Sorry but I think this whole discussion has gone the wrong way round.
1. We know that we cannot, routinely, contact god.
2. We know that requests made to him by his
servants are routinely ignored, outcomes being predictable without including him in the calculations.
3. Finally, we have believers who say that one only needs faith
and one can converse with this god.
So, most people would say that the evidence does not amount to enough to presume the existence of a god. Indeed, worse than that, there is no evidence at all. So the atheist, looking at the evidence sees that there is not reason to believe. The problem comes with the theist who has invested in belief and then is confronted with the rather too real problem that the evidence on which belief might be based is missing. Sure the bible is there but a lot of third hand accounts of this and that, looking more like Greek myths, might count as evidence but not of much. So, time to start inventing.
Now, what can I come up with.... Got it! people can't chose whether to believe I exist if they know I exist - it infringes upon their freedom! Right, that works.... hang on.... no it doesn't, people will smell a rat here. It sound made up. OK, try again.... Got it! This god is in heaven and heaven is a separate realm from the physical so god can't communicate like he might if he was in the physical world, so prayer is the only way. Mmmm, promising! Problem, though, can he communicate at all? Maybe he doesn't communicate and it is only the subconscious brain giving me the replies I want to hear..... whoops, better keep quite on that one....
OK, joke over, but I think that's what's going on. The uncomfortable fact of the tough fact that there is no evidence for god has to be explained and explanations are a bit difficult. how about this thought, though, to conclude.
in my country, the UK, we have a queen, Queen Elizabeth II. She is officially head of state but takes no part in governing the country which is done by politicians. Nonetheless, she does sign into law all Acts of Parliament which make law in the UK. Now she is seen around the country and she visit places all over the place for various events. I live in the north in Scotland and she spends the summer up in Scotland and is seen around there. However, she doesn't visit me personally, she doesn't get in my way as I live my life but she does make laws telling me what I can and can't do. of course I have a choice whether to obey these laws. I have freedom to do all that.
However, she also has people all round the country whose job it is to see that people keep her laws - police. If I get caught breaking the laws she has made, I will get punished but I won't get thrown out of the UK. I would have to do something horrific to get sent to prison and end my life there.
Yet, apparently, god is never seen, has rather vague laws that are hard to interpret and doesn't bother to do anything until after I die and at the time it is too late to do anything about it. At that point I will, apparently be thrown away into hell juts for no believing in this god.
So, Luk, tell me, why is my life in the UK with a visible queen not completely free whilst a life in which we could see god would not be?