith it is impossible to please God, and that we first need to believe that He is, and that H is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. So if someone has an open hand and an open mind, and honestly seeks to know if God is real, and looks for evidence of Him, and at the very least says to himself, Now this may be evidence for God. Then I think God will give him even more evidence. As Jesus said, To him that hath, more will be given. But if a person runs from the evidence and constantly rejects it and explains it away and persists in unbelief no matter what evidence is brought, then I think any evidence they have seen will become increasingly more irrelevant to them. As Jesus also said, To him that hath not, it will be taken away even that which he hath. 
If someone doesn't seek, why should he find? If he doesn't knock, why should the door be opened? 
I don't think anyone goes from unbelief to full knowledge and understanding of the the Bible instantly. I think the understanding comes little by little, after belief. And it may be quicker for some and slower for others. A good example of this was the man that was born blind, that Jesus healed. When Jesus healed him, he went about telling everyone what He did to him. And he said that Jesus had to have been from God because of what He did to him, but he still didn't know who Jesus was.  But later on Jesus found him again and said to him, "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" And he said, "Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?" And Jesus said, "Thou hast both seen Him, and it is He which speaketh with thee." And he worshiped Him and said, "Lord, I believe." So now he didn't just know about Jesus, but he knew who Jesus was. There are lots of examples of this where someone is given a little knowledge, or evidence, and when they believe that, they're given more.
There are also examples, most prominently during Jesus' conversations with the Pharisees, where while Jesus was speaking, many believed on Him for His words, but yet the Pharisees persisted in their unbelief. Both the Pharisees and the standers by heard the same words, were given the same evidence, but some believed, and some didn't. So in that case, it wasn't the evidence that made the difference. There was another reason some believed and some didn't. You can also see this in Acts when Paul is preaching and hundreds believe at one time, and others don't believe, both having heard the same message. Why? It obviously isn't because of the message, or that the evidence in the message was lacking, because otherwise hundreds of people wouldn't have believed it. In these instances, I believe that God was the direct cause of their belief. Whether He caused the others not to believe, or simply didn't cause them to believe doesn't really matter. The result is the same. If there are two cookies left in the cookie jar, and you pick one out of there, you don't have to say, "I purposely reject that other cookie." But by default, you are rejecting that other cookie, at least at the moment, because of the fact that you chose the one and not the other. 
So then is it man's responsibility to believe? Or is it God's responsibility to make us believe? This is the conundrum. There is plenty of Scripture that tells us that we cannot believe on Christ unless God draws us to Him and makes us believe, and that faith itself is a gift of God, etc. But in looking at these verses, they all speak specifically of salvation, when someone goes from being at enmity with God, to being His child. We can't do this on our own. Only God can do that. But I think that God gives us general evidence, or as the Bible calls it, revelation, and specific evidence/revelation. Before someone comes to the point where they believe on Jesus Christ, which God has to do, they are offered more general evidence such as creation, testimony of others, etc. So the question is, I think, "What evidence has been presented to me, and what have I done with it?" 
That's not to say that God can't just sit someone down and shut them up all in one day. He definitely can and has done that too. I've heard plenty of testimonies like that, not to mention examples in the Bible. 
I grew up believing in God, so I never had that time where I lived for decades without a belief in Him and then one day I believed in Him. For me it was just a matter of going from believing He was real, to actually being saved by Him. So this whole concept of unbelief in someone who for me is obvious and real, is fascinating to me. That's why I brought up the Santa Claus thing, to see if maybe it could relate in some way. But then again, Santa Claus isn't a real person, who can prove himself to anyone. He's a completely made up character who nobody believes in except children whose parents have lied to them. And I think this is a problem in itself also. If a child's parents tell them that Santa Claus is real, and also that God is real, and the child finds out later that Santa isn't real, what are they going to think about God? Never seen Santa, never seen God either. Santa was a made up story, maybe God is a made up story too. I could definitely see that line of thinking taking place, especially as the child gets older and thinks more critically, and doesn't so easily believe what they're told. The older we get, the more evidence we need to believe something, especially if we already have a reason not to believe it. 
I don't at all want to be dogmatic in here. I know this isn't the place for that. I'm just trying to start conversations. I think everyone has reasons for what they believe, and what they don't.

[GUBU]

...

Why should I read your wall of text when I know it's going to be bullshit?

Tl;dr down to a single paragraph, please.

[The Grand Nudger]

I guess I was trying to figure out the thought process of someone who doesn't believe.

The usual. You know how you feel when you think about all the other gods you don't believe in? That's what's going on here. Pretty much a non-event in your life, I imagine. Same here.

So then is it man's responsibility to believe? Or is it God's responsibility to make us believe? This is the conundrum.

Meh, not for me it's not.  If you wanna get the girl, you gotta put in the work.  

I grew up believing in God, so I never had that time where I lived for decades without a belief in Him and then one day I believed in Him. For me it was just a matter of going from believing He was real, to actually being saved by Him. So this whole concept of unbelief in someone who for me is obvious and real, is fascinating to me.

Polar opposite here...though I'm not so much fascinated by your having faith as I am about what you have faith in.  I like the stories.  The religions are useless.

 I think everyone has reasons for what they believe, and what they don't.

It's not the quantity that's lacking, it's the quality.

[Dan Brooks]

I was thinking about this this morning on the way to the job site. What Whateverist was saying, or asking. Is there any type of evidence that I think would count as adequate justification for his believing in God. And I had told him that I don't know what type of evidence would suffice for that.
But then I thought about it this way. If someone were to try to convince me that Santa Claus was real, and they took me to the mall at Christmas time and said, "See? Look over there on that big chair. It's Santa Claus!" That wouldn't do a single thing toward convincing me that Santa Claus is real. I already know he's fake. So since I'm already convinced in my mind that he isn't real, it wouldn't matter what kind of evidence were brought to me, or how much of it, it wouldn't convince me in the least. I would either laugh, feel sorry for them, or get annoyed.
So I'm thinking that trying to convince someone who doesn't believe in God that God is real is kind of like taking them to the mall at Christmas time to show them Santa Claus. If it's already in the person's mind that God isn't real, it really doesn't matter what evidence is shown, it won't convince you in the least. A completely neutral mind may be able to at least accept the possibility, but a mind already convinced otherwise is not going to be persuaded, just like I couldn't be persuaded about Santa Claus.
I don't know. What does anybody else think of this?

But I could be convinced that a god or god exist.

All it would require to convince me is testable, repeatable, falsifiable EVIDENCE, and valid and sound logic to support the claim.

My current disbelief is based 100% on those criteria not being met by any theist. I am opened to be convinced, but your OP has so many fallacious arguments, that it is laughable.

The 'watch maker' argument?! Seriously?

Well my OP was simply to point out that if something is, then it is not illogical to believe that something caused the thing that is, to be. And if you think it is illogical, can you tell me how? My OP wasn't supposed to be "proof" of God. It was simply an if then statement. If something is, then it is logical to assume that something else caused it, especially if we know that it wasn't there before. So if the universe were eternal, then there would be no reason to believe it had a cause. But if it had a beginning, which I think most people believe now, then it is not illogical to believe that it had a cause. And it is also not illogical to believe that that cause is an intelligent powerful Creator. That isn't the only possible conclusion, but it isn't an illogical conclusion to make. 
IF God is the cause of the universe, and is therefore real, and that intelligent and powerful, would He not be able to see and hear you? Have you ever asked Him to reveal Himself to you? God is not like the gods of the myths with physical bodies etc. God is a spirit and is therefore invisible. So He isn't going to appear to your natural senses. He isn't going to knock on your door and say, "Hi, I'm God." God is spiritually seen and heard. 
Here is an example from the Bible of someone who asked for testable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence, and what God did. 
He started out with a lot of doubt about God, as it says here.
Judges 6:13
And Gideon said unto him, Oh my Lord, if the Lord be with us, why then is all this befallen us? and where be all his miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, Did not the Lord bring us up from Egypt? but now the Lord hath forsaken us, and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites.

So even though he had heard of the miracles of God from the past, he had a hard time believing because he wasn't seeing those miracles himself.
Then he actually sees the angel of the LORD.
Judges 6:22
And when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of the Lord, Gideon said, Alas, O Lord God! for because I have seen an angel of the Lord face to face.

But he still needed more evidence, and more assurance. So he put God to the test. 
Judges 6:36 And Gideon said unto God, If thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said, 37 behold, I will put a fleece of wool in the floor; and if the dew be on the fleece only, and it be dry upon all the earth beside, then shall I know that thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said. 38 And it was so: for he rose up early on the morrow, and thrust the fleece together, and wringed the dew out of the fleece, a bowl full of water. 39 And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew. 40 And God did so that night: for it was dry upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground.

So he tested God, with two specific requests, which could not have occurred naturally. And God passed the test.

Also, there was a king of Israel, Hezekiah, who did the same thing, tested God (although in a different way.)
He had gotten sick and was told that he was going to die. But he cried and prayed and asked to be healed. So God said He would heal him. But he wanted a sign that he would truly be fully healed. So this is what happened.

2 Kings 20:8 And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign that the Lord will heal me, and that I shall go up into the house of the Lord the third day? 9 And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the Lord, that the Lord will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees? 10 And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees. 11 And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.

And there are other examples as well.
There was much evidence of God in biblical times, even including people rising from the dead. But many people have a hard time believing those miracles happened, because they don't see them today. (Just like Gideon had a hard time believing, because he didn't see the miracles happening in his time that he had heard of from the past).
But there is one specific miracle that still happens every day. And I don't mean healings and stuff. Yes, God can and does do that but that's not what I mean. (And I don't mean He heals in the Benny Hinn type way. That guy is a liar and a thief, among other things. I hate the crap they have on tv that they call Christian. It's absolutely disgusting.)
But the miracle I'm talking about is when someone goes from being at enmity with God to being His child. This doesn't happen on our own. It really is a miracle. 
The Bible tells us that we are spiritually dead until God makes us spiritually alive. I don't know if God would prove Himself to you if you tested Him in the way that Gideon and Hezekiah did. He is definitely able to, but He isn't obligated to. 
But here is something you can do. You can ask Him, if He is real, that He would resurrect you from the dead. And I don't mean physical death, but spiritual death. That is, that you would go from being someone who doesn't know if God is even real, to being His child. If God is real, do you believe He could do something like that? I know He can, because He did it to me and many others. I grew up believing He was real, but I wasn't His child until later. 
I believe only God can prove Himself. And if you were to ask Him to prove Himself by some external means, like saying, "If you're real, let lightning strike my house.", even if that did happen it could be explained by natural means somehow. But if He proves Himself by changing you from the inside, then you know it's real. Then you know God is real. Because it isn't a cognitive thing. It is a spiritual thing. You don't go from saying, "I don't think God is real", to saying, "I do think God is real". You go from not knowing God, to knowing God. 
How you go from being spiritually dead (which means dead to God), to being spiritually alive, is by believing that Jesus Christ really is the Son of God, the Messiah, the Savior, and that He was sinless and died on the cross to pay for the sins of everyone who would ever believe on Him, and that He really did rise from dead like He said He would. And you ask Him to save you personally, and personally believe that He will. Someone who is spiritually dead will think the notion of that is ridiculous. Like the Bible says,
 1 Corinthians 1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
So if you go from not believing in God, not believing on Jesus Christ to save you, thinking it's ridiculous, to wholeheartdly believing it, then that's a miracle that you don't have to read about in a book, because you experienced it yourself. Then you will go from not knowing God, to knowing God.

[GrandizerII]

Filthy rags ... falling short of Gods glory ... Jesus blood cleanses ... I understand all that, because Ive been there before. In fact, many of us used to be just as Christian as you are ... so again, youre not saying anything new. Im long past being convinced by just preaching.

[The Valkyrie]

You lost me at "hollistic 'doctor'".

[Simon Moon]

But I could be convinced that a god or god exist.

All it would require to convince me is testable, repeatable, falsifiable EVIDENCE, and valid and sound logic to support the claim.

My current disbelief is based 100% on those criteria not being met by any theist. I am opened to be convinced, but your OP has so many fallacious arguments, that it is laughable.

The 'watch maker' argument?! Seriously?

Well my OP was simply to point out that if something is, then it is not illogical to believe that something caused the thing that is, to be. And if you think it is illogical, can you tell me how?

Sure. I'll point out some fallacies in your post for you.

"Therefore the universe came from something." I think that would be a nice logical conclusion.

All the examples of something coming from something we can point to, are necessarily spacial and temporal. They all occur withing the universe. You are trying to extrapolate to cause and effect events within the universe to the universe itself. This is known as the fallacy of composition.

Just because part of something has a certain attribute, does not mean the whole has the same attributes.

Now, since it is universally observed (which observation is required in order for anything to be classified as scientific), that anything made has a maker, some consideration should be taken as to the nature of the maker of a given thing.

How do you know the universe was made? This is something that has to be proven, not asserted.

The maker of a wooden chair just needs to know enough about woodworking in order to have planned and accomplished the fashioning and construction of the chair. It is a functional item, with a useful purpose, so it would require intelligence to accomplish the production of a wooden chair, albeit not necessarily a great intelligence, because the item is not very complex.
A Rolex watch also requires a maker, and one who needs enough intelligence to make all the small intricate parts of the watch, and to make them all work together correctly and properly, and over a long period of time. The maker would have to know how to tell time, and how to cause the made item to also be able to tell time. This item is also quite functional, and also has a useful purpose, but since it is much more complex than a wooden chair, it requires more intelligence, and more labor as well, to accomplish the production of it.
Now the same could be said of a house, a hotel, a hospital, a skyscraper, or an entire city. Each requiring more intelligence, more organization, and more manpower to accomplish it's respective product.
So using this same reasoning, (and I think it is logical reasoning. Correct me if I am wrong), we must assume that the level of intelligence, organization, and power required to accomplish such a thing as an entire universe, and not just any universe, with all of it's nearly innumerable complexities, but a universe in which there is life, and not just life, but an astoundingly wide variety of forms of life, each with their various levels of intelligence, purpose, and function- I say we must assume that the level of intelligence, organization, and power required to accomplish this is utterly incalculable.

First of all, we know when something has been designed, not by function or complexity, but by contrasting it with natural occurring things.

We know that watches are designed by intelligences, because every example we have of them, they have been designed by humans. We have zero evidence that they universe has a designer, we have loads of evidence that watches do.

My OP wasn't supposed to be "proof" of God. It was simply an if then statement. If something is, then it is logical to assume that something else caused it, especially if we know that it wasn't there before. So if the universe were eternal, then there would be no reason to believe it had a cause. But if it had a beginning, which I think most people believe now, then it is not illogical to believe that it had a cause. And it is also not illogical to believe that that cause is an intelligent powerful Creator. That isn't the only possible conclusion, but it isn't an illogical conclusion to make. 

If the claim cannot be supported by valid and sound logic (I just pointed out several fallacies, there are more) and demonstrable evidence, then it is, by definition, illogical to conclude it was caused by a god.

I am not sure you actually understand what logic is.

The universe, in its current local presentation, had a beginning. The singularity is expanded from could have always existed, in some other form.

IF God is the cause of the universe, and is therefore real, and that intelligent and powerful, would He not be able to see and hear you? Have you ever asked Him to reveal Himself to you? God is not like the gods of the myths with physical bodies etc. God is a spirit and is therefore invisible. So He isn't going to appear to your natural senses. He isn't going to knock on your door and say, "Hi, I'm God." God is spiritually seen and heard. 

I have no idea if a god could see or hear me, if one (or more) existed. Since the universe seems behave exactly how one would expect a completely natural occurring universe would behave, I have no reason to speculate on how a god would act.

Yes, when I was a theist, I sincerely asked god to reveal himself to me many times.

What do you mean 'spiritually heard'?

Here is an example from the Bible of someone who asked for testable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence, and what God did. 
He started out with a lot of doubt about God, as it says here.
Judges 6:13
And Gideon said unto him, Oh my Lord, if the Lord be with us, why then is all this befallen us? and where be all his miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, Did not the Lord bring us up from Egypt? but now the Lord hath forsaken us, and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites.

So even though he had heard of the miracles of God from the past, he had a hard time believing because he wasn't seeing those miracles himself.
Then he actually sees the angel of the LORD.
Judges 6:22
And when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of the Lord, Gideon said, Alas, O Lord God! for because I have seen an angel of the Lord face to face.

But he still needed more evidence, and more assurance. So he put God to the test. 
Judges 6:36 And Gideon said unto God, If thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said, 37 behold, I will put a fleece of wool in the floor; and if the dew be on the fleece only, and it be dry upon all the earth beside, then shall I know that thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said. 38 And it was so: for he rose up early on the morrow, and thrust the fleece together, and wringed the dew out of the fleece, a bowl full of water. 39 And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew. 40 And God did so that night: for it was dry upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground.

So he tested God, with two specific requests, which could not have occurred naturally. And God passed the test.

Also, there was a king of Israel, Hezekiah, who did the same thing, tested God (although in a different way.)
He had gotten sick and was told that he was going to die. But he cried and prayed and asked to be healed. So God said He would heal him. But he wanted a sign that he would truly be fully healed. So this is what happened.

2 Kings 20:8 And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign that the Lord will heal me, and that I shall go up into the house of the Lord the third day? 9 And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the Lord, that the Lord will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees? 10 And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees. 11 And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.

Oh, how convincing, Bible stories.

You do understand that none of that is demonstrable evidence, right?

Not to mention, the Hebrews were NEVER held as slaves in Egypt.

There was much evidence of God in biblical times, even including people rising from the dead. But many people have a hard time believing those miracles happened, because they don't see them today. (Just like Gideon had a hard time believing, because he didn't see the miracles happening in his time that he had heard of from the past).
But there is one specific miracle that still happens every day. And I don't mean healings and stuff. Yes, God can and does do that but that's not what I mean. (And I don't mean He heals in the Benny Hinn type way. That guy is a liar and a thief, among other things. I hate the crap they have on tv that they call Christian. It's absolutely disgusting.)
But the miracle I'm talking about is when someone goes from being at enmity with God to being His child. This doesn't happen on our own. It really is a miracle. 

I would have a bit better chance of being convinced, if the types of miracles that are talked about in the Bible still occurred. Curious that as evidence gathering techniques improved, miracles went from seas parting, pillars of fire, fire hail, to 'someone going from being at enmity with God to being His child'. All that miracle seems to be, is someone becoming gullible.

The Bible tells us bla, bla, bla..

The Bible is not EVIDENCE, it is the claim. Quoting the Bible means nothing to me, until you can support any of the supernatural and god claims being true.

Not sure if you clued into this or not, but you are in an atheist forum. We have no reason to accept the Bible as being authoritative.

[GUBU]

You lost me at "hollistic 'doctor'".

Well, holly needs doctors too!

[Cyberman]

IF God is the cause of the universe, and is therefore real, and that intelligent and powerful, would He not be able to see and hear you?

Why not? I bet "he" can leap tall buildings as well. The question isn't if "he" would or could, but whether "he" does. Establish that there's a 'there' there before running off about what it can and can't do. First catch your god.

Have you ever asked Him to reveal Himself to you? God is not like the gods of the myths with physical bodies etc. God is a spirit and is therefore invisible. So He isn't going to appear to your natural senses. He isn't going to knock on your door and say, "Hi, I'm God." God is spiritually seen and heard. 

So who or what wrestled with Jacob?