Recently I was reading an article (here) about the upcoming debate between atheist Lawrence Krauss and the Christian apologist William Lane Craig. Some wonder about the point of such exchanges and the article makes this interesting point:

The debate would be pointless if our expectation is that God has a responsibility to reveal him/herself in some way that is unambiguous and undeniable by the standards of scientific and philosophical reasoning.

Why should the existence and nature of God be immediately obvious on human scientific terms? What if God deliberately left not proofs, but only clues? What if God deliberately revealed only enough evidence of his existence for the interested observer to pursue, but not enough to pander to the demands of a sceptic?

And what if God did this so that theological truth could not be discovered on human, objective, spectator terms, but on divine, subjective and personal terms? In this way of thinking a personal, relational God would have no interest in human spectators merely sitting in the grandstands, so to speak, debating what God is like. God would only be interested in humans entering the ‘playing field’ of personal encounter. In the same way that any personal encounter I might have with the Queen would properly be entirely on her terms, the personal encounter with God would sensibly be on His/Her terms – terms that are unlikely to be mainly scientific or philosophical.