Devilnaut

Just out of curiousity, did God give you the 'feeling' that 2 was the correct first digit, or did you reject his influence and use your observations of earlier posts to choose this number?


my guess:

23222222622552822322224222920222

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Devilnaut

Wait- are you talking about the challenge, or prayer? I think that it is an excellent challenge. If God wants Baloo to believe, he will fulfill his request. If he cares so little for Baloo's allegiance that he cannot be bothered to answer his simple (and sincere) question, so be it. How is this different than the way in which God has supposedly revealed himself to many others? Have you ever prayed and had a sign from God? I sure hope not, blasphemer.
Are you suggesting that there is no way to know anything about a God, unless he actually exists??

Do you mean to say that it presupposes that the question of God's existence is dependant on reality as opposed to imagination? Sure looks like it.

Umm.. no it doesn't. It suggests what it would take to get him to switch to theism.

Even if it did, why does that matter??

Do you deny the value of all debate? Once our conclusions are made, should we never look back?

edited for clarity.

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

xoc

First, it is questionable whether Gideon or any of the few Biblical charactors who asked for a sign and received it were "unbelievers"; rather they were simply testing to what the "will of God was" rather than what was delusion(they didn't test to see if there was a God, but tested to see if so-and-so was truly speaking for God). Why did God tolerate Gideon's "fleecing"? Gideon was commisioned by some "being" that God had a seemingly impossible mission for him, which would certainly prove his own death and the death of his men if wrong. He might have felt a basic need to "test the spirits" as John would later write. Since Gideon's mission would rely on miracles it was a fair demand that he could see some greater evidence of them first(and miracles here not directly in line with the being he encountered, which could have been fantasy). Moses received similar initial "proof" in his encounter with the unconsumed bush.

Why did YHWH accede to his repeated requests? I'd guess some portion of especial purpose and another portion of grace. Gideon was to be a "judge", an interecedor of Israel and a true "sent one"- sent directly by God rather than sent by implication. The apostle, prophet and judge are witness to the miracles of God and conveyors of the miracles of God; they are higher level agents than the "soldier of Israel" or a "soldier of the cross." Gideon asked to see the impossible to see that God would use him to do the impossible. And the calling of the apostle, prophet or judge is a divine one rather than a human inclination; there must be a distinction of "no doubt" about this. The average man has neither the same responsability in value or right that the "called" ones have.

Why did God accede to Gideon's request? Because He wanted Gideon to do His bidding, risk his life and fight. It was a serious authentification to a serious calling- not a mere calling to indulge in semi-religious behaviour. It was also a sincere request: if God responded Gideon would most definitely accept, there was no "I'll promise to consider obeying if you do this, that, and then the other to." Whether or not Gideon's 2nd request is to be commended is to be up for debate; that's where a lot of theological debate comes in. It's not possible to say what would have happened if Gideon had asked for a 3rd proof either. How long could God tolerate unbelief or the "stubborness of hearts" after showing His power? The Exodus reveals the error of continually testing God.

tronvillain

My guess is 2, followed by the first thirty-one digits of pi.

Panta Pei

The words of Kenny:

"In many respects, to propose a test such as this, I believe, is a slap in His face, on the order of asking one’s spouse to submit to specially designed empirical tests of her (or his) fidelity when she (or he) has demonstrated nothing but faithfulness over the years."

The big difference:

There is overwhelming evidence that my spouse exists

~ Steve

HRGruemm

Sufficient evidence is that which convinces. IOW, the evidence is insufficient.
[quote]
and has impressed knowledge of His existence within you, you are without excuse for your unbelief.
[quote]
Calling this a fact is quite an exaggeration. Actually, it is refuted by the fact that no supernatural being has impressed knowledge of his/her/its existence within me.

I hope that you not have the sheer arrogance to tell me that you know better than I myself what I know or don't know.

Regards,
HRG.

Apikorus

It is questionable whether Gideon ever existed. He is as historical as various Homeric characters (e.g. Achilles, Hector, et al.).

The fact remains that Gideon requested not one sign but two and he received them.

Kvalhion

I think this is an excellent test and will borrow it if my fundie inlaws ever try to "bring me to God".

Invariably, the examples of God's existance only make sense in the context of a concept. These examples are not of things that affect reality (such as a bus passing through a child rather than hitting it), but are things that have simply been attributed to God (such as the safe return of a kidnapped child, finding a better job a day after losing your old one, etc).

Children often place importance upon a teddy bear or blanket. They feel comfort, security, love, a sense of purpose, etc in the teddy bear. Does the fact that the teddy bear does not alter reality or exist as an actual supernatural entity invalidate the child's feelings towards it?

If that child leads a happy, prosperous childhood, do we credit the teddy bear? If the child is molested and abused do we blame the teddy bear?

Obviously that would be foolish, since the importance of the teddy bear is attributed by the child. The child can attribute many personal aspects of his or her life to the teddy bear if he/she so chooses. Does that mean all people with teddy bears will experience the same thing? Obviously not.

Please tell me how God is any different. What makes adults who need God any different from a child who needs a teddy bear?

As a human concept, God cannot affect reality. This is why we do not hear of busses passing through children to leave them unharmed. Instead, we hear of children "miraculously" being unhurt after the bus hits them. While improbable, the difference between improbable and no-explanation within known science or nature is vast.

Take a look at the world around you. Belief does not change the rules that everyone are subjected to. Whether you are religious or not, you are just as likely to experience posperity, failure, disease, health, hardship, love, abuse, tragedy, etc. Many theists would like us to believe that there is an actual entity of God that somehow affects reality and plays a part in our lives. Yet how do you reconcile the polar opposites of nearly everything that happens in the real world? For every success there is failure. For every person that recovers from disease there is one or many that doesn't. For every child returned unharmed to their parents after being kidnapped there are one or many that are raped and murdered.

You tell me there is ample proof that God exists? Why not start with why I should even care, when it is readily apparent that there is not a deity that plays a consistent role in the lives of humans.

This test is an excellent example of the lack of a reality (rather than perception) altering deity. It would take next to nothing to give someone the unconscious knowledge to successfully give the right 32 digit number. A real entity of God could do this. A conceptual god cannot.

Theists think it is a feature of religion that God is so difficult to find. I believe that idea is absurd. With all the leaps of faith we are expected to accept as true, a simple test such as this should be a simple way to validate religious belief in a reality affecting deity.

Obviously theists believe that God did a very similar thing for the authors of the bible (it is, after all, God's word, right?) There is simply no good reason (other than what atheists and agnostics have already concluded) why the same thing should not apply now.

Baloo

Kenny, sorry. 4 digits matched though. Devilnaut, also 4 matches.

It strikes me that I ought to clarify that every guess goes against a different random number, so just because one started with a "2", they do not all start with a "2".

Kenny writes:

In light of the fact that God has provided sufficient evidence of His existence to all people and has impressed knowledge of His existence within you, you are without excuse for your unbelief.

Kenny, I assert that you've been impressed with the knowledge of the IPU, and your unbelief in its existence is inexcusable. Non-rhetorical, sincere question here: Does my assertion sway you, or even intrigue you, in any way? Why or why not?

Kenny writes:
In many respects, to propose a test such as this, I believe, is a slap in His face, on the order of asking one’s spouse to submit to specially designed empirical tests of her (or his) fidelity when she (or he) has demonstrated nothing but faithfulness over the years.


If I am nothing but faithful to my wife, and show her nothing but love, for the next 20 years, and she suddenly has a breach of confidence in our marriage, I would not hesitate to submit to any test of fidelity she proposed. She's human, I'm human, I understand humans have doubts and weaknesses. The alleged Christian God has been human, and I so expect no less of an understanding on his part... unless you'd like to argue that the Christian God doesn't understand what it's like to to be human.

Sotzo writes:
1. It attempts to force an omnipotent God to reveal Himself in a way prescribed by someone other than Himself. It's the "God doesn't exist..but if He did, here is how he should respond to proving his existence" game. If a being is nonexistent, then how does one know what such a being would or would not do if in fact it existed - especially when the being in question is God?!?

I'm not forcing anything on anyone. If God wants to talk, I've made for a way that he can give me a call, anytime he'd like.

Sotzo:
2. It presupposes that the question of God's existence can be answered using an empirical epistemology alone.

Exactly wrong. The challenge is merely what it would take to compell me to "turn off", to the best of my abilities, all empirical epistemological requirements for Christianity, and to then submerge myself into it for 5 straight years. As I've said, this challenge WOULD NOT answer the question of God's existence, as there are SEVERAL highly improbable, but defintiely possible, natural explanations (the most prominent being the trivial: a lucky guess). However, the natural explanations are so unlikely, that I will be willing to commit a sizeable portion of my life towards exploring Christianity (or, should a Muslim answer: Islam, or a Buddhist: Buddhism, or a witch: Wiccan, etc.).

Sotzo writes:
3. It betrays the challengers professed confidence in his own worldview. For if he/she sincerely believed that he/she has come to the conclusion that God does not exist and that he/she should not "piss away time worrying about the afterlife", he/she would not be concerned with challenging theists to reveal this nonexistent Being.

&lt;Translation&gt; It betrays the challenger's open-mindedness. &lt;/Translation&gt;
Dang it! You caught me! I mean, you saw right through me, right to very core... that I accept the possibility that I might be wrong. I suppose I might as well fold right now - obviously, only somebody who rejects the possibility of being wrong is worthy of dialogue with you.

Of course, my sarcasm may be lost on you. One of the most common features of theistic dogma seems to be the notion that questioning one's worldview is SIN, that having doubts of whether there is a God is SIN, that even entertaining the idea that one or two phrases of your precious bible could be just a little off...SIN SIN SIN. So, I suppose it is only natural for you to feel a "moral superiority" in comparing your closeminded adherence to the dogmatic foundations of your worldview to the fact that, though I believe there are no gods, I have a criterium whereby I am willing to reconsider that portion of my worldview.

Tronvillian: please find the first 31 digits of pi using Google and paste them here...

Kvalhion (and others): I think I will write a quick C program and distribute, but I may not have time until this weekend.

sotzo

Wait- are you talking about the challenge, or prayer?

The challenge.

I think that it is an excellent challenge. If God wants Baloo to believe, he will fulfill his request.

This is your claim...let's see how you back that claim up, which is next:

If he cares so little for Baloo's allegiance that he cannot be bothered to answer his simple (and sincere) question, so be it.

You are committing the same fallacy as Baloo in that you are pinning requirements on an omnipotent Being which he has not placed on himself. In other words, you need to now show how God not answering Baloo(or any sincere question for that matter if that is going to be your requirement for God to answer) means that God does not care. What is your reason for saying that God should answer any and every sincere question?

How is this different than the way in which God has supposedly revealed himself to many others?

Because, as theophilus pointed out, God reveals himself , in the context of redemption. My source for this claim is, of course, the Bible, which I'm sure you take issue with. The problem is, you are assuming the truth of the Bible (ie, God's care for people, his desire for their salvation) to even ask your questions.

Have you ever prayed and had a sign from God? I sure hope not, blasphemer.

Yes, I have. But is not in the context of proving his existence using a method of my autonomous choice. There is a difference which Scripture clearly makes here. (See for instance, Mt. 12:37-39)

Do you mean to say that it presupposes that the question of God's existence is dependant on reality as opposed to imagination? Sure looks like it.

Only if you hold to the view that all questions of truth are answered using an empirical epistemology would you say that not using such an epistemology relegates the question of God's existence to imagination. You have wrongly equated "reality" and "empiricism".

Umm.. no it doesn't. It suggests what it would take to get him to switch to theism.

The challenger has said in this thread that he has thrown of his theism because he didn't want to "piss away his life". Does this sound like someone open to evidence?

Even if it did, why does that matter??

Because his attitude is evidence against your view that he is asking this question in sincerity.

Do you deny the value of all debate? Once our conclusions are made, should we never look back?

No and no. That's why I'm here...to challenge my own views so that I'm not a walking robot. The point of my whole post is to question the assumptions behind the challenger's challenge...as per above, one of those assumptions is that God's goodness is dependent on his ability/desire to show himself on the challenger's terms...another assumption I question is that the challenger is actually as sincere as you say.

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: sotzo ]

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: sotzo ]</p>