...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've met people on this forum who have claimed to be Jesus and, as long as they aren't going to hurt themselves or others and respect me enough to keep their distance if that's how I feel, I can live with that. I'd honestly be more sympathetic to someone presenting themselves as a spiritual teacher whose wisdom is independent of belief in a god. "Divine inspiration" in this context is more metaphorical or an expression of something
within every human being as a kind of insight or conscience. If someone claimed to be a prophet or else "Jesus Christ" was alive today and presented himself as a spiritual teacher based on his life experience and
only that, I would certainly be prepared to sit in and listen or read what they wrote.
Where it gets complicated is when people start saying God is
speaking to them. If someone comes up to me and introduces themselves as Jesus Christ and says I can hear God and God speaks to me, then we're in territory that is typically about hearing voices and auditory hallucinations. If I spend long enough with them to know they are docile and non-violent, I might even sit in and listen and see what the voices are saying to them. It's difficult territory, but being "crazy" isn't the same as being "wrong". Sometimes crazy is what happens to people who have had "too much truth" and it's hard to process. As for whether the voices are
actually God talking to them, if I became convinced that it was a possibility, I might try an experiment to see if they know something it is well beyond our human understanding to know. There is the scene from "K-Pax" where Kevin Spacey's character claims to be an Alien and his therapist takes him to a planetarium to see whether his claims stack up. In the film they do and if that was real life
that would make me take
at least consider taking someone seriously.
The question is whether that kind of knowledge it is dum luck or actually something "more". So I'd probably have to repeat it enough times to go, this is a
consistent, reliable and
repeatable set of results, so it's not mere co-incidence or an accident. If it keeps happening, then I'll probably have no alternative but to consider something of "non-human" origin.
If someone comes up to me and says I'm God, well, this is going to get
really interesting. You could take the same approach and try an experiment and see what happens. If I define God in deistic terms as a "creator" of the universe, then that God should have powers
beyond those that are capable of the known universe. The laws of physics should not apply to this person or "being", so they should be in a position to break them. At this point, you could still hold out that this person
isn't a God. They may have powers and knowledge well beoynd our capacity to replicate, but there is always that possibility they are an impostor, posing as something else.
The most likely possibility is that you're dealing with an "extra-terrestrial" whose powers exist
within the universe, but still
way beyond our scientific knowledge. Our understanding is really only a few hundred years old, so an alien species and civilisation that is thousands or millions of years older than ours would possess knowledge and capabilities far beyond our own. They would exist within the natural laws that govern the universe, but
beyond our understanding of them. We could be dealing with something like "Laplace's Demon"; a being that knows so many of the laws of the universe that they can predict how x,y and z will occur.
After that, I'd guess the next most likely possibility is that our science is
flat out wrong and that the known universe and it's laws simply
don't exist in the way we believe it to be. If we consider the possibility that our universe is a computer simulation and we're all in "the matrix", the person claiming to be a "God" is actually someone who has "hacked" in to the programming of reality and can perform "magic tricks": walk on water, bend spoons, etc.
In fairness, this is probably the point when I'd start to question my own sanity. Bending spoons? Walking on water? Unicorns on surf boards? Have I gone mad or am I being fed drugs? What's going on here?
But then we get to the crux of the problem. Let's assume you are presented with a person who has knowledge and powers beyond our current understanding. Does it matter what we call them? How much difference does the label actually make? Why would any "god" be so concerned about us when we are so primitive and ignorant? Should we really be impressed with magic tricks and should we build a worldview on what this person can demonstrate or claim to do?
After this point, we are simply dealing with a story teller. It may be a good story or a bad one. It may be the story of how created the universe. It could be true or it may not be. As long as they are benign and have no malicious intent, it isn't really our problem, nor it is going to affect that much of what we already have become. Worst case scenario is that we learn we live in a computer simulation that isn't "real" in the sense we believed it to be, but remains "real" in at least
some of the respects we knew before.
If God walks among us and he or she (or it) desires to be worshipped and commands our obedience, the chances are is I'd oppose "it" because it goes against everything we already know about
human behaviour when people demand absolute power over others. Such a God does not negate my own capacity for freedom or happiness. It may get harder to argue it is a "natural" right when the author of creation is telling you that "might makes right" and have the power to make their will be done.
The alternative, which I actually prefer, is that "god" smiles, looks us in the eye, winks and laughs. You humans think you're so clever? Out of all of time and space, you think you've got it all figured out haven't you? You still believe in magic tricks and want the world give you what ever you want? Now whose being arrogant thinking they have the power to make the world in their image!
At this point, I think any God worthy of the name could make a speedy exit. "His" work is done. The lesson has been taught. Our pan-dimensional hubris has been quashed because all our knowledge and power is an illusion. And so why shouldn't we look upon the knowledge and power of God as an illusion also? Why is God more real than man? Why is god any more central to existence than man is? Aren't we just projecting our own self-importance on to someone or something else? Aren't we repeating
exactly the same mistake we made thinking we could use science to know and control everything all over again?
I can live with the idea of such a deity. Not one who wants to rule, who wants power because he can value, possess and control material things like so many conquerors and emperors of old or reduces us to slaves based on a demonstration of his might. That's a very
human ambition. We do it because we think we can "cheat" reality and not have to do all the hard work and get some slaves to do it for us and still get the rewards
. It's not a particularly religious, spiritual or divine one. In the end, God is not really that much different from us. Would we really notice? Would it really matter that much? There really isn't that much difference between believing in god and not believing god after all.
As far as 99.9% of our existence is concerned it doesn't really matter. The difference between atheism and theism is just a word. The creator of the universe might just "want" credit and to put his signature on creation (being
so human again) but everything else is up to us. God doesn't have to be anything more than someone giving us good advice or spiritual advice to get us through the day, or maybe someone who helps alleviate our suffering. That's all we ever needed and wanted in the first place. So would it matter if we knew whether or not it was "him"? The one? The only? The Omega?
Good advice is good advice, where ever it comes from. When it is within our power to make so much difference for ourselves and to the world, what more do you want? Do we really need to know?
