Thanks for your honesty. But if you have no idea, then I would guess you're a bit remiss to declare "When has 'God did it' ever been the correct answer when we've discovered the cause of something?" Possibly there are many times that "God did it" is the correct answer, and you have no idea of His participation.

> How do you know what God has been a part of and what He has not been part of?

No idea. Seems more like a question for a theist.

> When has "God did it" ever been the correct answer when we've discovered the cause of something?

Well, my follow-up would be: How do you know what God has been a part of and what He has not been part of? By what standards do you evaluate causality, and how do you know the "discovery" is the whole picture?

> An unproven claim doesn't become more reasonable when you pile more unproven claims on top of it.

Agreed. That's why I don't do such things. "If" is a conditional conjunction exploring possibilities and probabilities. Sometimes it can mean "since" (more certainty), and sometimes it can mean "supposing" (conditional wondering). It's not particularly asserting reason or a claim, as it is proposing the possibility.

> I'll ask what makes you think religious experiences are unreasonable?

When has "God did it" ever been the correct answer when we've discovered the cause of something?

> Let’s also clarify what can be known of God if you do know him. If what the Bible says about God is true,

An unproven claim doesn't become more reasonable when you pile more unproven claims on top of it.

> They aren't the same thing because all assumptions aren't equally reasonable.

I'll ask what makes you think religious experiences are unreasonable? It would be my guess (though you'll have to clarify and/or correct) that it's only on the basis of a presupposition of yours that religious experiences are unreasonable, which would be circular reasoning. But I'd like to hear your response.

Esther Meek gives an example:

"Let’s also clarify what can be known of God if you do know him. If what the Bible says about God is true, knowing God involves, in part, knowing someone who has been here tangibly in the past, has told us about himself, who has gone away and has promised to return. We are very much in an in-between time. The Bible speaks of our loving him whom we have not seen. It talks about our knowing now 'in part,' being 'but a poor reflection as in a mirror,' but then knowing 'face to face,' 'fully, even as we are fully known.' Comparing apples to apples, this epistemic act of knowing God now compares more to, say, someone telling me their son has gone to Europe for a vacation, but he promises to call me when he gets back. Under such circumstances, it would be ludicrous to say that I can drive to the son’s home and touch him and hear him."

> But we still make assumptions, and these assumptions are the same with assuming my brother lives in Chicago (even though I can't see him or touch him) as they are with religious experiences

They aren't the same thing because all assumptions aren't equally reasonable. Do you not realize that if your friend lived in Chicago then the evidence for it would be a zillion times stronger than there would be for any religious experience?

Religious assumptions fall into the same category as other things that Christians would never accept without strong evidence, such as claims made by other religions.

> God created reality, yes?

No. Reality existed in the Godhead before creation. Since God is, there was always personality, morality, logic, reason, intellect, cause-and-effect, love, and many other things. What God created is the natural world.

> including hell, and the rules by which a person goes to hell. Yes?

Yes and no. Yes, God created Hell, but it was for the devil and His angels, not for people (Matthew 25.41). No, God didn't create the rules by which a person goes to Hell. Reality is what it is. Hell is de facto the state of life without God, not so much a place and no so much bound by rules. It's a state of being where one is separated from God. There is no other choice (it's not like God had to make it this way) that if one is separated from God, then one's state of being is separation from God. It's the nature of reality.

> I've concluded that its not true. So now, if it turns out it is true, I'm screwed.

Correct. Every decision has consequences. When we make the decisions we do, the consequences follow.

> I didn't do anything wrong here

According to the Bible, you did do something wrong. You decided for the lie instead of the truth. It's the same with many things in our culture. Just watch the news and see how people respond. Some people choose to decide for what is a lie instead of the truth.

> My eternal soul is at stake here. God should reveal himself.

The Bible is God's revelation of Himself through history in space and time. Thankfully we have a written record of it—1600 pages worth. God is also revealing Himself every day, even through conversations like this. You have a choice to decide for lies or the truth.

> I would need to know that the Bible is correct in order to weigh the options it presents.

This is a discussion we can have.

> If I don't know that hell, god, sin, Jesus, if I don't know that all that stuff really happened and is real, then I'm not going to evaluate actions based on the real consequences that are implied by these things.

We are each burdened with having to weigh the evidences and make choices, and those choices have consequences, especially in a case like this (eternal destiny and fate). If you are not convinced that Hell, God, sin, or Jesus, etc. really happened and are real, you are free to make your choices and live with the consequences of those decisions, just like everything else in real life.

> If Christianity is true, god's hiddenness is preventing me from making informed decisions.

God has revealed enough of Himself for you to make a very informed decision. We have 1600 pages of records, so far 4000 years of God interacting in people's lives in history, and 2.5 billion Christians on the planet that can help reveal God to you. The obstacle is not a lack of revelation but what you choose to do with it.

> God didn't put the consequences in place; they are the nature of reality.

God created reality, yes?

There was god, and nothing else, and then he made everything, including hell, and the rules by which a person goes to hell. Yes?

> This is true. We have to use our brains to weigh evidences, consider logical consistency, life experiences, reliable testimony from others, and infer the most reasonable conclusion. I have concluded, weighing everything I'm able, that Christianity IS the correct religion. Each person must do their own thinking.

Right, and going through the process myself, I've concluded that its not true. So now, if it turns out it is true, I'm screwed.
I didn't do anything wrong here, but I'm destined for hell. All I did was the same thing you did.

My eternal soul is at stake here. God should reveal himself.

> Correct. It's essential that we perceive the options and consequences according to reality. The Bible shows us what the options are.

But again, I would need to know that the Bible is correct in order to weigh the options it presents.

Same as I would need to know there really is a Nigerian Prince who wants to give me half of his money before I do anything about it. Yes?

If I don't know that hell, god, sin, Jesus, if I don't know that all that stuff really happened and is real, then I'm not going to evaluate actions based on the real consequences that are implied by these things.

If Christianity is true, god's hiddenness is preventing me from making informed decisions.

> But there are only eternal consequences because he's put them in place.

God didn't put the consequences in place; they are the nature of reality. It's simply an immutable fact that if you choose to reject God then it really means you don't accept God. if you reject God, then you state of being is that of rejection. He didn't do that; you did.

> Then why did you mention him not making it too obvious that he exists?

The evidence of the written word is different from the evidence of God in your face, in your ear, in your head, and sitting next to you on the couch. As C.S. Lewis said, God is hiding in plain sight.

> Its not clear that Christianity is the correct religion.

This is true. We have to use our brains to weigh evidences, consider logical consistency, life experiences, reliable testimony from others, and infer the most reasonable conclusion. I have concluded, weighing everything I'm able, that Christianity IS the correct religion. Each person must do their own thinking.

> I can't make informed choices if I don't know my options and their consequences

Correct. It's essential that we perceive the options and consequences according to reality. The Bible shows us what the options are. In a binary sense, they are to accept God or not to accept God. The consequences of that decision are that one is aligned with God (and what comes of that) or that one is not aligned with God (and what comes of that).

> Then God is being derelict in His role, since there are eternal consequences.

But there are only eternal consequences because he's put them in place.

> It's not being hidden, and you are not kept in the dark. The Bible is 1600 pages of information for you to digest.

Then why did you mention him not making it too obvious that he exists? We can't have it both ways.

Its not clear that Christianity is the correct religion.

> This is what Jesus was explicit about. It's recorded in the Gospel accounts and is not being hidden from you.

See above. I thought we were having this discussion with the understanding that god isn't making it obvious he exists.

> Not true. Your free will is obviously fully intact, based even just on this conversation.

I can't make informed choices if I don't know my options and their consequences. Right? That's messing with my free will.