>>I can't imagine that an entity of that sort would care about being worshiped! <<

>>Jesus appearance here was a visit from God.largely rejected by his own despite the miracles.<<

I love these two statements as bookends for the whole discussion. Both depend upon an equal measure of faith and arrogance yet both have an honest humility.

Bill puts the question aside by saying that >>he<< can't imagine what such a being would care about. Pete imagines that his interpretation of scripture is the whole truth on the matter.

I know it is an old saw, but it is logical nonetheless, If you assume for the point of argument and omniscient, omnipotent being, you pretty much completely negate that He/She/its motives can be understood by mere mortals, even with extensive study. Logically, God has infinite data and processing power to draw upon while all we have is arguments like these.

On the other hand Pete is more or saying that God's visit was rejected despite the miracles. I've read the Gospels several times. If you assume every single word to therein to be true, it is still easy to see why Jesus, is not universally seen as the Son of God. Not everyone even then was privy to the miracles. Pilate, being the most notable and of those who witnessed many miracles, Thomas doubted, So did Peter. And don't get me started on Judas.

To pete, reading what I have just read from you, I say that the Gospels do not offer proof. They offer a way to enlightenment and salvation, IN SPITE OF THE LACK OF PROOF.
Bill D, I think is honest and open minded about this and most things. I would say is correct in his analysis about whether personal experience can be used to "prove" if God exists.

I would also say that I cannot imagine how God, can "prove" himself to us. In fact, if he were to try, I would be suspicious. The message of the Bible is not "Prove I exist scientifically." it is "Have Faith."