I agree that it is unnecessary for God to appear in order to maintain the religion, but that is not the point I am trying to make when I note the convenient absence of God in the age of enlightenment and scientific scrutiny. The point is that some people will consider the matter critically and consequently expect evidence of such extraordinary claims. How do we know we are angering God A who exists, but not God B who does not exist? If we are to just take the matter on faith, why should we give credibility to one religion over another? Simply saying that we should believe in a certain god because he appeared to those before us is not an answer. Anyone can, and often did, make such a claim. If the Judeo-Christian God exists and wants us to believe in him, I only ask for definitive proof that he exists. If the Judeo-Christian God exists and wants us to believe in him based solely on faith, I only ask for a definitive argument as to why I should have faith in him instead of a different god.
It is this personís argument that God should not have to appear to everyone, and it is my duty to point out that God decided to appear at many points in the past for meaningless reasons. God appeared when he wanted to give directions for making curtains to go in his temple,[i] but he neglected to appear to Hitler and prevent the deaths of millions of his chosen people. God appeared when he wanted to have a wrestling match with Jacob,[ii] but he neglected to appear when thousands of African children starved to death last week. God appeared when he wanted people put to death for working on the Sabbath,[iii] but he neglected to appear during the Crusades when thousands of people were killing each other over who had the right religion. The reason to question comes not from Godís decision to appear only at select times, but rather from the timing itself.