Actually I stand corrected, given that your model assumes the secondary motive of believing. Still beleieving without revelation would preffered to not beleiveing without revaltion, provided of course the person understands that no revelation is no evidence for God not existing. Just as 50 years ago we didn't see planets outside or solar system was no evidence to suppose their no existence.

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.