Atheists: Supposing God Appeared Before You...

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I guess the point is to figure out if there is a consensus image of what atheists would visually accept.

My question is, what if we theists meet God or Gods and He, She, They, whatever are nothing like we've been told?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

...What sort of characteristics would God have to have for you not even to believe in him, but say "I may have just met God"? I mean, I have heard a few atheists say "we would believe in God if there was enough evidence" or "I'll believe in God if I ever see him." So what does that entail?

1. Personality characteristics (Is God like a mirror of you? Is God insane like Coyote? Is God like a lover? Or an antagonist?)
2. Physical characteristics (Can God look human, or is it required that he have three heads and six wings? For that matter, would your feminist sensibilities only be satisfied if God appeared as a woman? Would you have to see an old man like in paintings?)
3. How God came to you (Is coming in a dream enough? Would you need a near-death experience? Would God need be floating in the sky? Or could God walk down the street and say or do something that would be enough?)

Or would you not believe no matter what?

I guess the point is to figure out if there is a consensus image of what atheists would visually accept.

Intersubjective verification would be a good start. Any experience that I have alone, not witnessed by anyone else, will always lend itself to the question of whether the experience is the result of something like mental illness, drugs, or some other source of delusion.

Beyond that, I came up with a good rule of thumb a while back: a god that's more ubiquitous and has more of an impact on my life than, say, the Moon does should have as much evidence as the Moon has for its existence, and that evidence should be at least as high in quality as the evidence for the Moon.

In the end, it comes down to mental models. We all use mental models to understand the world around us. For you to get someone to abandon a godless mental model for a theistic one, you'd need to demonstrate that the theistic model fits the facts better and does a better job at predicting than the atheist's current mental model does.

 

[epronovost]

For me to consider a being as a god (as opposed to some sort of alien), that being needs to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, anthropomorphic creature. That basically means that it must be able to do pretty much anything, know pretty much everything, always does "the right thing" and is both capable to relate to humans as well as being capable of being relatable to humans. No, I don't mean by "anthropomorphic" that it must look like human, it's mind must be anthropomorphic or at least have an anthropomorphic quality to it. That's the only creature I would accept as being a god to me, unfortunately, it's also impossible in our univers due to evidence of abscence and logical conundrum. Our univers is not one in which such a creature can exist.

 

[Nakosis]

...What sort of characteristics would God have to have for you not even to believe in him, but say "I may have just met God"? I mean, I have heard a few atheists say "we would believe in God if there was enough evidence" or "I'll believe in God if I ever see him." So what does that entail?

1. Personality characteristics (Is God like a mirror of you? Is God insane like Coyote? Is God like a lover? Or an antagonist?)
2. Physical characteristics (Can God look human, or is it required that he have three heads and six wings? For that matter, would your feminist sensibilities only be satisfied if God appeared as a woman? Would you have to see an old man like in paintings?)
3. How God came to you (Is coming in a dream enough? Would you need a near-death experience? Would God need be floating in the sky? Or could God walk down the street and say or do something that would be enough?)

Or would you not believe no matter what?

I guess the point is to figure out if there is a consensus image of what atheists would visually accept.

I tried many of the concepts mentioned. None fit. They were all conceptually imperfect.

The idea of God I'd accept is one were God is absent/uninvolved in the universe. IOW any physical, spiritual, mental manifestation of God would not be God.

If "God" made them-self known to me, the only thing I'd be certain of is that it wasn't God.

 

[QuestioningMind]

...What sort of characteristics would God have to have for you not even to believe in him, but say "I may have just met God"? I mean, I have heard a few atheists say "we would believe in God if there was enough evidence" or "I'll believe in God if I ever see him." So what does that entail?

1. Personality characteristics (Is God like a mirror of you? Is God insane like Coyote? Is God like a lover? Or an antagonist?)
2. Physical characteristics (Can God look human, or is it required that he have three heads and six wings? For that matter, would your feminist sensibilities only be satisfied if God appeared as a woman? Would you have to see an old man like in paintings?)
3. How God came to you (Is coming in a dream enough? Would you need a near-death experience? Would God need be floating in the sky? Or could God walk down the street and say or do something that would be enough?)

Or would you not believe no matter what?

I guess the point is to figure out if there is a consensus image of what atheists would visually accept.

This question doesn't make any sense to me. It would be like asking: Supposing Glont appeared before you... when GLONT is a term that people all over the world define in thousands of different ways and which you have no good reason to believe even exists. You would first have to specify WHICH definition of Glont you are referring to. IF it's the definition of Glont that says Glont is an old man with a long white beard who lives in the clouds THEN I'd expect to see an old man with a long white beard who lives in the clouds. IF the definition of Glont is a entity with the head of a lion and the body of a goose that rides a flying horse through the sky while waving a blazing sword, THEN I'd expect to see an entity with the head of a lion and the body of a goose that rides a flying horse through the sky while waving a blazing sword.

If I have absolutely no reason to believe that this Glont even exists, aside from other people's claim that it does, asking me what I'D 'expect' to see if Glont appeared before me is a absolutely meaningless. However, IF you tell me that Glont is an entity that created the universe, THEN what I'd require in order to believe that an entity claiming to be Glont actually is, would be for his Glont to demonstrate the creation of a universe.

 

[Heyo]

As an Agnostic it is my credo to not know what a god is. But I'm not dogmatic. If the believers come to a consensus, I'll accept that.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

For me to consider a being as a god (as opposed to some sort of alien), that being needs to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, anthropomorphic creature.

Even if it fell a little short of that but was plenty powerful and declared it was a god, you wouldn't consider it a god? I kinda think most people probably would worship aliens if they came and said they were gods.. but I already had a thread on that, wouldn't want to hijack this one

 

[epronovost]

Even if it fell a little short of that but was plenty powerful and declared it was a god, you wouldn't consider it a god?

Nope. I'm a strong apistevist and skeptic. For me to have faith, total trust and reverence for any creature, that creature has to be all of the above and then some. If it's not omnipotent, then it can be caught in a situation it can't resolve. If it's not omniscient, then it can wrong or ignorant. If it's not omnibenevolent then it can mean me harm or simply not care if it happens. If it's not anthropomorphic then it cannot be understood and relatable. Why would I have absolute trust and reverence to a faillable, ignorant, careless and unrelatable creature? At best such a creature could be a trusted friend, an admired leader, peer or servant but never a god.

 

[Willamena]

...What sort of characteristics would God have to have for you not even to believe in him, but say "I may have just met God"? I mean, I have heard a few atheists say "we would believe in God if there was enough evidence" or "I'll believe in God if I ever see him." So what does that entail?

1. Personality characteristics (Is God like a mirror of you? Is God insane like Coyote? Is God like a lover? Or an antagonist?)
2. Physical characteristics (Can God look human, or is it required that he have three heads and six wings? For that matter, would your feminist sensibilities only be satisfied if God appeared as a woman? Would you have to see an old man like in paintings?)
3. How God came to you (Is coming in a dream enough? Would you need a near-death experience? Would God need be floating in the sky? Or could God walk down the street and say or do something that would be enough?)

Or would you not believe no matter what?

I guess the point is to figure out if there is a consensus image of what atheists would visually accept.

God would have to demonstrate that my behind is my front; that the hidden is the seen; that all the world is one bright pearl with an observer ever-present.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Why would I have absolute trust and reverence to a faillable, ignorant, careless and unrelatable creature? At best such a creature could be a trusted friend, an admired leader, peer or servant but never a god.

At least it wouldn't be a god in the christian sense, if its morality was perceived as being more toward neutral and it wasn't quite capable of everything. But if it could do 90% of what we imagine god could do anyway, if it could make it rain food, or create a heaven or hell, or inspire writings... well, it probably would make the case to quite a few people, even if it said that was a god that merely had limits

 

[epronovost]

At least it wouldn't be a god in the christian sense, if its morality was perceived as being more toward neutral and it wasn't quite capable of everything. But if it could do 90% of what we imagine god could do anyway, if it could make it rain food, or create a heaven or hell, or inspire writings... well, it probably would make the case to quite a few people

A god isn't defined by its power. It's defined by its worship. Nobody ever revered a deity due to its power. Deities are often imaginary creatures with no demonstrable power and agency and those who aren't imaginary are either anthropomorphised natural phenomenon or human being with a lot of temporal power like kings and emperors. What makes the god is the worshipers and imainary creature without worshipers is just a piece of mythology, a creation. I don't doubt that a very powerful being would have an immense flock of worshipers, but I would not be part of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

...What sort of characteristics would God have to have for you not even to believe in him, but say "I may have just met God"? I mean, I have heard a few atheists say "we would believe in God if there was enough evidence" or "I'll believe in God if I ever see him." So what does that entail?

1. Personality characteristics (Is God like a mirror of you? Is God insane like Coyote? Is God like a lover? Or an antagonist?)
2. Physical characteristics (Can God look human, or is it required that he have three heads and six wings? For that matter, would your feminist sensibilities only be satisfied if God appeared as a woman? Would you have to see an old man like in paintings?)
3. How God came to you (Is coming in a dream enough? Would you need a near-death experience? Would God need be floating in the sky? Or could God walk down the street and say or do something that would be enough?)

Or would you not believe no matter what?

I guess the point is to figure out if there is a consensus image of what atheists would visually accept.

Of course, you know that this is all beside the point, right?

Any god worth its salt would know how to convince any given human of its existence and would be capable of carrying this out, so asking what we think would be convincing is rather irrelevant.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

ChristineM

An omni everything being should have no problems proving his credentials, why put it on the poor sap of limited Intelligence (in godly terms)?

Okay then. Since you want a sign, here's a cheap $2 bit of omniscience. About what a human can manage. (Given it is getting towards Christmas), God will appear to you as male or female wearing red and green of some sort, some time in the next few weeks. When this happens, listen to whatever they say. In fact, every person who wears red and green in this month, listen to, even if they are wearing a red ribbon with a green dress, or a green tie and have red hearts on their boxers, rather than an actual Christmas outfit. Even if it's contradictory.

Have fun!

(And all of you are assuming that God wants to force people to believe. There is a thing called free will. In fact, since I made the above prediction about clothing, it's possible that the statistically implausible thing will happen, and you see absolutely no people with a green/red combo near Christmas despite the fact that it is the very time such a thing should happen)

 

[LuisDantas]

(And all of you are assuming that God wants to force people to believe. There is a thing called free will. QUOTE]

Actually... do we know that free will exists? I think not.

For that matter, I don't think that we have a working definition of free will either, but that is for another thread at some point.

I don't think that, if there were a God, it would want to force people to believe. But I can't help but notice that:

1. Not everyone has much of a drive (or ability) to even use god-concepts, let alone believe in the existence of any gods.

2. That must mean that, if there are any gods, they lack either the means or the interest to convince all people of their existence.

3. And yet we have some groups that shall for the moment remain nameless insisting that it is a Very Bad Thing to lack the belief in the literal existence of their own particular take on God-concept...

4. ... despite the logical, unavoidable conclusion that such a God either can not or does not want to make the belief in its existence noticeably clear, self-evident, or even constructive...

5. ... resulting in a rather exotic situation where groups that swear to be all about Messages from God ending up obsessed instead with finding out who is or is not a believer in the existence of that God. And that despite that God being explicitly presented as all-powerful, all-capable, all-knowing and supremely benign. The logical and necessary logical implication being that those groups believe that their perfect God blundered something fierce in its marketing tasks, despite that being literally impossible.

6. Typically, it is when some form of (5) above is reached that this ephemerous, ineffable concept of Free Will is invoked as if it were a known fact and sufficient explanation for (5).

7. And as it happens, Free Will does not even have a clear meaning beyond

Free Will (theology): Vague, typically inescrutable concept (or placeholder for such a concept) created, from all appearances, to be a symbolic if undefined reason why a an All-Powerful God with clear goals would nonetheless fail to make any form of clear statements or to clarify them even after many situations of calamity made on its name.


This is a very curious situation, and as it turns out, the most convincing attempt at explaining it involves God being imperfect enough to make humans that have a mostly accidental, uncommited relationship to Wisdom. Which probably would mean that God needs skeptics to exist so that they may clean up after his mistakes, unlikely as that may sound.

One way or another, facts show that those groups are at least very confused about their own conceptions of God.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I might believe in this God if simultaneously all religions just dissolved and God apologised, saying - sorry, I thought you would all be brighter than this.

 

[`mud]

On most nights I can see `God` in the skies above me,
and beyond into the Nirvanas of Forever, but no God !
Maybe our `spirits` will see it, the end of the Cosmos.

 

[viole]

...What sort of characteristics would God have to have for you not even to believe in him, but say "I may have just met God"? I mean, I have heard a few atheists say "we would believe in God if there was enough evidence" or "I'll believe in God if I ever see him." So what does that entail?

1. Personality characteristics (Is God like a mirror of you? Is God insane like Coyote? Is God like a lover? Or an antagonist?)
2. Physical characteristics (Can God look human, or is it required that he have three heads and six wings? For that matter, would your feminist sensibilities only be satisfied if God appeared as a woman? Would you have to see an old man like in paintings?)
3. How God came to you (Is coming in a dream enough? Would you need a near-death experience? Would God need be floating in the sky? Or could God walk down the street and say or do something that would be enough?)

Or would you not believe no matter what?

I guess the point is to figure out if there is a consensus image of what atheists would visually accept.

Many Christians say I don't believe in God, because I am my own God. So, I guess a mirror would be enough.

Ciao

- viole

 

[PureX]

I think the question that is being overlooked in this thread is how we non-omnipotent, non-omnipresent, non-omniscient, mortal beings determine whether such conditions are manifesting before us, or not?

To be honest, if God were 'hovering' in front of me right now in a blaze of light and glory, and performing any sort of seemingly impossible feat, how could I possibly determine that it was not some advanced alien, or some extraordinary magician's trick, or a phenomena occurring within my own mind? And, even if I were to say that what I was experiencing is one of the above, how could I know that "God" would not use such mechanisms to reveal itself to me?

How would any of us?

In the end, the existence of "God" is not a matter of evidence. There is no possible evidence that could determine, for us, whether God exists or not. So the resolution to the question comes down to desire, and faith. It is our choice as to how we will conceptualize "God", and whether or not we are going to actively trust in the reality of that concept.

And THIS is why I ignore the atheist's endless demands for convincing evidence as being both foolish and disingenuous.

 

[epronovost]

I think the question that is being overlooked in this thread is how we non-omnipotent, non-omnipresent, non-omniscient, mortal beings determine whether such conditions are manifesting before us, or not?

A creature with such characteristics would be self-evident. It would be so ubiquitous that no matter where or how we looked at the universe we would see it. Plus, an omnipotent and omniscient creature would be able to find ways to convince every single human being that it exists and is such a creature and not a fraud.

A demand for evidence isn't a request for certitude. Absolute certainty isn't something that can be achieved in our lives. We can always be wrong about things, including deities. The demand for evidence from atheist to prove the existence of any deity is a demand for some robust observation on which a belief can be reasonnably based. That there is "good chances that it's true".

 

[dianaiad]

Amazing.

Every atheist, agnostic, ignostic, believer or non believer here has pretty much defined who or what God must be, what He must look like, what She must act like, what It must be capable of. Once God is properly defined in the imagination of the ag/ig/atheist or theist, then the possible encounter is scripted...and found to be impossible. There. All done, God doesn't exist so if He showed up in the defined iteration, that would be proof that he didn't, and if he does NOT show up as defined, well, that also would be proof that the experience was "not God,' 'more gravy than of grave'

non believers would not accept any evidence of God...especially objective evidence, since of course they have already decided that there can not be any objective evidence of God. How can there be? He doesn't exist.

Circular indeed, but I've never met an atheist who SAW the circularity of it.

I suggest, humbly, that the non believer stop attempting to put this God he doesn't believe in into a box for comfortable definition. He won't fit there.

Just....be. If God wants' to prove Himself to you, He will.