I’m an adult. Are you telling me your idea of a deity can’t tell the difference?
I just went on a very long roadtrip last weekend and totally forgot the charger for my iPod. That little battery lasted over 50 hours. But according to this, it should only have lasted 36 hours at the very most. Am I to believe my iPod has been entangled with the divine?
Does it have the red LED of Satan, or the white LED of God?
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
But I’d suggest getting in a lot of heavy drinking now before you close the deal. And eat a lot bacon.
[/QUOTE]
I gave up drinking anyway, and while bacon would be a heavy blow (Italian sausage, brats/Polish sausage or carnitas would actually hurt more…or chorizo), as long as I don’t have to give up what makes the rocking world go round I’d be ok…for the right price. 
-XT
I’m saying you can’t tell the difference.
Was it through the desert with Egyptian charioteers pursuing you?
You apparently got a good model iPod with a better then normal battery. Perhaps a angel made sure you got that model for just such a circumstance that you would post in this thread and you can thank God for sending that angel. Praise be to God :eek::smack:
I spent $600 on a new computer that I’ve been saving up for for over a year, and I spent hours putting it together, only to find out it didn’t work. Damn you, God, for giving me a bad motherboard!
This model of God that this challenge seems aimed at is quite bizarre to me. I believe in God, but what I think of as his nature makes the overwhelming majority of these, shall I say “requests”, utterly meaningless. To me, it’s sort of like a little kid asking their parents to prove that they love them by fulfilling any number of ridiculous requests. “Mom, if you really love me, you’ll buy me a pony.” And then, when the mom doesn’t buy her daughter a pony, the kid concludes that the parent doesn’t love her. The reason this test fails is because the action that is supposed to prove it doesn’t actually have any tie to it at all. Moreso, as demonstrated with spoiled kids, a parent may get their child something they want, not because they love them, but just to shut them up, or some other reason.
Asking God to prove his omniscience through a series of trivial tests doesn’t actually do anything. For each one, even if your request is fulfilled, it doesn’t actually prove anything. For instance, as someone else mentioned, asking God to prove his omniscience by giving someone else a test drive, at best, only proves that he’s capable of making someone believe that they’d had that test drive.
In fact, asking God to prove this sort of thing utterly misses the entire point. Besides that it doesn’t really matter whether he is or not, though I would argue that any being powerful enough to create the universe is, for all intents and purposes, qualitatively indistinguishable from omnipotent, from which follows omniscience. But more importantly, what we should be searching for are the implications of the creation.
Obviously, your guardian angel does not work in IT.
Perhaps you should examine the ramification this quote. You seem to imply that angels are responsible for influencing stpauler’s choice of musical player. Where’s the respect for free will? Does that mean when someone steals from a store, an angel may be behind it as well? What’s the point of personal responsibility when invisible spirits are ‘making sure’ you do certain actions?
Also, if God is micromanaging the human affair, how do you explain congenital disease or natural disaster? Take the Japanese earthquake, for instance. Don’t give me the lame excuse about Satan. It must be a pretty deadbeat dad who, with perfect knowledge of danger and perfect capacity to prevent said dangers, allows his own ‘children’ to come to harm.
Could you perhaps start a new thread about supernatural inflences and responsibilities?
But you seem to be making it a given that he did create the universe, defeating the very purpose of this thread. If we just take his word that he created the universe, we might as well just take his word that he is all-powerful, correct?
And if in our search the evidence leads us to conclude that he doesn’t exist, can a truly loving diety really hold it against us?
You may speak for yourself, but not for us.
Someone cannot tell the difference, and it that wouldn’t be stpauler, or anyone else disputing with you on this.
On what basis do you imagine that you are in a position to talk down to us?
Why should anyone superior need to prove they are superior ?
And why would He care what you think anyway ?
Please re-read the OP. This has nothing to do with what some diety thinks-this is only what would convince you that he was all powerful. Whether or not he was willing to fulfill that requirement is another topic entirely.
I agree. Blaster Master’s analogy is fundamentally flawed, because the child in his example isn’t really wanting proof: the child is trying to manipulate the parent. Given my lack of belief in God I literally could not have less expectation that my criteria for proof would influence God in any way, much less manipulate God–how could I manipulate a nonexistent entity?
Furthermore, even if God existed, I don’t really see why that would have much to do with me by itself. God might be completely checked out; God might have no interest in me at all; God might despise me and plan to torture me in hell for all eternity no matter what I do; God might love me and plan to treat me to lobster and bourbon for all eternity no matter what I do. In all these cases, of course God’s not going to have any interest in proving itself to me.
But that’s not what the OP’s talking about. The OP is saying that, IF there’s a god who’s interested in my belief in its omnipotence, what actions could that god take?
Consider an analogy: what actions could you take to convince me you’d been to outer space? Most folks who’ve been to outer space have no interest whatsoever in convincing me that they’ve been there, and that’s fine, I’ll have no opinion on the matter. But if, for some reason they wanted to convince me, there are some things they’d want to do, starting with directing me to dates and locations of news articles about their trip, names of people at NASA I could talk to, etc.
I laid out the actions that would convince me that a being is all-powerful, if for some reason it wanted me to believe that.
No, your OP says merely:
which implies that He would want to.
Should you think you are better in various ways to others, would you feel any need to demonstrate that ? Being better is sufficient in itself.
As to what would convince me, nothing would persuade me that there is a God, or that there is not one. I am too ignorant of an untold multitude of things to be persuaded by argument, and since the human mind cannot perceive what is real — you can try any number of hallucinogenic substances that will alter perceptions of reality ( which bear a resemblance to various mystic experiences proving God ) — every damn thing we perceive or think is merely faith.
Because God as normally portrayed desperately wants worshipers, he wants people to believe he is all knowing, all powerful, and superior in every way to them and to grovel before him because of it. And because that’s the question the OP asked.
Which God are you referring to? Not all of them desperately want worshippers. Not even all iterations of the Christian God want to be worshipped.
“God as normally portrayed”, just as I said. Let’s not pretend that indifferent versions of God are anything other than a tiny minority. And more often than nothing more than an argument used in debates rather than actually followed by anyone.
Okay then.