Seems like a few hedged bets there KB..."it would be helpful"
Is helpful going to be good enough? or do you need the same as Anfauglir, God to come and knock physically on your door. You sure you wouldn't find a way to explain that away as well?
Well, typically one does not believe in something based on a single piece of evidence. I think that it is only reasonable to have at least the same burden of proof for God as for any other phenomena. Gravity is a phenomena that is really difficult not to notice. Yet no one is claiming that gravity is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, etc etc. Anything that possessed such qualities and frequently interacted with the universe (as I think most theists would posit that God does) would necessarily be even more noticeable than gravity.
As far as explaining away, well I just don't see it that way. Why is it that the same types of questions and level of certainty that you would expect of ANYTHING else is suddenly not fair to apply to God the almighty?
Furthermore, I don't see how you can imply that I am "explaining away" anything. Theists have been "explaining away" the mistakes and errors and inconsistency of their religion for a really long time. It's called apologetics. Because naturally an all powerful being needs his minions to make excuses for his mistakes.
I say "it would be helpful" because it would. It would in fact be helpful if the evidence that should
be present if the Bible is true actually was
present. It is not. The only reason we know about mass extinctions is because they left a lot of evidence. Considering that the great flood would have happened much more recently than the Chicxulub impact, the amount of evidence should be that much more significant. There should be countless fossils of all forms of life present in the corresponding geological layer. There is not. There should be evidence of a massive fern spike, as is seen with other extinction events and catastrophes, and in fact it would necessarily be the largest fern spike ever. This is not the case.
Given the number of failures for religion to produce even a single shred of evidence for any of its magical claims, taking the position of "I need some substantial proof for that" is the most sensible course to take, as opposed to "There's no evidence at all, even where it should be abundant, so I will definitely believe!". One position has the benefit of intellectual honesty. Hint: it's not yours.
Perhaps I should remind you that the task of finding evidence of 10 good deeds of God vs 1 evil deed of God was cut short, because apparently it was too time consuming for you to do so. If the book allegedly inspired by a benevolent being is so sorely lacking of evidence that said being actually is
benevolent, it is safe to conclude that either the being that inspired the Bible wasn't a benevolent god, or wasn't god at all. If God was as good as people say (and boy, do they ever say this!) the Bible should be overflowing with examples of God's generosity, kindness, selflessness, tolerance, acceptance, and unconditional love. God should be displaying these behaviors constantly. Yet, you gave up after, what, the first round? You said that it was too time consuming. If the Bible was rife with examples of these things, it would take no time at all. Instead, we see God being jealous, angry, wrathful, pitiless, mocking, arrogant, and deceitful. These are not things that we would consider good or loving. One could easily do the reverse, and find 10 verses of violence, intolerance and hate, with almost no effort at all. If people want to say that God is Good, then he should be doing things that we would actually consider to be good. "By their fruits shall ye know them." The fruit of God is death, destruction, violence and hate.
So, given the evidence for the case of "The God in the Bible is real", we must conclude that is not true, and furthermore, if the God of the Bible were
real, he would be the manifestation of humanity's worst qualities. The Bible shows us enough to say that with certainty.