Using existence and the natural world as a reason to have faith in God is a double edged sword as one can come to the opposite conclusions from observing the natural world too

Most arguments I've seen for God not revealing himself and being so elusive are that he wants us to have faith in him.

So a believer follows a path which relies on some rationalization or partial evidence which is the worlds complexity or it's existence itself. But faith is such an abstract thing that two people can reach wildly different conclusions using said evidence and that doesn't necessarily rely on their morality but can be a result of their deep rooted psychology.

A more skeptical person for instance might Also look at the world around us and see that there is currently no attempt by a higher being to contact us and validate their existence so he might have faith that either God isn't real or that whatever entity made the world doesnt care enough to interact with it or a sensitive and empathetic person may look at the uglier parts of nature like death disease animals eating eachother ect and come to have faith in the theory that the creator is in fact a very cruel and evil being.

The same evidence can lead to entirely different conclusions so God expecting everyone to just believe in him or his prophets because of evidence that only partially implies the existence of a creator doesn't make sense the only way for us to know anything about God is if he chooses to contact us and parents us with verifiable evidence because there's no point in a test where the same formula and same raw input can produce wildly diffent solutions with the method used to reach the "wrong" answer being just as valid as the one used to reach the right one.