A Hypothetical Situation

[Prince_James]

This is not simply for our atheistic and agnostic people here, but also for our theistic leaning folks. Simply assume, as a theist, that the conception of God, in order to have the same "shock value", is different from your present one.

Suppose that tomorrow, a being or thing which we would call God, presents indisputable proof of his/its existence. That is, indisputable both objectively and personally, whatever that might entail. Even if you think this is an impossibility, for purposes of this conversation, consider it having occurred.

In light of this revelation, would your beliefs change or would you still deny this God?

NOTE: This is done with no ulterior motive nor for any reason but an analysis of the theological stances and philosophical characters of people here.

Also, please do not answer with "it is impossible!". The question all ready covers such impossibility issues.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

...In light of this revelation, would your beliefs change or would you still deny this God?...

My beleifs would not change and I would know + accept 'God's existence as truth.

 

[Absane]

As an agnostic, yes my view would change. Afterall, the very definition of an agnostic is that we cannot know. However, he/she/it made me know.. therefore it makes sense that I must change.

My beleifs would not change and I would know + accept 'God's existence as truth.

I think you missed the point of the thread.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I think you missed the point of the thread.

If the point wasn't to answer the question in the context provided then you are correct.

 

[wsionynw]

This is not simply for our atheistic and agnostic people here, but also for our theistic leaning folks. Simply assume, as a theist, that the conception of God, in order to have the same "shock value", is different from your present one.

Suppose that tomorrow, a being or thing which we would call God, presents indisputable proof of his/its existence. That is, indisputable both objectively and personally, whatever that might entail. Even if you think this is an impossibility, for purposes of this conversation, consider it having occurred.

In light of this revelation, would your beliefs change or would you still deny this God?

NOTE: This is done with no ulterior motive nor for any reason but an analysis of the theological stances and philosophical characters of people here.

Also, please do not answer with "it is impossible!". The question all ready covers such impossibility issues.

I would believe what I saw with my own eyes, sure. It would of course prove me right in thinking the Christian God is a complete myth (and not even a very good myth at that).

 

[audible]

Suppose that tomorrow, a being or thing which we would call God,

yes we could but why, would it not have to do something to show us how it is a god, and would not that have to be something extraordinary.

presents indisputable proof of his/its existence. That is, indisputable both objectively and personally, whatever that might entail.

just proving it's real does not suggest it is a god.

Even if you think this is an impossibility, for purposes of this conversation, consider it having occurred.

but it would still have to prove it was a god. in the definitive term.

In light of this revelation, would your beliefs change or would you deny this creature?

if it could prove it was a god, then it would be infantile to deny, would'nt it.
if however it could'nt prove it was god, then nothing would change.

 

[lightgigantic]

This is not simply for our atheistic and agnostic people here, but also for our theistic leaning folks. Simply assume, as a theist, that the conception of God, in order to have the same "shock value", is different from your present one.

Suppose that tomorrow, a being or thing which we would call God, presents indisputable proof of his/its existence. That is, indisputable both objectively and personally, whatever that might entail. Even if you think this is an impossibility, for purposes of this conversation, consider it having occurred.

In light of this revelation, would your beliefs change or would you still deny this God?

NOTE: This is done with no ulterior motive nor for any reason but an analysis of the theological stances and philosophical characters of people here.

Also, please do not answer with "it is impossible!". The question all ready covers such impossibility issues.

There are numerous scriptural incidents that fit this description - all of them are practically impossible to discuss on sites like these, but perhaps the easiest is this

"I said to him, 'All glories to you, Murari Gupta! Your method of worship is very firmly fixed -- so much so that even upon My request your mind did not turn.

"'The servitor must have love and affection for the lotus feet of the Lord exactly like this. Even if the Lord wants separation, a devotee cannot abandon the shelter of His lotus feet.

The basic story is that the lord was being worshipped in an complete form and when murari was given the understanding to worship a more complete one, even though he understood by intelligence that this other form was more complete, he couldn't make the change. But because he had an incredible degree of sincere love and affection for the lord, this was deemed superior and thus he remained on his current station of worship in a state of perfection.

The conclusion though is that god can assume a variety of forms to suit the mood that the sincere worshipper is used to dealing with - in other words god is conquerred by the love of his devotee and doesn't desire to unsettle such sentiments unnecessarily, therefore there is the term "Godhead" in english -

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

 

[redarmy11]

yes we could but why, would it not have to do something to show us how it is a god, and would not that have to be something extraordinary. just proving it's real does not suggest it is a god.

I agree. I would demand miracles and, coming there none, I would deny him 3 times. He'd no doubt reduce me to a pile of soot for my insolence.

 

[Sarkus]

Suppose that tomorrow, a being or thing which we would call God, presents indisputable proof of his/its existence. That is, indisputable both objectively and personally, whatever that might entail. Even if you think this is an impossibility, for purposes of this conversation, consider it having occurred.

In light of this revelation, would your beliefs change or would you still deny this God?

1) As an atheist with no belief (either for existence or for non-existence) - my lack of belief would not alter. There is no element of religious belief when evidence exists - so I would still not have a "belief".

2) Secondly - I wouldn't call it God - as it would no longer be a religious matter - and to me the word "God" is tied to religion. It would merely be another entity that we would want to investigate. If it could provide undisputable proof that it created the Universe - then okay - I'd call it the "Creator" - but not God. But then it would still raise questions about that which is external to the Universe. And it would still be investigated according to the scientific method. There would no longer be any need for religion.

 

[Jan Ardena]

This is not simply for our atheistic and agnostic people here, but also for our theistic leaning folks. Simply assume, as a theist, that the conception of God, in order to have the same "shock value", is different from your present one.

Suppose that tomorrow, a being or thing which we would call God, presents indisputable proof of his/its existence. That is, indisputable both objectively and personally, whatever that might entail. Even if you think this is an impossibility, for purposes of this conversation, consider it having occurred.

In light of this revelation, would your beliefs change or would you still deny this God?

NOTE: This is done with no ulterior motive nor for any reason but an analysis of the theological stances and philosophical characters of people here.

Also, please do not answer with "it is impossible!". The question all ready covers such impossibility issues.

It is very difficult to imagine a being which is God, that is different to the scriptoral definition of God (namely Bhagavad Gita). Can you give some ideas of the type of character this god may have, or what 'it' actually does.
Your hypothesis said that this being/thing would have indisputable proof of his/its existence.
Upon what basis would we all accept that this is god?

Jan.

 

[Absane]

If the point wasn't to answer the question in the context provided then you are correct.

But you do not KNOW that your view is correct.

The situation is that tomorrow, you are presented with indisputable PROOF that your view of God is wrong.

You say your view won't change because your view of God is right. But you don't know. So assume, perhaps, that God is an asshole and perhaps deistic.

 

[Raithere]

Suppose that tomorrow, a being or thing which we would call God, presents indisputable proof of his/its existence. That is, indisputable both objectively and personally, whatever that might entail. Even if you think this is an impossibility, for purposes of this conversation, consider it having occurred.

In light of this revelation, would your beliefs change or would you still deny this God?

My belief regarding the existence of God would, of course, change.

I can't say whether any other beliefs would change or not, it would depend upon the specifics.

~Raithere

 

[(Q)]

Of course, with indisputable evidence of a god, one would be forced by reason and rationale to understand that a god does in fact exist.

As to any other religious beliefs, absolutely not. That god would have to demonstrate those tenets before we would accept them.

 

[AAF]

This is not simply for our atheistic and agnostic people here, but also for our theistic leaning folks. Simply assume, as a theist, that the conception of God, in order to have the same "shock value", is different from your present one.
Suppose that tomorrow, a being or thing which we would call God, presents indisputable proof of his/its existence. That is, indisputable both objectively and personally, whatever that might entail. Even if you think this is an impossibility, for purposes of this conversation, consider it having occurred.
In light of this revelation, would your beliefs change or would you still deny this God?
NOTE: This is done with no ulterior motive nor for any reason but an analysis of the theological stances and philosophical characters of people here.
Also, please do not answer with "it is impossible!". The question all ready covers such impossibility issues.

Hi Prince_James:

If it really happens that way, then I will certainly say to myself:
'man, it's getting very delusional; better see a doctor soon before any harm is done'!

 

[spidergoat]

I can imagine circumstances where an atypical conception of God, even one fully realized in our minds, would not change my atheism at all. Certainty does not require belief.

 

[Satyr]

This is not simply for our atheistic and agnostic people here, but also for our theistic leaning folks. Simply assume, as a theist, that the conception of God, in order to have the same "shock value", is different from your present one.

Suppose that tomorrow, a being or thing which we would call God, presents indisputable proof of his/its existence. That is, indisputable both objectively and personally, whatever that might entail. Even if you think this is an impossibility, for purposes of this conversation, consider it having occurred.

In light of this revelation, would your beliefs change or would you still deny this God?

NOTE: This is done with no ulterior motive nor for any reason but an analysis of the theological stances and philosophical characters of people here.

Also, please do not answer with "it is impossible!". The question all ready covers such impossibility issues.

Using a hypothetical to prove a hypothetical is truly an exercise in futility.

 

[Plunkies]

If there was proof of god it would no longer be a religion, it would be a fact and everyone would more or less accept it. It's this thing we call "reality".

"Would you believe this thing that doesn't exist does indeed exist if it existed?"

......What a silly thread.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

If there was proof of god it would no longer be a religion, it would be a fact and everyone would more or less accept it. It's this thing we call "reality".

"Would you believe this thing that doesn't exist does indeed exist if it existed?"

......What a silly thread.

'bright eyes, burning like fire........'

 

[Satyr]

Here’s another brain-teaser using verbal-acrobatics to build sandcastles:

If a duck walked and talked like a chicken, would it be a duck?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Here’s another brain-teaser using verbal-acrobatics to build sandcastles:

If a duck walked and talked like a chicken, would it be a duck?

depends rather on whether the person who identified it as a duck in the first place was correct in doing so.