"How do you respond to a position such as this:-"God is not interested in the futile human process and search for evidence about God, and not interested in what evidence humans do or do not find."It sounds like religious followers trying to shut down debate and discourage people from asking questions they can't answer. In doing so, they are claiming to know his mind, and speak for the alleged god. In order for a god to care, it must first exist, so unless the followers can produce sufficient evidence for their alleged god, why should anyone care about their self serving claims?
Well, good that you finally responded in that it can be helpful to understand what that condition "sounds like" to a person of your position - how a person like you thinks. It is telling that you immediately ascribe that very viable concept to a conscious negative agenda on the part of '"religious followers" - acting as if you know what those followers are thinking, claiming and trying to do - where you have absolutely no evidence of that - zero evidence. And, this by the guy/gal who preaches the alleged sacredness of evidence as the basis for "knowing". Is this glaring inconsistency a hallmark of your logic system?. Some would call this a "laffin" moment if it were not so sad. Since you act as if you can read minds (and maybe souls) over the internet, why not state your guess on what "religious followers" are thinking about your behavior there? I would guess that God is not interested in or concerned with such feeble human behaviors.
