Do you demonstrate that level of “smart” with, for example, your wife? Do you cross and double-check, keep your eyes peeled, never allow yourself to be conned, swindled nor naively treated etc., etc., by your wife, as an aspect of your “moral duty,” every second of the day?
What you are doing is confusing objective proof with trust.
If God were a snow leopard, alien, flying spaghetti monsteri or garden fairy, then your vigilance regarding proof would be warranted and to your credit.
However, either there is one Creator God who is the explanation for all that is, including yourself OR there is not. It is really that easy. Either / Or
If there is such a God, then trust is the appropriate response.
If not, no amount of proof will ever substitute for or create trust, just as no amount of proof will ever suffice to warrant trusting and loving your wife.
We treat other PERSONS differently than we do objects or events. Persons can never be completely objectified, which is why they can never be sufficiently evidenced in an objective sense, to warrant trust or love.
The trust and love we have for other persons might be broken but it can never be fully proved or warranted by evidence. Trust is a risk we take by putting ourselves into the “hands” of the other, just as love is the risk of pouring yourself out for the other.
Neither of these can ever be contingent on proof or they would never begin to be actualized - we would never trust nor love if these depended upon sufficient and objective “evidence.”
“Smart” is one thing, wisdom is something else, completely. Solomon was the wisest man on Earth until he became smart. That is when things fell apart for him and for Israel.
No other “god” would be worthy of worship in the same way that God is. Lesser “deities” might be respected, feared, tolerated, revered, honored, esteemed, avoided, denounced, hated, sought, proved, falsified, etc., but towards THE God who is Being Itself, Ipsum Esse Subsistens, Actus Purus, the Source of all that exists, there can only be one possible response - absolute faith and loving trust. That is the ONLY means by which he can be intimately known.
We do not come to know other human persons by “proofs” or evidence, we get to know them by entering into a personal relationship with them. By establishing mutual trust we come to know “who” they are are, not “what” they are.
It might be possible to prove “that” God is, but those proofs would never come close to revealing WHO God is.
Objective knowledge can never take the place of subjective intimacy.
Mere children can be very good at the latter, while astrophysicists and biochemists can be totally incompetent.
This universe might be solely and completely an “objective” place or it could be profoundly subjective. You are hedging your bets on objectivity.
What do you think Jesus meant by his words? Do you think he was utterly naive and easy to swindle when he could read the thoughts and intentions of the astute brainiacs and power mongers who held high political or religious office and sought to crucify him?
Perhaps he “knew” something they were - despite their intelligence - completely oblivious to. A light in their darkness?
