[Serious] If I met Him...

[Angrboda]

I've concluded in the past year that there can be no positive evidence of God, not even hypothetically. So any belief would have to be rooted in unreason. But I also believe that unreason is at the root of the human experience. Life begins with irrationality, and reason is an after-thought at best. So, I guess it would depend upon what I was presented with. I suspect that forming an adequate judgment of any being that I might accept as God is beyond my paygrade. Which presents additional problems. As many of the great theologians have argued, any knowledge we have of God is mere shadow, analogy, an assemblage of what he is not in a brain not equipped to wrap itself around even the idea of God. So I could probably go either way. Any belief, though, would probably be strongly limited, and possibly short-lived.

[John 6IX Breezy]

1. When we are biased against a proposition we usually ask ourselves "must I believe it;" but when we are biased in favor of a proposition we ask ourselves "can I believe it." That framing of the question sets the foundation for the differences in thresholds for convincing evidence. So I would say your standards of evidence aren't higher, they are biased (assuming you wouldn't request to speak with the president before you accepted their existence too).

2. I understand that God's worship and existence are bundled for you, but they are still logically dissociated. God's existence doesn't depend on his worshipability, and this goes both ways: he doesn't cease to exist if you don't worship him and he doesn't begin to exist if I do.

3. Lastly, a question. I find the dilemma you pointed out interesting, that God seems less godly the more relatable he becomes. Putting aside whatever logical issues you may have with the concept of the Trinity, I do wonder how your feelings coincide with it? Traditionally speaking, the Father is the God you describe as worshipable. He appears distant and mysterious, and is in a dominant and asymmetrical relationship with us. In contrast the Son is in a symetrical and relatable relationship with us, and displays solidarity. The one is said to meditate for the other. In essence, both your criteria are being met. The Son allows for the "speaking directly to" aspect you require to know God exists. Meanwhile the Father maintains the supernatural aspect you require to be worshipable. So how do you take that into account?

[rado84]

There's no such a thing as magic, there's only a technology that you don't understand how it works. Therefore any "supernatural" being is not a god, it's just a being aided by a very advanced technology. If you have Doc Brown's DeLorean and go back 300 years from now (year 1700-ish) and show the resident people your smartphone, they will think you're a god because they don't understand how the thing works or what makes it glow brightly. And they won't understand it even after 1890 (the year Tesla invented a machine to produce electricity) because they still won't understand how the thing works.
So from that point of view, it doesn't matter what powers that being has. If I met it, I would only see an alien aided by highly advanced technology.

[The Grand Nudger]

I have similar thoughts on the OP issue, belief has never been the problem - if a person sees a god, they're going to believe in a gods existence just the same as a person who sees the King of Nu is going to believe in that king's existence. Rational beliefs can be accurate or in error.

A christian wastes their time bickering with me over the existence of their silly gods just as a Numian would waste their time arguing to establish the existence of the King of Nu. That the contents of a christians belief tends to be a laundry list of ridiculous superstitions is amusing to me, but has nothing to do with why I'm not a christian. Washing myself in the blood of the better man is not compelling to me. No matter how their personal agent is supposed to intercede on my behalf in this transaction, I'm not looking to string up any jews for my innumerable sins.

Christianity is a non-starter. It could all be true and that wouldn't mean anything to me.

[Rahn127]

If I met him.

First off calling it a him is bestowing some semblance of humanity upon this thing and it has no humanity.

Of the two of us, I'm the one with morality and willpower. I would strip this thing of it's power and provide for my people so that they might live a more humane life, free from hunger, poverty and disease.

Power in the hands of an inhumane thing is nothing more than a chaotic storm. We've long since stopped believing that storms contain any kind of consciousness.

So what do I do when I meet a storm ?

I protect the ones I love from it. I don't give it human attributes. I understand that it is part of nature and usually only lasts a short while. Then I get back to living my life without it disturbing everything around me.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I've concluded in the past year that there can be no positive evidence of God, not even hypothetically.  So any belief would have to be rooted in unreason.  But I also believe that unreason is at the root of the human experience.  Life begins with irrationality, and reason is an after-thought at best.  So, I guess it would depend upon what I was presented with.  I suspect that forming an adequate judgment of any being that I might accept as God is beyond my paygrade.  Which presents additional problems.  As many of the great theologians have argued, any knowledge we have of God is mere shadow, analogy, an assemblage of what he is not in a brain not equipped to wrap itself around even the idea of God.  So I could probably go either way.  Any belief, though, would probably be strongly limited, and possibly short-lived.

Jor/Angrboda, who or what do you suggest people could trust to guide them between the apparently insurmountable cliffs of paradox on one side and the devouring abyss of absurdity on the other? Given the human condition you rightly describe, I see no shame in cautiously calling on all sense-making tools with humble recongnition that each is, to greater or lesser degree, flawed.

[The Architect Of Fate]

None of the above is true or even rational

[Paleophyte]

If I met Him...then He wouldn't be worth worshipping.

I had the thought the other day based on the apologetic argument, "There isn't proof that you would accept in order to believe in a God." When I first heard it, I was affronted, like, "No! You haven't made a good case! My standard of proof is just higher than yours."

 But the more I tugged at the thread, the more I realized that is actually pretty accurate. At least when it comes to something demanding my worship, my reverence, my fear, and my obedience. We can talk about deity all we want but I'm going to tie these two things together because to me, they are linked: that the goal of proving existence of deity is tied to compelling my worship and veneration.

Any god that must say, "I am god!" is no God.

I could see it from the perspective of there is a God that has no interest in your worship or idolization and the theists have entirely buggered up that part. Such an entity might be pretty impressive even when not trying to be. There's precious little evidence for that God though, so the deists can have fun chasing down that rabbit hole.

[Peebothuhlu]

If I met a 'God' I would repeat the question;

"Yes but, why does God need a space ship?"

Not at work.

[RozzerusUnrelentus]

Jor/Angrboda, who or what do you suggest people could trust to guide them between the apparently insurmountable cliffs of paradox on one side and the devouring abyss of absurdity on the other? Given the human condition you rightly describe, I see no shame in cautiously calling on all sense-making tools with humble recongnition that each is, to greater or lesser degree, flawed.

Isagocically we would announce our roboreous proclivities for linguistic exangulation. Consequently we are desirous of administering a jobation to those psittaceous individuals whose ebullient verbosity manifests itself in a polysyllabilification of monosyllables and in infrugiferous effervescence with a concomitant lack of forcefulness. Across their contributions we discern the ophiomorphous trail of the lexicographer. The result is sufficient to precipitate a lachrymal irriguosity of the ophthalmic organs.

In other words, don't trust flowery language.