Musika:
The politics of an omnimax personality of course. With your repeated use of words like "intervening" etc you seem to be habitually brokering a dumbed down version of God.
Would you agree then, that most theists believe in a similarly "dumbed down" version of God? Take the example of prayers, for instance. Expecting God to micro-manage things at the level of individual human lives, in response to pleas by insignificant human beings, seems to ignore the omnimax personality, does it not? Especially as the omnimax personality presumably already has some mysterious but well-ordered plan for all of us.
The point of citing your consciousness was to help you understand the problem of using inaccurate political language (God doesn't "intervene" anymore than you "intervene" in affairs of your body).
I accept that God, with whatever his plans are, would more likely be simply implementing his existing strategy rather than "intervening" to change his plans on an ad-hoc basis (in response to a prayer, for example).
This whole idea about "miracles" would seem to be unrealistic nonsense then, most likely. Do you agree? Why would God "intervene" in such a way by performing a "miracle"? Such a thing would never be necessary for the omnimax personality. And given that God doesn't want to give himself away (as you say he doesn't) then doing miracles would make no sense for him.
And yet, many theists seem to expect miracles.
Again, that is just your suggestion. Others can cite the same body of knowledge, in general, to offer the opposite suggestion. Citing the workings of this world can be employed for suggestions either for or against.
On the one hand we have that the workings of the world are explainable by human beings, with reference to natural laws etc. On the other hand, we have that the workings of the world can only be explained by positing an all-powerful, conscious and purposeful supernatural entity.
Why complicate things when nothing in the workings of the world suggests that such added complication is necessary?
As such, if you want to limit the discussion to the manner of observing the workings of this world, all you will be left with are suggestions, .... and of course the people who gravitate to suggestions according to their values, etc.
I understand that Occam's razor is predicated on the fundamentally
aesthetic idea that things ought to be simple (or, at least, not more complicated than they need to be).
Are theists just messier thinkers than atheists, then?
I appreciate that it's
possible that underneath it all there's a God pulling the levers. But as a matter of practicality, that fact (if it is a fact) makes no meaningful difference to anybody's life, on a day-to-day basis, as far as I can tell.
I do concede that, in this context, "God does everything" is an answer to the question I asked. But it's quite a different answer from the kinds of answers that most religions give to the same question.
I could turn that around and ask you the same question, why you believe that God is not manifest in such activities. Of course you are more than likely to slink back to the "atheism has no beliefs" mantra, but the broader question is "why you believe an observation of phenomena of this world must necessarily reveal God, if God is to entertained as a plausible entity?"
Here's an idea: it could be simply pragmatism on my part. My world is complex enough without having to think about any possible supernatural causes that add nothing to practical effects of the natural causes that I am aware of.
If God is only a worker behind the scenes pulling the levers of nature, then I can happily live my life without worrying about anything "extra" that God might want or do - because God isn't doing anything "extra" that I experience, nor is he communicating any special expectations to me. Pragmatically, my life is the same whether or not this kind of God exists.
I might well be happy to acknowledge that God is enabling existence, or some such thing, but existence is a given whether or not that is true. Why, then, should I spend my time worrying about that God, as theists do? There's nothing to be gained that I don't already have, in that scheme.
If you mean to ask how can one arrive at an understanding of God outside of scientific investigation (and thus take the question outside of mere "suggestions"), perhaps it could be helpful to look at how two entities, vastly different in their powers interact.
It's not a completely sound analogy, but for the focus of this one point in particular, it should be sufficient:
Take the example of the remote tribes of the Andaman Islands. Currently they are under the sovereignty of India and all the technological resources afforded by a 21st century econony. The indian government has strict guidelines preventing any outside influences coming to the tribespeople (aside from the hostility they displayed to visitors, there is some concern that their isolation has rendered them vulnerable to the host of diseases we are likely to introduce to them). The tribespeople subsist off foraging and have no seafaring means of transport.
If the tribespeople were to somehow have an understanding of the national sovereignty they are currently existing under, how would it be aroused?
What would be the basis for them ever hoping to understand the situation in any accurate manner, outside of the realm of mere "suggestions"?
I take your point. A similar point has been made that any sufficiently-advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Following from what I wrote above, one question would be: why should the Andaman Islanders concern themselves with this "India" that you speak of? Speaking pragmatically, from their perspective, it has no visible effect on their lives.
What extra activities do you think you would employ in your life if you became fully convinced God wasn't there?
I think it would be more a case of
stopping certain activities, such as ceasing to explore the idea that God might be there, despite all appearances.
So once again, aside from faith, what is it about the current level of knowledge about tweaking knobs that is sufficient to excise God from the picture in the mind of an atheist?
For most, I don't think God is completely expunged. Even Dawkins, a poster-boy atheist for the theists, leaves the door open on God. I would venture that most atheists seek positive evidence for God, rather than the kind of invisible God-behind-the-scenes or God-of-the-gaps idea that you are putting up here.
However you can talk of a particular type of epistemology having inherent limitations, and thus one could stand above another, in terms of the subjects it makes available.
... texts identify six pramanas as correct means of accurate knowledge and to truths: perception,inference, comparison and analogy, postulation, derivation from circumstances, non-perception, negative/cognitive proof and word, testimony of past or present reliable experts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana
Looking at the above quote, which epistemological method would you think has recourse to knowledge which is unavailable to all others?
Postulation comes closest, but then postulation is not knowledge. It can be a means to knowledge (as the quote says). Or it can lead to error.