The Bible says that he does. But consider the evidence we (don't) have. If God exists, he cannot be found through our 5 physical senses. So what are God's expectations of us?

----------------------------------------------------------

Quickest derail ever:

1) Does God expect us to be religious? To fit into a denomination?
2) Does God expect theists to always believe in him from birth to death?
3) Does God expect atheists not to believe in him? Does God expect atheists to pretend (and somehow get past God's wisdom) if they don't?

----------------------------------------------------------

Quickest derail ever #2:

Every time a theist becomes a non-theist, what do you think is running through God's mind? Do you think he has regrets? I would if I were a theist. Based on most peoples' descriptions of God (Christians at least), I imagine him thinking, "Damn! I should have left more evidence." rather than, "Oh look, another idiot doesn't see me."

But if it's true that God has regrets, nothing makes any sense. God would have simply left more evidence in the first place. And if it's false, and God doesn't have any regrets, does that mean God isn't compassionate towards those who don't find him?

To follow Christ. I think He made that pretty clear.

Who's to say a new understanding or even a 6th sense isn't developed by doing so? Similar but opposite to a criminal mind.

I think this would be more fitting as a personal claim instead of a general claim. I'm sure many theists would disagree with it as you have it written.

ex: If God exists, I cannot find Him through my 5 physical senses.

If I am ultimately proven wrong, and God someday asks me why I didn't believe in him and in Jesus and in the Holy Spirit and in the Bible, I will respond ...

Pretty sure you're just offering rhetoric and joking, but God would already know your suggestions obviously.

God, if She exists, has no interest whatsoever in us. She's too busy making sure the universe doesn't collapse into black holes or that the laws of gravity work properly.

One of the powerful motivators of religion is egotism and self-importance. Some people are just incapable of admitting that it isn't all about them.

Really, the story is that you have this awesome, amazingly powerful being, capable of creating an amazing, gigantic universe that spans billions of light years, and She is nonetheless completely obsessed with whether a few pipsqueak idiots on some tiny planet somewhere properly worship Her. That's ridiculous on its face.

Where do you get your definition and attributes of God from?

The claims of believers.

It is self evident that any being that created the universe and is infinite and omnipotent would not care about human beings, and certainly would be smart enough to realize that whether or not we believe in Her is of no importance.

Believers posit a bunch of self-contradictory claims about God-- that She's super-intelligent and super-powerful but acts like a completely unintelligent 2 year old and throws a temper tantrum when anyone doubts Her.

I don't see how that is self evident at all. If God is all that was when He created, wouldn't we be considered part of Him? "Theoretically", we are sharing His Life. After all we did come from Him. So why do you think He wouldn't care about us? Also if it is how you say, then God created us for no reason whatsoever, which as a Christian, i do not find true either.

Basically your view on God is contradicting to a lot of what the Bible says, and your evidence is in no way factual.

We are only a part of God in the same way that the HIV virus is. And tiny beings on one planet in the middle of nowhere are completely unimportant. If we all killed ourselves tomorrow, the universe would go on for billions of years and would be fine.

We are meaningless to any God. But we have huge egos, or at least believers do.

Its problem. A first hand account is available. There are a number of reasons for using regurgitated information(lazy, ignorant to human error, inciting misinformation, provoking a fight, pointing out hypocracy, and others), but I don't think it's helpful in the context of searching for truth. If you want to discuss the the hypocrisy of believers this seems like a good baseline, but here not so much.

On second thought, if by this you mean sound and researched believers(not Joe Dirt from Alabama), then I think this is reasonable. But you should also do your due diligence in fact checking and referencing the source of information.

I'm curious what takes you from the above to this conclusion:
Why are you limiting a God that you're defining as infinite and omnipotent?

Well, if you want to claim that an "unlimited" God means we are equally important as a tuberculosis germ, I would agree.

The problem is I suspect most believers would claim that we are more important, which means their God has limits under your (dumb) definition.

I strive to better know and define God revealed through the Bible, and you've said your definition comes from believers. I assumed this was believers of the Bible, but please correct me if my assumption was wrong. Thus please present an argument to the contrary from the source instead of 'your definition is dumb, mine is better'.

Are you saying that God is incapable of creating things more or less important than others? I would agree that all of God's creation is important, but that all creation is not of equal importance(man has dominion over animals, created in God's image, etc.).

I'm saying that if God can assess levels of importance to Her creations, then that must not be a "limit" that cannot be an attribute of God. And once that concession is made, your objection that concluding that we are not particularly important to God is somehow "limiting" God is refuted.

I dont understand why you think varying importance is a limiting attribute. The only contention I can think of you making is that varying importance somehow limits God's amount of care or love given to a creation. But I think this is mistaking God's will with God's power.

If you're of the position that God does not love, care, etc for man as much as I think He does, then we should look at scripture.

I DON'T think that varying importance is a limiting attribute. Nor do I think not giving a crap about human beings at all is a limiting attribute.

Neither one of those things is a limiting attribute. YOU are the one who brought up limiting attributes. I don't even buy that the category exists.

My point is that believers cannot imagine a God that doesn't give a crap about them, because their infinite egos TELL them that they are at the center of the creation story, and the worst thing you can ever tell a self-important person is that he or she isn't important, so they make up a claim that if God doesn't care about them, that somehow is a limit on God.

Ok, I misunderstood you, and I think I agree with the above. The only thing I'll point out is that regardless of the egotistical response received by telling someone that they are not important to God, they are are in fact important to God. The Bible tells us as much.

If you could outline for me the relevance of this discussion that would be great. We could talk all day about what's wrong with things that aren't true. Unless you're objecting to the truth claim of man's high status of importance to God.

Also pretty sure God would see right through my faking belief in him.

So what's my next play Wizard? Seems like everyone (theists and atheists alike) would agree it's to go on not believing.

I am just going to address this for the moment. How do you know that there is not enough evidence? Would you agree that there is ample evidence for evolution? Yet many many people do not believe that evolution happened. So it is possible that evidence exist for X, and strong evidence at that, while people still maintain a belief in X.

What's also pretty clear is that you're cherry picking quite a bit. God made many other things which you don't follow pretty clear. This includes a serious amount of things that you and I would, in this day and age, feel are morally repugnant.

Three words: The Scientific Method

Evolution has testable, repeatable, and predictable evidence -- and an old book.
God only has an old book.

Also, consider the source of:
Who are these people, and WHY do they believe this?

Edit: you're inadvertently making a great case for how and why religion hinders learning.

Well, first God has nature to attest to his creation but that's not the point. As far as Evolution having testable, repeatable, and predictable evidence then surely all should believe, right? Which means that even though all of these reasons exist people still don't believe, therefore even if there is a ton of evidence for God it is possible that people choose to not see it.

Those are great questions, I think that you need to ask the same of the people who don't believe in God.

And you are inadvertently proving that people choose to believe what they want and that no amount of evidence can change their minds.

Also, I am not making a case for religion hindering learning but that people hinder learning. Religion is just an excuse for people.

No, it doesn’t work like that. You can’t just reverse every argument and think you scored the same points.

Most people who don't believe in God don't do so because they "choose not to see him" as you say. That's ridiculous! Think about conversions -- nearly all of them are unidirectional. Why is that? (rhetorical question) I can tell you why, but I suspect you already know.