If math and science are complex why should we expect God to be easy?

Well see, we have proof that science and math exist.

The exploration and study of god should be taken as seriously as the study of leprechauns and unicorns.

There is absolutely no reason that the assertion of god, which is put forth with zero evidence, cannot be dismissed just as simply.

It's very easy to not believe in god. Just think rationally.

If people want to fall back on the claim that God's true nature is unknowable, fine.  Just don't try to proselytize religion to me in the same breath.

FEW ATTEMPT TO DEAL WITH MATH GOD GIVES

Adam 130
Gen.7:6 [ flood year 1656 ].

Shem 02
25 Isaac 60Job 65, Moses 80
Joshua 1Samuel 20 dies, Saul 6 dies , David 40 dies, 1037 BCE. Solomon 4th year, 1Ki.6:1 [ 480 ].

Solomon 36 years.

Judah kings end 391st year, year 3460.

At 2009 CE, is 2615 years ago, year 6075.

No king until Jesus at 2nd coming. Rev.20:1-3,
4-6,12,13, Christ 1000 year reign, all are made
alive, 1Cor.15:22-28,51-53, makes all as new as before Eden. 2Pet.3:13, Rev.2:7, 21:1-8.
1656 + 427 + 430 + 40 + 480 + 36 = 391 =
year 3460 [ 606 BCE, at 2009 CE ] is 2615
ago, future time to Christ 1000 yr reign.

Math and science are not complex. They just require education. And I did give the concept of god more than a superficial glance. What is it with Christians who think that atheists think what we do on just a whim? We did research during our lives you know. I didn't wake up one morning and say, Gee, I guess I'll be an atheist!

Are you saying that mentally retarded kids who can't figure out algebra, let alone calculus, can't got to heaven since they can't figure out the complex demands and characteristics of the universe's god?

The whole point is that IF god is fair, IF god is good, IF god is just, it should be an equal test of all persons (regardless of ability or intelligence) and his specific existence (as opposed to other gods or simply natural forces) should be self-evident.  Since that is not true, it DOES take work to believe in god.

That's fine if that's how you choose to define your god, as abstract, distant and requiring years of study and work and an acute intellect to grasp. However, I would think most theists would disagree with you that that version of god is the one that exists.

So if god can never truly be comprehended, why give me a brain capable of questioning his complexity?  Just to frustrate me?

When you DO take a more than superficial glance at your god, you discover that your god has the same general characteristics as all the other gods mankind created before him, and the stories in the Bible are basically rehashed from other religions that came before Christianity.

Understanding your god is easy.  He's an excuse for lazy thinkers.

A: "I posit a god, with the following attributes"
B: "Okay, where's your evidence? And your attributes are inconsistent."

A: "Umm, a really complex and mysterious god."
B: "Still no evidence. And still inconsistent."

A: "But by god, I really mean love. And muffins. You believe in muffins don't you?"
B: "Uh, that's not what you started with. And still inconsistent with what you said before. But, yes, I believe in muffins."

A: "Ah! a fellow Christian! Then we both believe that Jebus is god and gays are teh evil and evolution is teh evil."
B: "WTF?"

===

In short, no. Positing ever more complex and mysterious and subtler and more absent gods does not require a longer look. There's still no evidence. There's still not a single testable prediction whose failure you'd agree would demonstrate the falsity of your hypothesis. It doesn't begin to merit a second look.

Explain how your complex-and-mysterious version of god is different from a complex-and-mysterious version of Zeus.

You can torture what you mean by god until it's anything you want, it is still not a hypothesis worthy of consideration.