You are right to seek G-d, and to try to understand Him. You are right that He is forgiving, and merciful. It is also wrong I think for people to pretend that they have experiences with G-d when they don't.
I think, because G-d is so infinitely vast and pure and powerful it is hard for any of us to grasp what He truly is. He wants to show His greatness through grace, mercy, and forgiveness--unconditional love. Yet He also wants to share with us His nature. It's like when a couple are married for so long, and know each other so well they complete each others sentences, and when one passes away, it's like the person left is only half a person.
The desire for intimacy with man, not only to be gracious, but also to share His very nature with us, is the basic idea behind the Jesus coming to Earth. If we choose only to see G-d as a dispenser of grace, and not as something infinitely vast and pure, we are missing something. If we discount the value of suffering, we misunderstand the nature of Christ, and G-d.
I wish you the best, Taraz. There is a book, written by a once harsh skeptic of the Gospel, whose name is Lee Stroebel (https://www.amazon.com/Lee-Strobel/e/B001H6KH8G) if should want to see some rational reasons for believing in Christ as G-d.
I appreciate you taking the time and will grant you that it is very possible but my caveat with your words for your god would be he wants, he is god, he wants for nothing for he is all. Right?
The rationalisation for a belief to me seems an oxymoron. A justification perhaps. For me to believe, there would have to be no belief. It would have to be unshadowed fact in my opinion.
I am not saying there is no creator, I am saying I have doubts. Lots of shadows. Hence the need for a direct view.
Hope all is well with you.
It is well. Keep posting! G-d loves questions!
As do I. Does that make me... :)
If he wanted to reveal himself, why is he playing hide-n-seek with us? Wouldn't it be more reasonable for him to wave to us from heavens and make sure we have real reasons to believe instead of not providing any good evidence for his own existence?
I'm curious, which of Lee Stroebel's reasons do you find convincing?