A Hypothetical Situation

[Theoryofrelativity]

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.

many here would refer to this 'proof' as

'coincidence'

the result of hysteria,

the result of insanity

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

My idea of God has no charcateristics other than 'interfering' I presume this would at least still be part of the God who presents proof of himself as by presenting he's 'interfering'.. I could ask what the 'interference was though, and if he said it was not him but something else, I'd accept that explanation (assuming he is honest god and does intend to deceive)

reminds me of star treks prime objective, not to interfere with less developed worlds than ones own.

Hm, God is Piccard

 

[spidergoat]

I could also imagine a circumstance where God was a coherent being and convinced me it existed, but I still wouldn't worship it.

 

[Absane]

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?

It doesn't matter, so long as we all know which one is being referred to.

That's what nouns are for.

Whether it is a chicken or not... that doesn't change the fact that it exists.

 

[(Q)]

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?

If you walked and talked like a chicken, would you be a human?

 

[spidergoat]

In fact, I have seen God(s) already, and they are inherently unbelievable.

 

[Prince_James]

I am going to reply to only a limited amount of the posts since yesterday, as many do not admit of any further conversation, as they are essentially cut and dry.

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. "

So you mean you still would not believe this God exists or just would not have a religion?

"In fact, I have seen God(s) already, and they are inherently unbelievable. "

Which ones?

Jan Ardena:

"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?"

Well, let me take something from the Vedas, as apparently you are of a Hindu persuasion:

Suppose this God basically was exactly how the Vedas describe Indra, and not only that, but Indra proved that this was it. This was who he was and there was nothing higher than he. There was no transcedent form like Krishna showed Arjuna, he was just simply the lord of the Gods, lord of rain, and all that.

And as to what proof everyone would accept that this is God: Anything that would personally satisfy you 100 percent.

audible:

"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. "

You misunderstood. I had meant "a being we would call God", in the sense that "this being, by all defintions, would be God". Not that we would know him as God before he proved himself, but only that once proven, it'd fit what "God" means, as it were.

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

Proving his reality would be proving his Godhood, if his reality entails Godhood, which is the point of this hypothetical situation.

"if it could prove it was a god, then it would be infantile to deny, would'nt it."

Agreed.

TheoryOfRelativity:

"Hm, God is Piccard"

Everyone knows that God is Captain Kirk. Making it with the ladies and getting his hands dirty in a rough-and-tumble style of command? Definitely Godly. Picard changed his mind more than he changed his underwear, hence, could not be immutable. Kirk was 100 percent bad ass, all the time, every time. No inconsistancy!

Sartyr:

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

I am not attempting to prove a single thing, actually. Only testing how people would respond to such a thing if it happened.

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince james

Well, let me take something from the Vedas, as apparently you are of a Hindu persuasion:

Suppose this God basically was exactly how the Vedas describe Indra, and not only that, but Indra proved that this was it. This was who he was and there was nothing higher than he. There was no transcedent form like Krishna showed Arjuna, he was just simply the lord of the Gods, lord of rain, and all that.

And as to what proof everyone would accept that this is God: Anything that would personally satisfy you 100 percent.

The quick answer - would I worship Indra in that case? -Yes

Now for the reasons

There is a word called "prabhava" which is intrinsic for god's definition, so bear with me while I atempt to explain it ...

Bhava means the sum result of one's knowledge, experience, notions of good things and bad things and all dualities - EVERYTHING (not just merely logic) that enables one to perceive the value in something - it is more than a mere intellectual value system - it is a value system so heavily intergrated in to our sense of self that we become emmotionally disturbed when it gets violated - so bhava may not be necessarily real, it is more our response to what we believe to be real -

Pra means to project (much like the greek root "pro", eg promote, propel, etc, which arguable got deried from sanskrit)

So to say that someone has prabhava means that whatever they hold as real or valuable everyone follows, irregardless - the word charisma doesn't fully define it since it includes not just the emmotional aspects but also the logical aspects - in other words god's bhava influences everyone else's bhava, since he is superior, therefore by the influence of god's prabhava, everyone else develops a bhava

So if god was revealed as something other than Krishna/Visnu, in this case Indra, then that would mean that the bhava of Indra would override the bhava of Krishna - for this to happen it would require that it somehow be revealed to the worshipper why there are numerous incidents where Indra's bhava is obviously inferior to Krishna's - like for instance when Indra tried to Innundate Govardhana with rain and destroy Krishna with floods, and on the contrary Krishna just continues playing and disregarding the best that Indra could offer, without even retalliation, Indra came to his senses and offered numerous prayers for his ridiculous behaviour and concluded with the statement to the effect of "Krishna and his abode are all completely transcendental - I do not understand Krishna - I do not understand Krishna's associates - I do not understand Krishna's cows - I do not undrestand Krishna's cow paddocks - I do not understand even a blade of grass in vrindavan" -

In other words, yes I would worship Indra - which explains why I worship Krishna

 

[Sarkus]

There is a word called "prabhava" which is intrinsic for god's definition, so bear with me while I atempt to explain it ...

Bhava means the sum result of one's knowledge, experience, notions of good things and bad things and all dualities - EVERYTHING (not just merely logic) that enables one to perceive the value in something - it is more than a mere intellectual value system - it is a value system so heavily intergrated in to our sense of self that we become emmotionally disturbed when it gets violated - so bhava may not be necessarily real, it is more our response to what we believe to be real -

Pra means to project (much like the greek root "pro", eg promote, propel, etc, which arguable got deried from sanskrit)

So to say that someone has prabhava means that whatever they hold as real or valuable everyone follows, irregardless - the word charisma doesn't fully define it since it includes not just the emmotional aspects but also the logical aspects - in other words god's bhava influences everyone else's bhava, since he is superior, therefore by the influence of god's prabhava, everyone else develops a bhava.

No offence, but this description really does seem like nothing short of brain-washing / hypnotism.
People follow because someone comes along and manages to persuade / project their ideals / logic / emotions onto their followers?

I'm sure there is a difference - can you explain?

 

[lightgigantic]

No offence, but this description really does seem like nothing short of brain-washing / hypnotism.
People follow because someone comes along and manages to persuade / project their ideals / logic / emotions onto their followers?

I'm sure there is a difference - can you explain?

Ok I'll give it a shot, but being a staunch atheist you will have to hypothetically accept the info about god if you want to follow it through - I suggest that you read it all through once or twice before responding otherwise you will lose the whole by getting caught in the details


God possess all opulences in the fullest quantity, that is amongst rich persons, he is the richest, among strong the strongest and so on for any number of qualities such as intelligence, beauty, fame etc etc and even renunciation

So the living entity, in their pure stage of existence without illusion, has a natural attraction to god (primary attraction), and because god has these opulences, these opulences become secondary - in other words because god happens to be the strongest we are attracted to the notion of strength, and so on for wealth, intelligence etcetc (strength is considered notable because god has it, rather than the notion of strength by itself - don't forget this is the vision bereft of illusion)- so whatever form god manifested to us, we would naturally find that form attractive (provided we were free from illusion - more on illusion later) on the strength of god's automatic prabhava - its not a question of brainwashing but rather a reaction in line with our constituitional position.

suppose Hulk Hoagan entered a caferteria - being an example of a person with exceptional strength and fame - its not like we would "decide" to look at him as he walked through the door - we would be forced (unless of course we also had a similar level of prabhava, ie we were also a celebrity or something) - now not to say that we would clamour all over him for an autograph like some granny slamming her bag on the sofa in ecstacy while he is pile driving some guy on TV - but still that ability to draw our attention by force is an indication of the prabhava of Hulk Hoagan - this is why such persons with prabhava get paid 6 digit figures to patronise breakfast cereals (its not like the companies are stupid and are throwing their money out the window) and others without the said prabhava are not even given a free packet of fruit loops

Now (this is where it gets interesting) in the material world, which innvolves the dynamic of illusion, we have the opportunity to have a type of vision that is not dependant on god - in other words when god disappears from our vision, our primary attraction (attraction for god) is not manifest and our secondary attraction is manifest - in other words we become attracted to god's secondary attributes, namely his opulences such as wealth, beauty, intelligence etc etc

- So in the material world a person may be adverse to the concept of god but they will still nonetheless be attracted to persons who appear god-like (in the sense that they will be impressed by persons who are intelligent, beautiful, strong, etc etc) - Like for instance an intelligent atheist writes a wonderful essay on how god doesn't exist, and this draws the attention of other atheists who adopt his philosophy etc

BG 3.21 Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues.

You may say it is brainwashing, but its just the nature of how the world operates - A influences B, B influences A or A and B neutralise each other