[mikeash]

Seems like you want to have it both ways. You want to argue for your choice of religion, tell us that we'd reach the same conclusion, and even go so far as to imply that anyone who claims to have gone through the process and reached a different conclusion is a liar. You say that there may have been lost evidence of a parallel church supporting the idea that it could be rediscovered. And at the same time, you want to say that it's all a matter of faith and we can't expect any evidence.

The idea that there isn't supposed to be any evidence because faith is the whole point is such an obvious con. If a used car salesman tried to use a line like that, you'd walk out of the dealership. But change salesman to preacher and dealership to church and suddenly we're supposed to think it makes any kind of sense. "You have to believe me but I can't prove it to you because proof would defeat the purpose" is not something you hear from a deity, it's something you hear from someone reaching for your wallet!

[umvi]

> The idea that there isn't supposed to be any evidence because faith is the whole point is such an obvious con.

Monkey1: "I think we are being observed by humans"

Monkey2: "Do you have any evidence?"

Monkey1: "No, they are concealing the fact that they are observing us"

Monkey2: "What an obvious con!"

Reality: Humans were indeed observing the monkeys but were actively concealing their presence so the monkeys don't act differently, thus preserving their natural agency.

Reality: God is observing humans but actively conceals his presence so the humans don't act differently, thus preserving their natural agency.

> "You have to believe me but I can't prove it to you because proof would defeat the purpose"

I never said that. You can either have anecdotal evidence in this life or irrefutable proof in the next. Said evidence will never come from another human; it will always come from God. If you seek proof, seek God and he will answer you in a way you recognize.

I agree with you that religions fall on a spectrum from evil to obvious con to beneficial to essential. There is only one true church of God, which means on average (given thousands of religions), a random church has a good chance of being on the lower end of the spectrum.

But that's why you need to seek God in private, without the influence of other people and let him first convince you of his existence, and then guide you to his church. If you do so earnestly and come to the conclusion God doesn't exist; well, you've done all a reasonable person can be expected to do.

[mikeash]

Making up a story where your claim is true isn't very convincing. I can do that too:

"I'll sell you this prime Florida real estate for a bargain price."

"Can I see it?"

"No. But it's definitely real!"

The difference is that scenarios like mine happen all the time, whereas yours is really uncommon.

God actively conceals his presence so the humans don't act differently? Sounds like I shouldn't believe in God, then. If the all-powerful creator of the universe wants me to think he doesn't exist, why should I think otherwise?

You tell me that I need to seek God for myself without the influence of other people. Do you not see how that's inherently contradictory? How can there be a true church of God if we're all supposed to get there on our own? The whole idea of a church is that people get together and commune in their shared beliefs.