Let’s think of the God in question as “the living God” in virtue of this God’s being personally interactive with some agents, and cognitively nimble and dynamic rather than cognitively inflexible or static. We should not confuse this God, then, with an immutable Platonic form or any other kind of abstract entity or nonpersonal principle. This God, more specifically, is reportedly elusive for good reasons – that is, for reasonable divine purposes that fit with God’s unique character of being worthy of worship and thus being morally perfect.
Accordingly, we should expect any evidence for God’s existence for humans to be purposively available to humans – that is, available to humans in a way that conforms to God’s character and perfectly good purposes for them. If one of God’s main purposes is to elicit noncoerced human faith or trust in God, then God may seek to be, himself, the conclusive (objective) cognitive ground for human commitment to God’s reality.
Paul K. Moser, The Evidence for God: Religious Knowledge Reexamined (Cambridge University Press: 2007) pp. 142-143