Mike, what about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulcinella

Who’s the trickster, now?

This idea has occurred to me quite a few times.

Yes, indeed. Assume that there is a God who deliberately deprived people of enough evidence to know that “He” exists, but then sits back to see how many people will make unwarranted factual leaps of and claim that they “know” that God exists.

Then assume that I die and arrive at the pearly gates. The conversation might go something like this:

Peter: You didn’t believe in God!

Me: Sorry, but there wasn’t sufficient evidence to come to that conclusions. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Seemed too far-fetched to me. Too bad I didn’t just join a church anyway . . .

Peter: Not so fast! You passed the test! You’re in. Those who believed in God in the absence of sufficient evidence of God failed the test.

Me: Just curious. I’m assuming, then, that the existence of the universe itself is not sufficient evidence to believe in a God?

Peter: Absolutely not. It is more logical to assume that the universe always existed than to create an unexplained supernatural being to “explain” the universe.

Me: What happens to the people who believed in God even though there was insufficient evidence for such a belief?

Peter: They go to hell to suffer eternal torture. Devils stick them in the ass with hot pitchforks, etc.

Me: So God IS an asshole . . .

Peter: Don’t push your luck.

Reminds me a bit of Pan’s Labyrinth: The little girl proved her worth and gained entrance to the kingdom by refusing to obey Pan’s order to allow her little brother to be sacrificed.

She passed her test; Abraham failed his.