If I had never heard about God before, and suddenly I started wondering why anything exists, and it occurred to me that perhaps there is a being behind it all… and that perhaps this being interacts with beings like me… I would look for evidence of this interaction. I would think, “If I were a being behind all existence and I interacted with beings that exist to a lesser degree than me… beings curious about me… how would I go about interacting with them… how would I feed their curiosity (that I no doubt gave them)?” I thank God that I don’t have to look far for evidence of His interaction. I just grew up around it and so it was nothing special to me. Instead of accepting it, or asking God to show me further… I just walked away. Now I know… Ask… seek… knock. Don’t get lost.
Besides that… if you are God, how do you convince someone that you aren’t just their imagination, in a way that prevents them from going absolutely nuts? Maybe going nuts is an unavoidable part of it, and is why He doesn’t just make Himself known to everybody all at once (until the end)? Maybe also it is merciful on His part, because if God revealed Himsef to you, you might think “Uh oh, my time’s up… I better straighten my act up,” and you might be forced to give up some precious sin you were surviving on. It is interesting to note how the OT prophets reacted to revelations from God… fainting… being terrified… etc.. I can definitely see God’s keeping Himself on the down-low being a lot about mercy and patience.
But I also see that He has revealed Himself throughout the course of history, greatly effecting it in the process.
Some who claim they are agnostic or atheists say their reason for this is they have no evidence of God’s interaction or existence. The responsibility to examine evidence rests on the individual. Is the evidence the authors of the Bible had available in order to convince others that God’s Word is true… any less reliable than the evidence we have available to us? What is the ‘statute of limitations’ (prob’ly wrong example) on such evidence being valid? How long after the ‘events’ does the evidence expire? What are the rules for that in the case of, say… secular history (calling it ‘secular’ sounds weird, considering God is sovereign over all of history, but anyway).
Something to think about — God can’t demonstrate His dying on the cross and rising from the dead like some sort of play that has multiple showings and goes on tour… He can only do it once, for all audiences… or it loses meaning. But, even the people who witnessed it, didn’t have a clue what was coming, what was going on while it was happening. We are in a privileged position. We don’t have to be the ones recorded in the gospels not having a clue what Jesus was talking about when He foretold His own death and how long He would be dead before He rose again… the ones all surprised to see Him alive and well again. Hopefully we are not the ones all surprised and clueless when He returns as King.
Ichthus77 
If I was God, here's what I wouldn't do: create a race of little people and stick them in a garden with an evil serpent, then get mad and banish them therefrom. Then decide later that I was gonna obliterate all life on earth, then tell someone to build a boat. I wouldn't create a race of angels who I would know beforehand were gonna rebel against me. I wouldn't pick on one guy and tell him to sacrifice his only son to me. I wouldn't banish people to Egypt and bring them back to Israel for inscrutable reasons. I wouldn't impregnate a virgin in order to incarnate myself as a man, and my own son, in order to sacrifice myself to myself. I wouldn't condemn endless millions of my creations to eternal torture under any circumstances. I'd let my creations live in freedom and peace, and if the ultimate goal was for them to have eternal life, well then I'd simply will it (for nothing is impossible to an omnipotent God).
Black,
“create a race of little people and stick them in a garden with an evil serpent”
You don't like humans? You don't like gardens? Or is it just the evil serpent you don't like? Here is another question. Was it evil 'before' or 'after' it tricked Adam and Eve? If 'before' then why was it still in the garden? I interpret this story symbollicaly. I think the author thought we never would have sinned if we hadn't been tricked into it. Btw, I believe in evolution.
“then get mad and banish them therefrom”
Symbolic. Consider each of your relationships to be a garden, and every action which violates the golden rule to be poison or a weed you add to the garden. Most of your gardens are pretty screwed up, no? Well, God's is and will always be a perfect garden. Nothing we do can mess it up. To the mind of the author of Genesis, this meant Adam and Eve had to be removed from it.
“Then decide later that I was gonna obliterate all life on earth, then tell someone to build a boat.”
Would you use force to defend your family, and show your family how to protect themselves?
“I wouldn't create a race of angels who I would know beforehand were gonna rebel against me.”
What if it was the only way to give existence to beings who could love?
“I wouldn't pick on one guy and tell him to sacrifice his only son to me.”
What if you were that one guy, and you were that only son (the way Son is meant), and the sacrifice was the only way to communicate to that “race of little people” that you love them even though they royally mess up the garden?
“I wouldn't banish people to Egypt and bring them back to Israel for inscrutable reasons.”
They were saved in Egypt from famine in Canaan. They were not banished there–they were not enslaved until they had been there for a while. And they were saved from Egypt when the time was right. There were times when God took his protection away–just as there are times when parents must take their protection away, when their children are bound and determined to learn from their mistakes.
“I wouldn't impregnate a virgin in order to incarnate myself as a man, and my own son, in order to sacrifice myself to myself.”
Then they would never believe you were God, and they would never believe you love them no matter what, because you would never demonstrate that self-sacrificially to them. Whenever you do something self-sacrificially, do you think of it as sacrificing yourself to yourself? Or are you doing that for those who benefit?
“I wouldn't condemn endless millions of my creations to eternal torture under any circumstances. I'd let my creations live in freedom and peace, and if the ultimate goal was for them to have eternal life, well then I'd simply will it (for nothing is impossible to an omnipotent God).”
Eternal life is not the question–it is where that eternity is spent (heaven/hell). It is impossible to 'will' people into loving you freely (heaven). To will them into heaven against their will (if such a thing could be done) would only be interpreted by them as hell, if you really understand what heaven is. Only those who knowingly reject God's invitation into relationship are those who knowingly choose the only alternative. It is impossible for God to violate his own nature–it is impossible for God to commit a conradiction–there are many things it is impossible for God to do. That does not voilate omnipotence, because there is strength in God's nature, and there is weakness in violating it. Committing a contradiction isn't powerful, it is broken. It is a weakness to 'consider' forcing people into heaven (into loving you), and it is broken to think such a thing is possible.