How does it serve God’s agenda to appear no different than if no God existed?
It allows physicality and life to exist.
A simple mind cannot exist while “looking upon the face of God”.
Would physicality be able to exist if there were no God?
Absolutely not.
…totally impossible.
How did it serve Picasso and Dali such horrendous paintings when they knew how to paint what all comprehend as aesthetically beautiful? Yet people see beauty where others do not and others see evidence, imposing evidence for God’s existence, where you, Mutcer, do not. So I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder.
Omar, first, you have a controversial premise because you use the word “does” instead of “would”. Your phrasing makes a presupposition that not everyone is willing to accept.
Mutcer, I love that you brought art into this debate! 
It might not serve God at all. However, it could rather serve us ,and indirectly instruct us to be more autonomously, moral beings. Instead of depending on the God, through tough love, through the storms and stresses in life, we might instead make progress through the tough examples in life. This is a moral argument that hints that through autonomy and keeping our nose to the grindstone, and adapting we might make progress, and lead our way to deserving our desserts in the end. Nevertheless, This requires more thought and reflection, rather than if there was a God that stepped in more often than not, but that’s why we have thought!
Is this a weak argument, any adjustments you guys might make? 
Frankenstein I think you got me and Mutcer mixed up.
But according to Moses looking upon Gods’ ass has no such effect on the simple mind. His face is bright. His ass not so much.
Mutcer: If the universe were infinite (edit: eternal), all the stars would’ve burned out by now. The universe had a beginning. What began it? Can you begin yourself? Neither can the universe. Stop looking at God’s bum–go outside and look at the stars.
I still have the ‘standard’ question for you from the other thread. These are two out of many things to consider. This is not a world where God is not obvious. He is the purloined letter (Poe). In plain sight since the day we are born, for whoever is ready to see.
Incorrect.
I said infinite but meant eternal. If the universe keeps expanding it will eventually result in heat death. It hasn’t yet, because it had/has a beginning.
So it seems like we have a claim here that the universe would appear as it does if there was no God. Support?
It’s a little more complicated than that. It didn’t have a beginning, nor can it ever end.
Yet that position says nothing at all concerning God’s role in the matter (unless your Deist, I guess).
What evidence do you have that the universe would appear any different if there were no God than if there were a God.
As long as there is no evidence of God doing anything, then there is absolutely no difference between a world with a God that doesn’t do anything perceivable and a world with no God at all.
What experiment do you have in mind? What would constitute as evidence for you and why?
We can deal with that when I make such an assertion. Right now I am asking you about your assertion.
Actually that isn’t logical. Even for someone who thinks there is no evidence God is doing/has done anything, this does not lead to the positive assertion that God has not done anythign perceivable not that things would look the same. You are confusing an epistemological issue with an ontological one.
A rendition :
Son : “Dad, I have a dragon in the garage.”
Dad : “Well let’s have a look at it. Let’s go to the garage.”
Dad : “So where is it?”
Son : “It’s invisible.”
Dad : “Let’s put down some flour on the floor and look for tracks.”
Son : “He doesn’t walk on the floor.”
Dad : “Can he do anything?”
Son : Yes, but it’s invisible.
Dad : So what’s the difference in a invisible dragon that is completely invisible to any evidence and no dragon at all?
To an observer, there is no difference between an invisible God that cannot be detected and no God at all.
If the Christian God can be detected and/or is not invisible, then lead me to the evidence.
Again, you are raising an epistemological issue, coupling this with an assumption - things look the way they would if there was no God - and making an ontological claim. I am not arguing that you find evidence of God.
You can’t rationally speak of evidence of a thing until you define the thing.
Define the dragon and see where the conversation goes.