Victor Reppert Argues That Sufficient Evidence for Faith is a Bad Thing!

Vic commented saying that the perspective of the Outsider's Test for Faith unreasonably requires that "God would virtually have to write his name in the heavens in order to make any belief in him believable." No, not at all. I have previously indicated the kinds of evidence that would convince me Christianity is true. Vic goes on to say:
The kind of evidence you require would be evidence that would be sufficiently strong that no reasonable person could possibly deny that there is a God. There are various ways God might do this, but the common denominator would have be that all the ambiguity would be stripped away from the evidence....What you presented in your post was a cumulative case, rather than a one-off miracle, and that is an important difference. However, it does require God to make the world in such a way that the religious ambiguity is eliminated.
Okay, Vic, you actually find it to be a bad thing if God were to provide enough evidence for all reasonable people around the world to accept your religion. You think it's better if the evidence for your faith is nebulous at best, just as we find it, such that accepting it depends on when and where people are born.

But I find this to be a rationalization based on special pleading for what we find in the world. What we find is that the evidence for your faith is nebulous at best such that accepting it depends on when and where people are born, so you argue that what we find is a good thing simply because you WANT to believe in your religion. If things had turned out differently, and there was enough evidence to convince reasonable people then you would sing a different tune, claiming with me that it would not be reasonable for your God to merely provide nebulous kinds of evidence for your faith. Antony Flew's parable of the invisible gardener comes to mind. No matter what is done to the garden you will find reasons to think there is an invisible gardener anyway.